Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97041
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pthreads.org from 209.85.214.50 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c8SB+iFMiQrkf5g1aQWMp1ycrbRQCn0iDhMv8=DEFXkVw@mail.gmail.com>
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> <CAL=_i_kMA1DS7G-CjFoMVW2xrWTxQHOXMJcWx_TghqbjH9qkEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c8SB+iFMiQrkf5g1aQWMp1ycrbRQCn0iDhMv8=DEFXkVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 13:29:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CAL=_i_mv_UqWYR6+7DPPp0XZxtS6AfUqhe-BR=BBsArtFvD=hQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113c1538e12c370541a7698a
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes
From: pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins)

--001a113c1538e12c370541a7698a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Afternoon Nikita,

Why does there need to be sub-questions ?

If there needs be sub-questions, and they are resolved by only a slim
majority, then do you have the kind of consensus you should need to act ?

Cheers
Joe

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
> Wait ... what?
>
> I assumed that this proposal only pertained to primary RFC acceptance
> votes, not to secondary votes. I don't see how 2/3 majorities make sense
> there. You'd either skew in favor of one option, or you'd end up in a
> situation where an RFC is accepted, but one sub-question has not been
> resolved (with supermajority) towards either option.
>
> Nikita
>

--001a113c1538e12c370541a7698a--