> On 13 Jan 2016, at 16:23, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think we can avoid some confusion, we could have had a three way > vote here (keep the current, expand #1, expand #2) but then people would > argue that the tho expand options should win in sum or one of those > separately. We could have delayed the second vote after the first one, but > then it could be argued that somebody would have voted differently if they > knew the options for the second vote (or even the progress of the votes) > beforehand. Or Zeev could have picked one of the two dates, and seeing the > results it is entirely possible that the vote would have failed regardless > of the date picked (assuming that the No voters would have voted no > anyways, and some of the yes voters would have voted no because of their > disagreement with the proposed date) which seems to be a bad outcome seeing > how the yes-no vote went to 42:2. > So I don't think we had a objectively better alternative or how could > always have the best outcome with a simple vote of two options.
I don’t have voting rights but I don’t think there is a problem with multiple votes in one RFC, even if they are chained (b only matters if a passes). What doesn't make sense is for the voting right to be restricted based on how one voted (may only vote in b if voted for a with option X). Of course most people would make the most restrictive choice in the second vote if they were against the whole RFC, but that would make it an effective reflection on how everyone feel. Best regards Rouven -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
