Quoting the RFC > the requester has contributed to the PHP sourcecode ecosystem.
You mention what types of contributions apply, but give no indication of quantity. If someone fixes one bug, does that give them voting rights? I would assume not. So is it two bugs, 10 bugs, 100? > these contributions show a consistent effort How is "consistent" defined? How frequently and for what minimum time period? > the requester has shown interaction with the main discussion medium of the > relevant part This is unclear to me. I assume "the main discussion medium" is more than just the mailing list, otherwise you would have said the mailing list, right? And what does "relevant part" mean? Maybe some examples would help, at least in reply. > the requester has a proponent that currently has voting karma Agreeing with Jordan LeDoux, these seems primed to make current voting members a target for wanna-be voters. Maybe this could discuss processes that would naturally bring people to want to sponsor someone, such as (maybe?) recommending they first "apprentice" under one or more people by helping document, helping fix bugs, or working with them on an RFC? > The requester should search a proponent of their case that then proposes the > request for voting karma to the dedicated discussion medium for such > requests. The proposal should include the reasons why the proponent thinks > the requester fullfills the above stated requirements. Are you really suggesting that allowing someone new to vote would be held out in the open, where the discussions about that person will get recorded on externals.io <http://externals.io/> and indexed by Google for all to see, forevermore? Seems like discussion about an individual should respect the long term privacy of the individual a bit more, especially for those who will be turned down. > When there are more approvals than objections the voting karma will be > granted. How is voting to be done? Yay's and nay's on a mailing list? Or some other way? And voting right can be approved with 51% whereas most RFCs require 67% to pass? I ask these questions so people who might be interested in getting voting rights would have an objective roadmap for how to get there otherwise it would seem to just be documenting an extremely subjective process. (Which might be all you are attempting to do?) Anyway, #jmtcw. -Mike > On Jul 20, 2021, at 2:22 AM, Andreas Heigl <andr...@heigl.org> wrote: > > Hey All > > Am 19.07.21 um 17:02 schrieb Andreas Heigl: >> Hey All >> >> Am 19.07.21 um 16:34 schrieb Levi Morrison via internals: >>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 2:38 AM Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 8:48 PM Tobias Nyholm <tobias.nyh...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey. >>>>> I would like to get karma to be able to vote on RFCs. I understand that >>>>> voting karma isn’t usually given out to people who write their first >>>>> mailing list entry. >>>>> >>>>> But I do believe I qualify as “Lead developers of PHP based projects >>>>> (frameworks, cms, tools, etc.)” >>>> >>>> Hey Tobias, >>>> >>>> My response here is basically the same as the last time the topic came up: >>>> https://externals.io/message/110936#110937 Voting is just the very last >>>> step of the RFC process, at which point the proposal can no longer be >>>> influenced. If you have feedback about a proposal based on your extensive >>>> experience in PHP's open source ecosystem, then the discussion phase is the >>>> time to provide it, while it can still influence the proposal, as well as >>>> other people's view of the proposal. >>> >>> I second this. >>> >>>> At least in my personal opinion, I think it's important that people granted >>>> voting rights as community representatives have at least some historical >>>> involvement in RFC discussions. >>> >>> I agree with this, but have no specific objection to granting Tobias >>> voting karma, as this is underspecified; how long should they >>> participate? What kinds of involvement are appropriate? Being >>> underspecified is not really their fault, and I don't feel like it >>> would be an abuse to grant them voting karma, but do think it would be >>> an abuse to deny them voting karma indefinitely because "we" don't get >>> around to specifying it. It should be less of a decision on a >>> case-by-case basis and more of a checklist. >>> >> >> Sounds like we need an RFC to make it clearer how voting karma for the >> RFC process will be granted in the future. > > I have created a draft for an RFC to implement future rules for granting > voting karma. > > If you want to contribute to that, feel free to open a PR against it[1]. > > To be able to make the future karma grants more trnasparent this needs > input from everyone: Opponoents as well as proponents! > > I'm looking forward to a fruitful conversation and to a great RFC that > can move us to more transparency. > > Cheers > > Andreas > > [1] > https://github.com/heiglandreas/rfc/blob/main/implement_future_rules_for_granting_voting_karma.md > > -- > ,,, > (o o) > +---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+ > | Andreas Heigl | > | mailto:andr...@heigl.org N 50°22'59.5" E 08°23'58" | > | https://andreas.heigl.org | > +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | https://hei.gl/appointmentwithandreas | > +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ >
