On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 16:20, G. P. B. <george.bany...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 16:01, Guilliam Xavier <guilliam.xav...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 4:38 PM Levi Morrison < >> levi.morri...@datadoghq.com> >> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:13 AM Guilliam Xavier >> > <guilliam.xav...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 3:06 PM Aaron Piotrowski <aa...@trowski.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > On Mar 19, 2021, at 5:47 PM, Levi Morrison < >> > levi.morri...@datadoghq.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:54 PM Niklas Keller <m...@kelunik.com >> > <mailto:m...@kelunik.com>> wrote: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Hey Levi, >> > >> >> >> > >> >>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 12:40 PM Aaron Piotrowski < >> aa...@trowski.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> Greetings everyone! >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> The vote has started on the fiber RFC: >> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/fibers <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/fibers> >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> Voting will run through March 22nd. >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> Cheers, >> > >> >>>> Aaron Piotrowski >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> This is selfish, but I would like to kindly request lengthening >> the >> > >> >>> voting window to allow me more time to play with it. I feel like >> I >> > >> >>> can't vote "yes" on something like this without more experience >> with >> > >> >>> it (which is why I currently have voted "no"). I hope others >> would >> > >> >>> play with it more as well if we had more time. Any objections? >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> How much time do you think you need? >> > >> > >> > >> > Another week seems reasonable; enough time to evaluate it more >> > >> > thoroughly but not delay things seriously. >> > >> >> > >> This is fine with me. Let's extend voting for about another week, >> > ending on 3/28 at about 11 PM EDT. >> > > >> > > >> > > I'm afraid you can't: from https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting#voting >> > > >> > > > A valid voting period must be declared when voting is started and >> must >> > not be changed during the vote. >> > > >> > > (Not that I care personally, but you would take the risk of the vote >> > being invalidated...) >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Guilliam Xavier >> > >> > We should dig through the history, because the line before that is in >> > conflict: >> > >> > > Votes should be open for two weeks at minimum, at the authors >> discretion >> > this may be extended, for example during holiday periods. >> > > A valid voting period must be declared when voting is started and must >> > not be changed during the vote. >> > >> >> The history is <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abolish-short-votes>, but I >> don't >> think it conflicts: to my understanding, what "may be extended" is the >> chosen duration vs the minimum duration (e.g. the author can chose to open >> a vote for an "extended" 4-weeks period instead of 2-weeks), and that >> choice must be set before starting. >> >> Arguably the wording is maybe not the clearest, but there's also this >> from < >> https://externals.io/message/104860>: >> >> >> +1, but it should probably be possible to extend the voting period once >> started, but not shorten it. This allows for extension during holidays in >> case the author didn't think about that when starting the vote. >> > >> > Allowing the extension of voting leaves us open to someone extending the >> voting period simply because they don't feel like they have the result >> they >> wanted. >> >> Anyway I just wanted to warn (it would be a shame to see the vote result >> being debated after an extra week), but that may be OK to the "deciders". >> >> Regards, >> >> -- >> Guilliam Xavier >> > > Apologies for the empty email, pressed enter twice too fast for my client... The thing is that by my recollections votes have already been extended. Mostly when there has been issues with the mailing list, or some outside event. Moreso, I don't think extending a vote will in most cases result in the outcome they want (acceptance), but I might be mistaken. In this case however it is a bit meaningless as it's already passing. So I think if there needs to be a discussion about clarifying the voting RFC document it should be made in a different thread. Best regards, George P. Banyard
