Hello, with two competing RFCs (has this ever happend before?) we are in an interesting spot now, game theoretically. Just letting both RFC authors open and close the votes will bias the votes just by nature of who starts first.
My (potentially very wrong) armchair analysis of the timeline is (my game theory university knowledge is very dusty): We have 3 types of players, 1 RFC a author, 1 RFC b author, $n voters, roughly (subjective opinion) split between STH v0.5, coercive STH and no type hinting (40/40/20). The first vote to end, will get 40% of votes. If we assume that there are STH proponents that don't care about the implementation and only want the feature, then they will start to switch their vote on the second RFC now, pushing it over 66% like Andrea's RFC managed. The likelihood of the second RFC winning, REGARDLESS which one that is, is much higher. So both RFC authors have no incentive to start their vote first, delaying the vote. One solution could be both votes should be parallel. In this case the likelihood of both failing is very high, because you cannot vote with a preference here, you will vote yes for one and no for the other. In either case, if both votes end at exactly the same time, I think this could get some ebay sniping vote sswitch behavior. So the best/fairest option might probably, vote for both combined in a single vote. This makes the likelihood of acceptance very high, however it will pick one or the other by 50%+1, which might be against the voting RFC. In any case, funny problem :-) greetings Benjamin
