Hi!
> Sorry, but yes.
>
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting
>
>> There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
> language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required.
> Other RFCs might use a smaller timeframe, but it should be at least a week.
I must say I
From: Joe Watkins [mailto:pthre...@pthreads.org]
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 3:43 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Kalle Sommer Nielsen ; PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes
>Afternoon Zeev,
>I am not sure how much of the voting RFC I want to reform right now
Otherwise - it's a simple majority (>50%, or even just the option that got
> the most votes in case of a 3-way or 4-way vote).
>
There are better options for choices of 3 or more than the most votes
system and I strongly recommend that they be used. Allow me to present an
example.
Suppose we nee
Of
> Kalle
> > Sommer Nielsen
> > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 8:46 PM
> > To: Joe Watkins
> > Cc: PHP internals
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes
> >
> > 2016-11-17 19:22 GMT+01:00 Joe Watkins :
> > > Afternoon Kal
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Joe Watkins [mailto:pthre...@pthreads.org]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 6:11 AM
> > To: Pierre Joye
> > Cc: PHP internals
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes
> >
> > Morning Pi
> -Original Message-
> From: kalle@gmail.com [mailto:kalle@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Kalle
> Sommer Nielsen
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 8:46 PM
> To: Joe Watkins
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes
>
> 201
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Watkins [mailto:pthre...@pthreads.org]
> Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 6:11 AM
> To: Pierre Joye
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes
>
> Morning Pierre,
>
> That's not what the
Hi all,
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2016 11:34 AM, "Joe Watkins" wrote:
>>
>> Morning Pierre,
>>
>> Sorry, but yes.
>>
>> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting
>>
>> > There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
> language is brought up on t
On 19/11/16 13:03, Joe Watkins wrote:
> But before you rubbish that idea as ridiculous, think about what it really
> means.
? I'm quite happy with the idea ... all I was rubbishing is the idea
that it's a 'simple' change, but you seem to have realised that now?
My only problem is with the way the
Afternoon internals,
I was wrong about it not changing, and wrong about only needing a week.
In fact, after some more thinking time, and re-reading everything here,
I'll present a revised, slightly larger RFC.
We'll start discussion, for the full two weeks, from the beginning, when
revised RFC i
Afternoon Nikita,
Why does there need to be sub-questions ?
If there needs be sub-questions, and they are resolved by only a slim
majority, then do you have the kind of consensus you should need to act ?
Cheers
Joe
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> Afternoon Lester,
>
> > Is this simply ... Every element of a vote has to achieve 2/3rds?
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> But before you rubbish that idea as ridiculous, think about what it really
> means.
>
> It doesn't mean that people will continue to
Afternoon Lester,
> Is this simply ... Every element of a vote has to achieve 2/3rds?
Yes, it is.
But before you rubbish that idea as ridiculous, think about what it really
means.
It doesn't mean that people will continue to open a 2/3 vote and then pin a
list of subsidiary decisions onto the
On 19/11/16 12:10, Joe Watkins wrote:
> For such a simple question, 3 weeks in total should be long enough.
Is this simply ... Every element of a vote has to achieve 2/3rds?
While there are many cases where a simple yes/no question can eventually
be agreed on, and I would prefer that some of the 5
Afternoon internals,
This is not a new subject for discussion, it has been discussed over and
over, and I'm quite sure that many people had formed an opinion on 50%+1
votes before the RFC was posted.
One week to allow new points to be raised seems fair enough to me.
I didn't say there would be a
2016-11-19 12:18 GMT+01:00 Niklas Keller :
> 2016-11-17 19:45 GMT+01:00 Kalle Sommer Nielsen :
>>
>> 2016-11-17 19:22 GMT+01:00 Joe Watkins :
>> > Afternoon Kalle,
>> >
>> > We have to start with the assumption that everyone that votes, does so
>> > with
>> > good intentions.
>>
>> Ofcourse, but I
2016-11-17 19:45 GMT+01:00 Kalle Sommer Nielsen :
> 2016-11-17 19:22 GMT+01:00 Joe Watkins :
> > Afternoon Kalle,
> >
> > We have to start with the assumption that everyone that votes, does so
> with
> > good intentions.
>
> Ofcourse, but I just don't think it is fair that someone who made an
> RF
On 19 November 2016 at 10:45, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2016 11:34 AM, "Joe Watkins" wrote:
> >
> > Morning Pierre,
> >
> > Sorry, but yes.
> >
> > http://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting
> >
> > > There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
> language is brought up on this
On Nov 19, 2016 11:34 AM, "Joe Watkins" wrote:
>
> Morning Pierre,
>
> Sorry, but yes.
>
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting
>
> > There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required.
Other RFCs might use a smalle
Morning Pierre,
Sorry, but yes.
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting
> There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required.
Other RFCs might use a smaller timeframe, but it should be at least a week.
Cheers
Joe
O
On Nov 19, 2016 11:11 AM, "Joe Watkins" wrote:
>
> Morning Pierre,
>
> That's not what the rules say.
>
> There will be a one week discussion period.
Sorry but no.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> Morning Pierre,
>
> That's not what the rules say.
>
> There will be a one week discussion period.
>
> Cheers
> Joe
>
> On 19 Nov 2016 2:20 a.m., "Pierre Joye" wrote:
>
>> Good afternoon,
>>
>> On Nov 18, 2016 12:18 AM, "Joe Watkins" wrote:
>
Morning Pierre,
That's not what the rules say.
There will be a one week discussion period.
Cheers
Joe
On 19 Nov 2016 2:20 a.m., "Pierre Joye" wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> On Nov 18, 2016 12:18 AM, "Joe Watkins" wrote:
>
> >
> > There will be a one week discussion period for this RFC.
>
> Sor
Good afternoon,
On Nov 18, 2016 12:18 AM, "Joe Watkins" wrote:
>
> There will be a one week discussion period for this RFC.
Sorry but the minimum discussion period for RFC is two weeks. No exception.
I will reply later for the feedback on the RFC :)
Cheers
Pierre
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> Afternoon internals,
>
> This has been discussed before in various RFC threads, there does seem to
> be some consensus that 50%+1 votes could be harmful.
>
> To what degree, I am not sure.
>
> I raise for discussion the topic of abolishing 50%
2016-11-17 13:18 GMT-04:00 Joe Watkins :
> Afternoon internals,
>
> This has been discussed before in various RFC threads, there does seem to
> be some consensus that 50%+1 votes could be harmful.
>
> To what degree, I am not sure.
>
> I raise for discussion the topic of abolishing 50%+1 votes, an
Afternoon Niklas,
I made an off-by-one error in an RFC.
Thanks for captioning my pain.
Cheers
Joe
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Niklas Keller wrote:
> 2016-11-17 18:18 GMT+01:00 Joe Watkins :
>
>> Afternoon internals,
>>
>> This has been discussed before in various RFC threads, there does
2016-11-17 19:22 GMT+01:00 Joe Watkins :
> Afternoon Kalle,
>
> We have to start with the assumption that everyone that votes, does so with
> good intentions.
Ofcourse, but I just don't think it is fair that someone who made an
RFC and never contributed anything else to the project, can have an
im
2016-11-17 18:18 GMT+01:00 Joe Watkins :
> Afternoon internals,
>
> This has been discussed before in various RFC threads, there does seem to
> be some consensus that 50%+1 votes could be harmful.
>
> To what degree, I am not sure.
>
> I raise for discussion the topic of abolishing 50%+1 votes, an
Afternoon Kalle,
We have to start with the assumption that everyone that votes, does so with
good intentions.
I'm sympathetic to the view that active contributors should somehow carry
more weight with their words, or vote. But, I shy away from actually saying
that we should only listen to those p
Afternoon Nikita,
My mistake, changing that ...
Cheers
Joe
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Joe Watkins
> wrote:
>
>> Afternoon internals,
>>
>> This has been discussed before in various RFC threads, there does seem to
>> be some consensu
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> Afternoon internals,
>
> This has been discussed before in various RFC threads, there does seem to
> be some consensus that 50%+1 votes could be harmful.
>
> To what degree, I am not sure.
>
> I raise for discussion the topic of abolishing 50%
Afternoon internals,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abolish-narrow-margins
Cheers
Joe
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Dennis Clarke
wrote:
> On 11/17/2016 12:18 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
>
>> Afternoon internals,
>>
>> This has been discussed before in various RFC threads, there does seem to
>> be
Hi Joe
2016-11-17 18:18 GMT+01:00 Joe Watkins :
> Afternoon internals,
>
> This has been discussed before in various RFC threads, there does seem to
> be some consensus that 50%+1 votes could be harmful.
I still stand by that we should only let active contributors to PHP
vote, while I understand
On 11/17/2016 12:18 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
Afternoon internals,
This has been discussed before in various RFC threads, there does seem to
be some consensus that 50%+1 votes could be harmful.
To what degree, I am not sure.
I raise for discussion the topic of abolishing 50%+1 votes, and requirin
Afternoon internals,
This has been discussed before in various RFC threads, there does seem to
be some consensus that 50%+1 votes could be harmful.
To what degree, I am not sure.
I raise for discussion the topic of abolishing 50%+1 votes, and requiring
all changes regardless of their nature to p
36 matches
Mail list logo
