On 1/13/16 11:26 AM, Rouven Weßling wrote:
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
That is essentially what IRV allows: First choice is A, but if A doesn't
pass my next choice is B, and if that doesn't pass my next choice is C.
At this point, I'm of the mind that any non-binary vote should use IRV.
IRV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
--
--Larry Garfield
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
