[VOTE] "Abstain" voting option for RFCs

Hi

Am 2025-08-18 07:14, schrieb Niklas Keller:

Please also add the voting dates to the RFC itself.

They were already entered in the widget, but I've also just copied the
paragraph from my email into the text:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_vote_abstain?do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1755441537&rev2%5B1%5D=1755500397&difftype=sidebyside

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

Hey all.

Am 19.08.25 um 12:25 schrieb Nicolas Grekas:

Hi Tim

Le dim. 17 août 2025 à 16:43, Tim Düsterhus tim@bastelstu.be a écrit :

Hi

I just opened the vote for the "'Abstain' voting option for RFCs" policy
RFC:

RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_vote_abstain
Discussion: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
PR: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185

As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
15:00:00 UTC.

The vote already includes the “Abstain” option to dogfood the RFC and to
showcase how the voting widget will look like should the RFC be
accepted. Although it could be argued that selecting the “Abstain”
option would be a vote in favor of having such an option, it will be
considered an abstention. Please vote “Yes” if you are in favor of the
RFC :-)

I also voted "no" as for me there is no added value in the
Abstain-option from a voting point of view.

And as the RFC does not mention any possible future
additions/modifications regarding quorum I do not see a reason to change
the current voting process just to make it clear that someone didn't
want to vote opposed to someone forgot to vote.

Cheers

Andreas

PS: I do hope that we at one point get to introduce quorum! And then I
will definitely support it!

                                                           ,,,
                                                          (o o)

+---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+
| Andreas Heigl |
| mailto:andreas@heigl.org N 50°22'59.5" E 08°23'58" |
| https://andreas.heigl.org |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| https://hei.gl/appointmentwithandreas |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| GPG-Key: https://hei.gl/keyandreasheiglorg |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

Hi

I just opened the vote for the "'Abstain' voting option for RFCs" policy
RFC:

RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_vote_abstain
Discussion: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
PR: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185

As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
15:00:00 UTC.

The vote already includes the “Abstain” option to dogfood the RFC and to
showcase how the voting widget will look like should the RFC be
accepted. Although it could be argued that selecting the “Abstain”
option would be a vote in favor of having such an option, it will be
considered an abstention. Please vote “Yes” if you are in favor of the
RFC :-)

I don't have issue with this. The only minor cosmetic thing is that it
makes the table wider so it will more often not fit to the mobile screen
and will need horizontal scroll. I think the solution for that could be to
remove that user name in brackets that just repeats the linked name - e.g
bukka (bukka). That would be nice to do as part of the "implementation" for
this... :)

Good call about the table. I've been thinking of this for a while now.

Regards

Jakub

Hi

Am 2025-08-19 15:14, schrieb Jakub Zelenka:

bukka (bukka). That would be nice to do as part of the "implementation"
for
this... :)

I've sent a PR: https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/33

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

Hi

I just opened the vote for the "'Abstain' voting option for RFCs" policy
RFC:

RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_vote_abstain
Discussion: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
PR: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185

As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
15:00:00 UTC.

The vote already includes the “Abstain” option to dogfood the RFC and to
showcase how the voting widget will look like should the RFC be
accepted. Although it could be argued that selecting the “Abstain”
option would be a vote in favor of having such an option, it will be
considered an abstention. Please vote “Yes” if you are in favor of the
RFC :-)

I don't have issue with this. The only minor cosmetic thing is that it
makes the table wider so it will more often not fit to the mobile screen
and will need horizontal scroll. I think the solution for that could be to
remove that user name in brackets that just repeats the linked name - e.g
bukka (bukka). That would be nice to do as part of the "implementation" for
this... :)

Regards

Jakub

It's the long commit hash in the table that makes it wide in this case.

But I can have a look at getting rid of the duplication (regardless of whether the RFC passes)

cheers
Derick