# Voting periods - Thread: https://externals.io/message/65226 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/65226 - Started by Zeev Suraski on 2013-01-28T09:22:52+00:00 - Messages: 40 - Page 1 of 2: messages 1 to 25 (25 per page, add `?page=N` to the URL) - Next page: https://externals.io/message/65226.md?page=2 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #65226 — Zeev Suraski — 2013-01-28T09:22:52+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65226 Hi, There’s something that I’m not quite following regarding open votes. Why are we saying that ‘votes will end no sooner than X’, instead of actually saying when they *will* end? If there’s no clear end date for a vote, when do we declare than a vote is over? Is it in a specific point in time where the vote happens to be in favor with what the proposer wanted? The specific case in point is https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2 - which while has more supporters than opposers, consistent fell short of the 2/3 majority it needs to be approved. The vote should have ended on Wednesday – 4 days ago, but for some reason it’s still open. It’s time to close it. My suggestion is for voting periods to be limited to one week, regardless of the topic. It should be more than enough. Regardless, an ‘open ended’ voting period is unacceptable IMHO. Zeev --- ## #65228 — Pierre Joye — 2013-01-28T09:39:25+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65228 · In reply to: #65226 hi, > Hi, > > > > There’s something that I’m not quite following regarding open votes. > > Why are we saying that ‘votes will end no sooner than X’, instead of > actually saying when they *will* end? > > > > If there’s no clear end date for a vote, when do we declare than a vote is > over? Is it in a specific point in time where the vote happens to be in > favor with what the proposer wanted? Itt was more defined as a "minimum voting period". > The specific case in point is > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2 - which while has more > supporters than opposers, consistent fell short of the 2/3 majority it > needs to be approved. The vote should have ended on Wednesday – 4 days > ago, but for some reason it’s still open. It’s time to close it. > > > > My suggestion is for voting periods to be limited to one week, regardless > of the topic. It should be more than enough. Regardless, an ‘open ended’ > voting period is unacceptable IMHO. You were one of the person who requested to have at least two weeks, so nobody can miss a vote due to various reasons (on the road, off time, or whatever else). I'd to keep two weeks. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #65229 — Bruno CHALOPIN — 2013-01-28T09:55:47+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65229 · In reply to: #65226 Hi, Le Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:22:52 +0200, Zeev Suraski a écrit : > Regardless, an > ‘open ended’ > voting period is unacceptable IMHO. I agree with that. An update of the voting rfc (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ voting) should be made. However one week only seems a little shorter in my opinion to validate changes that "will affect millions of people". There's times in the year when we are most AFK (summer vacations, christmas, etc...) and as you point that there can be "a specific point in time where the vote happens to be in favor with what the proposer wanted", there also can have a specific period in the year to make a rfc pass easier due to the lack of voters (perhaps my mind is twisted but i've already seen this trick in politics so... ;-). I'm not sure how long we should make the vote duration but i think that, like the discussion period, there shoud be a minimum 2 weeks between the vote opening and it's closing. My 2 cents, regards, Bruno --- ## #65230 — Florian Anderiasch — 2013-01-28T10:45:21+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65230 · In reply to: #65226 > My suggestion is for voting periods to be limited to one week, regardless > of the topic. It should be more than enough. Regardless, an ‘open ended’ > voting period is unacceptable IMHO. Whatever the voting period is, IMHO the most important thing would be to have the person opening the vote set a mandatory voting end date in the announcement + RFC itself, no matter how long it will be (to be discussed seperately) Greetings, Florian --- ## #65231 — Zeev Suraski — 2013-01-28T10:57:51+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65231 · In reply to: #65228 > > […] an 'open > ended' > > […] > > You were one of the person who requested to have at least two weeks, so > nobody can miss a vote due to various reasons (on the road, off time, or > whatever else). I'd to keep two weeks. Well the way it is right now it's a 'one week by default', unless there are reasons to extend it, which IIRC was the compromise. I find it difficult to believe that had this particular RFC been in an 'accepted' position back on Wednesday the 23rd, the vote wouldn't have immediately closed... In my opinion - based on our actual experience now as opposed to theoretical predictions which we had back then - one week should be enough as the default. But I'm fine going with two weeks. I guess we'll vote on that too :) It's more important to have a definite end date than whether it's one week or two weeks. Zeev --- ## #65232 — Pierre Joye — 2013-01-28T11:07:19+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65232 · In reply to: #65231 hi, > > […] > an 'open > > […] > > Well the way it is right now it's a 'one week by default', unless there > are reasons to extend it, which IIRC was the compromise. I find it > difficult to believe that had this particular RFC been in an 'accepted' > position back on Wednesday the 23rd, the vote wouldn't have immediately > closed... I find somehow disturbing that you raised that for the RFC you don't like, that has to be said :) You also, if I am not mistaken, changed your vote during the week. That's all good, but changing rules to get the results we wish is not going to happen. > In my opinion - based on our actual experience now as opposed to > theoretical predictions which we had back then - one week should be enough > as the default. But I'm fine going with two weeks. I guess we'll vote on > that too :) It's more important to have a definite end date than whether > it's one week or two weeks. One week is too short, I'd to go with two weeks minumum, end date must be set when a vote begins, to avoid any confusions. I will add a vote on that in the voting RFC, as un update, so we will a clear(er) position for the next RFCs. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye --- ## #65233 — Zeev Suraski — 2013-01-28T11:19:44+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65233 · In reply to: #65232 > -----Original Message----- > From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre.php@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:07 PM > To: Zeev Suraski > Cc: PHP internals > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods > > hi, > > > > […] 'accepted' > > […] > > I find somehow disturbing that you raised that for the RFC you don't like, that > has to be said :) That's fair, but it's the only one of 6 open RFCs right now that has an intentional open-ended ending date. > You also, if I am not mistaken, changed your vote during the > week. I was never in favor of this feature, in all of its different incarnations. I did not change my vote. > That's all good, but changing rules to get the results we wish is not going > to happen. I feel that this is what was done in this particular case, not the other way around. That what brought me to bring up that subject here in the first place. This particular RFC was the only RFC where I noticed this weird 'no sooner than' language, and it seemed intentional to me - given the fact it's a very controversial feature opposed by most core devs. If we want to change the default voting period to two weeks, that's fine - but IMHO it should be for future RFCs after it gets approved. > > […] > > One week is too short, I'd to go with two weeks minumum, end date must be set > when a vote begins, to avoid any confusions. > > I will add a vote on that in the voting RFC, as un update, so we will a clear(er) > position for the next RFCs. OK, please put a one week as an option too. To put things in perspective, elections that effect the fate of billions of people typically end in 24hrs. Zeev --- ## #65234 — Pierre Joye — 2013-01-28T11:42:42+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65234 · In reply to: #65233 > > […] > clear(er) > > […] > > OK, please put a one week as an option too. To put things in perspective, > elections that effect the fate of billions of people typically end in > 24hrs. Yes, I was thinking about having 1, 2 or 3 weeks as options, or just 1 or 2, 3 looks long to me :) -- Pierre @pierrejoye --- ## #65235 — Clint Priest — 2013-01-28T12:03:26+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65235 · In reply to: #65233 > I feel that this is what was done in this particular case, not the > other way around. That what brought me to bring up that subject here > in the first place. This particular RFC was the only RFC where I > noticed this weird 'no sooner than' language, and it seemed > intentional to me - given the fact it's a very controversial feature > opposed by most core devs. If we want to change the default voting > period to two weeks, that's fine - but IMHO it should be for future > RFCs after it gets approved. Actually, it was not done on purpose but was mimicking what many other RFC "vote sections" do, I thought it was the way it was supposed to be done, see: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/incompat_ctx https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array_column If you're still worried about this making it in, don't worry. Nikita and I have given up, to the determinant of the community. -Clint > Zeev -- -Clint --- ## #65237 — Peter Cowburn — 2013-01-28T12:12:00+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65237 · In reply to: #65235 > > If you're still worried about this making it in, don't worry. Nikita and I > have given up, to the determinant of the community. > Then please close the voting. --- ## #65238 — Sebastian Bergmann — 2013-01-28T12:42:48+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65238 · In reply to: #65233 Am 28.01.2013 12:19, schrieb Zeev Suraski: > OK, please put a one week as an option too. To put things in perspective, > elections that effect the fate of billions of people typically end in > 24hrs. But they sometimes require weeks of analysing punch cards ;-) -- Sebastian Bergmann Co-Founder and Principal Consultant http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://thePHP.cc/ --- ## #65239 — Pierre Joye — 2013-01-28T12:53:26+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65239 · In reply to: #65235 hi Clint, Zeev, > > > > […] > > > Actually, it was not done on purpose but was mimicking what many other RFC > "vote sections" do, I thought it was the way it was supposed to be done, > see: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/incompat_ctx > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array_column > > If you're still worried about this making it in, don't worry. Nikita and I > have given up, to the determinant of the community. This is horribly wrong, totally wrong. Zeev, for one, was one of them asking to have a 2/3 majority for any language related RFC. That's what applies to this RFC, and it is, as of now, accepted. I don't see how the vote is remotely close to a tie. There is something very bad going on right now. I'd to think how to solve that as it is the worst thing that can happen to our project, accepted RFCs being "rejected" because of the pressure. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org --- ## #65240 — Zeev Suraski — 2013-01-28T13:00:17+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65240 · In reply to: #65239 > Zeev, for one, was one of them asking to have a 2/3 majority for any language > related RFC. That's what applies to this RFC, and it is, as of now, accepted. I don't > see how the vote is remotely close to a tie. Are you talking about https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2? There are presently 33 supporteds, 21 opposers. That's less than 2/3 (there would have to be 37 supporters vs. 21 opposers for it to be more than the needed 2/3). On Wednesday evening it was even less than that. Zeev --- ## #65241 — Zeev Suraski — 2013-01-28T13:03:21+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65241 > -----Original Message----- > From: Zeev Suraski [mailto:zeev@zend.com] > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 3:00 PM > To: 'Pierre Joye'; 'Clint Priest' > Cc: 'PHP internals' > Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods > > > […] > > Are you talking about https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2? > > There are presently 33 supporteds, 21 opposers. That's less than 2/3 (there > would have to be 37 supporters vs. 21 opposers for it to be more than the > needed 2/3). On Wednesday evening it was even less than that. Erm, my ALU didn't wake up today. There would actually need to be 43 supporters vs. 21 opposers in order for this to be accepted. Zeev --- ## #65242 — Pierre Joye — 2013-01-28T13:03:35+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65242 · In reply to: #65240 > > […] > language > > […] > accepted. I don't > > […] > > Are you talking about https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2? > > There are presently 33 supporteds, 21 opposers. That's less than 2/3 > (there would have to be 37 supporters vs. 21 opposers for it to be more > than the needed 2/3). On Wednesday evening it was even less than that. I mean more "no matter if it is or not", but the result is not tie anyway, accepted or not. I find the way things are being done right now as a bad thing. There is a time for discussions and argumentations, and there is a time for votes. Coming in with things like that does not give me a good feeling. Even if you have a good point about how we should clarify the voting phase duration. I am not saying that you do that on purpose or not, but this is something we should carefully deal with, and not like we were sitting alone at the Bahnhofstation, if you see what I mean :) Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye --- ## #65243 — Zeev Suraski — 2013-01-28T13:10:44+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65243 · In reply to: #65242 > I mean more "no matter if it is or not", but the result is not tie anyway, accepted > or not. > > I find the way things are being done right now as a bad thing. There is a time for > discussions and argumentations, and there is a time for votes. Coming in with > things like that does not give me a good feeling. Even if you have a good point > about how we should clarify the voting phase duration. > > I am not saying that you do that on purpose or not, but this is something we > should carefully deal with, and not like we were sitting alone at the > Bahnhofstation, if you see what I mean :) Agreed. I'll wait for your proposed improvements to the voting RFC. Zeev --- ## #65244 — Clint Priest — 2013-01-28T13:15:12+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65244 · In reply to: #65237 > > > […] > Then please close the voting. Since there is no "maximum voting period" and 5.5 is not in a feature freeze yet, I left the voting open, in case some people decided to read the patch and change their minds. I see no reason to close the vote unless I'm required to do so or the game is up. I share Pierre's sentiment that this vote is pretty ridiculous. People have been asking for this feature (present in every other modern language) for 5+ years. I spent two years going through the *tedious* RFC discussion process, wrote the software, Nikita made it even better to have it shot down without even reasonable explanations as to why "from most people." Some people gave good explanations (Sherif Ramadan) even if I don't agree with them. Very few others did and it really leaves us/me with no direction to go. No reason for the rejection ergo no way to "improve this, or improve that." Some are resting on the idea that the ROI isn't there just aren't listening to the community. I'd love nothing more than to have this proposal accepted, and perhaps I will give it another go in the future. I figured at the very least I should contribute in other ways to PHP so that I eliminate the "big RFC from a new developer" aspect of the situation, which I think ultimately was the deciding factor. -Clint > -- -Clint --- ## #65269 — Levi Morrison — 2013-01-28T16:42:54+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65269 · In reply to: #65244 I also disagree with an open-ended voting period. I'm fine with having a long voting window, but when a vote is called it should declare when the voting will end. This just makes sense to me. Since we're on the topic of voting, I also want to bring up that 50% + 1 is actually pretty low for something that doesn't modify the core. For instance, suppose that the voting on an RFC ended with exactly a 50% + 1 vote in favor of adding the feature. That means that half of the people who voted did not want it to go through. That seems like a problem to me; half of the people were against it yet it is accepted and introduced to the language? Maybe I'm used to working in councils that require near unanimity, but 50% + 1 seems very, very low. If we're going to revisit voting, can we re-discuss this as well? --- ## #65271 — Zeev Suraski — 2013-01-28T17:07:40+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65271 · In reply to: #65244 > -----Original Message----- > From: Clint Priest [mailto:cpriest@zerocue.com] > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 3:15 PM > To: Peter Cowburn > Cc: Zeev Suraski; Pierre Joye; PHP internals > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods > > > > > […] > Since there is no "maximum voting period" and 5.5 is not in a feature freeze yet, > I left the voting open, in case some people decided to read the patch and change > their minds. I see no reason to close the vote unless I'm required to do so or the > game is up. I think there's an almost-consensus that voting periods need to be well defined. Two reasons: 1. If you care enough about it you should be able to vote about it within one or two weeks. 2. Leaving it open ended gives the RFC proposer too much power. He could simply end the vote once it happens to reach the necessary majority. So I'd say yes, you're required to end it, either immediately or at most at the end of the two week boundary. > asking for this feature (present in every other modern > language) for 5+ years. I spent two years going through the *tedious* RFC > discussion process, wrote the software, Nikita made it even better to have it > shot down without even reasonable explanations as to why "from most people." There are two very reasonable explanations, and it's fine you may disagree with them: 1. It makes the language more complex. 2. It makes the language more difficult to maintain. In both cases, the people who opposed it thought that the gain from adding it doesn't outweigh these loss in complexity and maintenance overhead. > Some are resting on the idea that the ROI isn't there just aren't listening to the > community. The vast majority of the PHP community is a silent one; These people don't participate here on internals; They don't attend conferences; They use it - the vast majority of them in a professional manner - and they picked it because they like it the way it is, not because of what it needs to become. For every person that subscribes to internals, there's a thousand (yes, a THOUSAND) people who don't (it's several thousands vs.~5 million). In fact, they're not completely silent. They speak in volumes - PHP 5.4 is used in less than 1% of the sites using PHP today, and even the relatively revolutionary 5.3 is still a lot less popular than 5.2. The new shiny features are not all that interesting for most people. The community that participates in internals isn't necessarily representative of the community at large. Zeev --- ## #65272 — Pierre Joye — 2013-01-28T17:19:43+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65272 · In reply to: #65271 On Jan 28, 2013 6:07 PM, "Zeev Suraski" > The community that participates in internals isn't necessarily > representative of the community at large. > Letzten me clarify my view. I do not attend hyped conferences, because I want to meet are not there. However I meet a lot of our "silent" community, inside companies, customers, non PHP specific conferences, UGs, schools (for active ppl), etc. My opinion and my certitude about this feature are based on the feedback of these people. However, projects leaders have the same feedbacks from their users, that says all. I think many of us are purely and simply totally out of sync with our users. I have no immediate solution but this is something we must solve, now. --- ## #65273 — Zeev Suraski — 2013-01-28T17:22:38+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65273 · In reply to: #65272 I agree, but we’re in opposite camps on this feature. What does that mean? J I think many of us are purely and simply totally out of sync with our users. I have no immediate solution but this is something we must solve, now. --- ## #65274 — Pierre Joye — 2013-01-28T17:35:25+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65274 · In reply to: #65273 > > I agree, but we’re in opposite camps on this feature. What does that mean? J Go back to our roots? :-) --- ## #65276 — Lester Caine — 2013-01-28T17:51:43+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65276 · In reply to: #65271 Zeev Suraski wrote: > They speak in volumes > - PHP 5.4 is used in less than 1% of the sites using PHP today, and even > the relatively revolutionary 5.3 is still a lot less popular than 5.2. > The new shiny features are not all that interesting for most people. And I wonder how many of the 1% using 5.4 live are using it purely because they HAVE spent the time to get 5.2 based code working clean on it rather than because they use any of the 'new shiny features' ... I'm about 50% through the move to 5.4 and it will be some time before the rest can be moved of the PHP5.2 machines. It does now seem a 'false economy' simply to hide the problems with the code rather than making the code run clean so sticking with a suitable machine is safer than trying to selectively get a 5.4 machine run both 5.2 'dirty' code as well as 5.4 'clean' code? -- 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 --- ## #65281 — Matthew Leverton — 2013-01-28T18:22:59+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65281 · In reply to: #65271 > The vast majority of the PHP community is a silent one; These people > ... > In fact, they're not completely silent. They speak in volumes > - PHP 5.4 is used in less than 1% of the sites using PHP today, and even > the relatively revolutionary 5.3 is still a lot less popular than 5.2. > The new shiny features are not all that interesting for most people. > Can we stop calling things "new shiny features" as if that means anything? It's empty rhetoric. When you treat your users like unintelligent noobies who are just going to hang themselves when you give them a rope, then that's the type of users you will end up with. As a long time (silent) PHP user of 10+ years, these are exactly the types of features that I and *everybody* I work with as professionals who write our own code would like to see in PHP. The second PHP 5.5 is out, I'll be updating just to have easy-to-use iterators (i.e., generators). As somebody who has been actively involved on another large open source project for 15 years, I can appreciate the desire to avoid adding pointless complexity. In fact, I think putting properties into something already in alpha state (5.5) is not wise. But the feature itself is spot-on, and to claim that using __get and __set is better or sufficient is a hard position to back up. Pointing to usage of PHP 5.4 as any sort of justification is meaningless. What's happening is that the average PHP user is simply turning into a person who uses few old, mainstream PHP applications like Wordpress because PHP lacks the features to be competitive with other languages. So it's things like Wordpress that are driving the big numbers, which has nothing to do with the number of individual people who write their own serious, modern software. And for the discussion at hand, yes, it seems obvious that every RFC should have an absolute deadline of when voting ends. -- Matthew Leverton --- ## #65283 — Lazare Inepologlou — 2013-01-28T19:01:27+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/65226#65283 · In reply to: #65271 2013/1/28 Zeev Suraski > > […] > freeze yet, > > […] > and change > > […] > do so or the > > […] > > I think there's an almost-consensus that voting periods need to be well > defined. Two reasons: > > 1. If you care enough about it you should be able to vote about it within > one or two weeks. > 2. Leaving it open ended gives the RFC proposer too much power. He could > simply end the vote once it happens to reach the necessary majority. > > So I'd say yes, you're required to end it, either immediately or at most > at the end of the two week boundary. > > > […] > RFC > > […] > have it > > […] > people." > > There are two very reasonable explanations, and it's fine you may disagree > with them: > > 1. It makes the language more complex. > 2. It makes the language more difficult to maintain. > This is not accurate. There are people who would like to see a feature implemented, but voted no because they did not like the proposed implementation. This is important. A blunt "No" blocks not only the RFC itself but also all attempts for alternative or improved solutions. I believe that all proposals should have 3 options: "Yes, all the way", "Yes in principle, but not this implementation" and "No in principle". This would leave room for better approaches. > > In both cases, the people who opposed it thought that the gain from adding > it doesn't outweigh these loss in complexity and maintenance overhead. > > > […] > listening to the > > […] > > The vast majority of the PHP community is a silent one; These people > don't participate here on internals; They don't attend conferences; They > use it - the vast majority of them in a professional manner - and they > picked it because they like it the way it is, not because of what it needs > to become. For every person that subscribes to internals, there's a > thousand (yes, a THOUSAND) people who don't (it's several thousands vs.~5 > million). In fact, they're not completely silent. They speak in volumes > - PHP 5.4 is used in less than 1% of the sites using PHP today, and even > the relatively revolutionary 5.3 is still a lot less popular than 5.2. > The new shiny features are not all that interesting for most people. > > The community that participates in internals isn't necessarily > representative of the community at large. > > Zeev > > -- > > > > Lazare INEPOLOGLOU Ingénieur Logiciel --- Next page: https://externals.io/message/65226.md?page=2