> -----Original Message----- > From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:11 AM > To: Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com>; John Bafford <jbaff...@zort.net> > Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines > (WAS: Adopt Code of Conduct) > > Hi! > > > I have one idea. I made an awful mistake while drafting the Voting > > RFC, requiring a 2/3 majority for language changes. It should have > > been 85-90%. When you have a 85-90% majority - it's likely to imply > > several things: > > I have a feeling that wouldn't help. Instead of "it's toxic because people > argue endlessly" it'd be "it's toxic because every time anybody has an idea > somebody shows up and shuts it down, so nothing worthy ever gets done" > (please don't take it wrong way, I don't say unanimous RFCs are unworthy, > that would just be the perception for people whose RFCs gained no > support). > I.e. if now we have bad reputation and more RFCs passing, with higher > barrier we'd have (different) bad reputation and less RFCs passing. I thing > that won't be the fix we're looking for. Though we probably would save > some time ;)
Not impossible, but I think very unlikely. There may be another ingredient missing here - but generally, I think the numbers are telling a different story. Not that the ruleset couldn't have affected the numbers - but I doubt it would be to an extreme. The intense discussions - that sometimes venture into being disrespectful discussions - and even when not reflect badly on internals and scare people away, are the ones that have many people passionately arguing against, not ones where a handful of people disagree. The latter, at least from hovering over them - doesn't seem to be in situations where people think it's a "horrible idea", but rather, a situation where people think it's "not a good idea", and there's a big different between the two. The situations where people thinks adding X is going to truly negatively influence PHP are not that common. Thinking out loud, in terms of missing ingredients, it may be that we need ways to recognize a 'heated' subject. It may be possible to do it methodically. For instance, require a 67% majority for votes that have up to 50 people voting, but 85% above it. That way, vocal individuals can't shoot down 'smaller' RFCs, but if the RFC generates enough interest so that it attracted more than 50 people to vote - it needs to be unanimous. Another idea is to keep the bar where it is, but give users limited number of 'double No' votes per year (perhaps just one per year). Both in guidelines and in practice, you would be limited to using this 'special power' only in extreme situations - given its very limited supply and its exposure to public scrutiny (we can demand an explanation when this 'power' is used). There may be other ideas. The goal in both cases is to influence the RFC authors, and dissuade them from pursuing divisive RFCs, knowing that if they bump into substantial opposition - both in size and in conviction - the likelihood of passing the RFC is slim, and the likelihood of creating bad vibes is high. Right now, the motivation is the opposite - "let's pursue it, cross fingers and touch wood - maybe we'll pass the 67% bar". It's the divisive RFCs that are the key source of the contention on internals, and any solution that won't strongly discourage them is not going to solve the problem. There needs to be something built into the system that makes RFC authors not only strive for majority, but strive for consensus. Zeev
