Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97037
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pthreads.org from 209.85.223.178 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4bc5c07d-1633-7fd0-b108-3c06e362bae4@lsces.co.uk>
References: <CAL=_i_m79Q3MuvvuhNcxiXF-ARJOW22eGJSoYMZBct6d_xxY3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJW__o2jW6DnQUOT=8ttgNK5AnbfGsEkxk22xK7e8si48qU9Sg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL=_i_nbwxzjVxAUPgzxz8yzUNrKkJu=w3FEkM=KgbD66jr2BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJW__o1S9BfPcGuHWOkOrM_wkekZ3sokRypqJWqnOHnyBv0h3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANUQDCjS3M7TY23HAAuwFCheOvkXUVz4jVrWnZj1j5KkKupNrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJW__o3GMo7xmrPXwRVnZHJsQEZNL8Gk00r8=cL5wnrzRj8Z9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL=_i_n6WXJDreSyjw2EB2vMz_KOBfQCQ+hWaWCqTVvxzDvx-w@mail.gmail.com> <4bc5c07d-1633-7fd0-b108-3c06e362bae4@lsces.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 13:03:31 +0000
Message-ID: <CAL=_i_kMA1DS7G-CjFoMVW2xrWTxQHOXMJcWx_TghqbjH9qkEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f6dd2b3cac70541a70c5e
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes
From: pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins)

--001a113f6dd2b3cac70541a70c5e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Afternoon Lester,

>  Is this simply ... Every element of a vote has to achieve 2/3rds?

Yes, it is.

But before you rubbish that idea as ridiculous, think about what it really
means.

It doesn't mean that people will continue to open a 2/3 vote and then pin a
list of subsidiary decisions onto the voting stage.

It does mean that the author of the RFC is forced to open a vote with
clear, simple options, that must be acceptable to a real majority for the
motion to pass.

The aim here is only to raise standards by changing our criteria for
acceptance, it's one simple move.

It has side effects for RFC authors, obviously, which they may first view
as negative, but unarguably has a net positive effect for everyone else.

Cheers
Joe



On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk> wrote:

> On 19/11/16 12:10, Joe Watkins wrote:
> > For such a simple question, 3 weeks in total should be long enough.
>
> Is this simply ... Every element of a vote has to achieve 2/3rds?
> While there are many cases where a simple yes/no question can eventually
> be agreed on, and I would prefer that some of the 50/50 decisions had a
> much greater consensus, areas where there is no clean consensus will not
> be solved 'simply' by moving the goal posts?
>
> The main problem is simply that there is not a common consensus on just
> how PHP should develop, and things like 'who can vote' and getting a
> sensible number of people to agree on something is just as important.
> The recent RFC on 'Debugging PDO Prepared Statement' is a good example
> of where people who may be affected have no vote, but people who could
> properly assess the now approved patch don't have the time or incentive
> to do so.
>
> A number of current RFC's have overlapping elements where a consensus on
> the base approach may be of more use than patching individual parts in
> isolation. A vote on the 'roadmap' element with sub sections on elements
> which may well not be appropriate for a full 3/2rds in light of the main
> question.
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -----------------------------
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--001a113f6dd2b3cac70541a70c5e--