Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97047 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 41450 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2016 14:50:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 19 Nov 2016 14:50:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pthreads@pthreads.org; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pthreads@pthreads.org; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pthreads.org from 209.85.223.173 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pthreads@pthreads.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.223.173 mail-io0-f173.google.com Received: from [209.85.223.173] ([209.85.223.173:34988] helo=mail-io0-f173.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 08/12-31303-3C660385 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 09:50:45 -0500 Received: by mail-io0-f173.google.com with SMTP id n13so7573319ioe.2 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 06:50:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pthreads-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Lz3n5PtkqqlvKSXOOfUMuR4cokMfVQUgQsGoLQpUIHA=; b=ZZOvdkYl+IsPWOSYuBuQQXNDKwm2cwjwPKD/IX2iIYrCKDltcN71h3RASxUlOAn+Fe 8brCyfnHBFJVJS0EHN2lVSiWZn4/qL3/d6luQmszNoXlEJoejM9Xq7pwj+wByjWqZjLf z9OoDAz58+XSZ6x4UOVlRWIcmUp+chIC4RSSG1V7AL16Ua4ddyCfNCRxyT0jyVB8O8Hh SUiwezkPXJgKIoCYIcdFVzEvEo0ox1zEMrqi5SR9Zl0aQpzBiStsPX8QNk571BttyYVb AVPvYVNzmeItm448MQNu2gKAEODJalDenKIgOQkiGRwk/hPedVA6VYkNovLly5Y7Gu37 ezqw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Lz3n5PtkqqlvKSXOOfUMuR4cokMfVQUgQsGoLQpUIHA=; b=LDg6USfeSe0L5NqB85QyUopqFlmTyaPArQqwSsVqRQFOVWb9q9L70zEwIwkMROBedU fQu6g5TJ0+b5I1cnld0NaIk3qBN8nrk0WNK6b8jXvzROzv5sHTYivDZxPWVCPgV6aBFD tPWk+XaLJpPZ8j4xb4Qe8JlBUyAMlXlM/d6BxyCyK0pkwb4MM+wFXHr7pI6NO0dRXgCl hSruJHLH5qO1qTnBrH2Z3Zdpad4SMM8jonHvbWhi/NTxGhn/G0kFZmpDNYlJWuJQ2eT7 /+qiyk/m3J4HdMv9PjZn/Wo+0Q2I5f0x4R0D6RDTioSnDf7WaEVW0BdguTefHJhWYoEp NYpA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03H6LvtCz2x7j6d7iXNpJ3ZwdAGRoodKBgP4Mfcz6GqKbMUy+vH0osdwd27xTU8gdwLoNkVH1f3o/VShw== X-Received: by 10.107.168.223 with SMTP id e92mr4120913ioj.40.1479567041537; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 06:50:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.102.3 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 06:50:40 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [86.168.50.82] In-Reply-To: References: <4bc5c07d-1633-7fd0-b108-3c06e362bae4@lsces.co.uk> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 14:50:40 +0000 Message-ID: To: Nikita Popov Cc: Lester Caine , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114275bceedab60541a88b34 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes From: pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins) --001a114275bceedab60541a88b34 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Afternoon internals, I was wrong about it not changing, and wrong about only needing a week. In fact, after some more thinking time, and re-reading everything here, I'll present a revised, slightly larger RFC. We'll start discussion, for the full two weeks, from the beginning, when revised RFC is ready ... Sorry about the noise, and thanks for all your input so far ... I'll be back ... Cheers Joe On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Joe Watkins wrote: > 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 > wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Joe Watkins >> 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 >> > > --001a114275bceedab60541a88b34--