On 17/11/2016 18:23, Joe Watkins wrote:
The sum of their parts amounts to a substantial change in the way we
conduct development here.
[...]
Let us consider each issue on it's own, make good decisions on each
issue, with clear majorities.
You seem to take the same basis as me, and reach the o
On 11/18/2016 06:55 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
2016-11-19 3:39 GMT+01:00 Alice Wonder :
Is it required to be a member of this list to vote? That too would be a good
idea if it isn't required, hopefully translators are accurate enough to
understand arguments here pro and con when not in a la
2016-11-19 3:39 GMT+01:00 Alice Wonder :
> Is it required to be a member of this list to vote? That too would be a good
> idea if it isn't required, hopefully translators are accurate enough to
> understand arguments here pro and con when not in a language the voter has
> excellent grasp of.
Only
On 11/18/2016 06:26 PM, Marcio Almada wrote:
Hi Yasuo,
In my opinion, this belongs to another RFC. Please, propose an optional way
for voters to input a small paragraph disclosing a justification upon
voting. We've seen many voices on this mailing list supporting this
proposal, perhaps it's ti
2016-11-18 22:10 GMT-04:00 Yasuo Ohgaki :
> Hi Joe,
>
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Joe Watkins
> wrote:
> > I think most people would be happy to provide a reason, if you have it
> > listed.
> > It should be listed, because it should have been brought up during
> > discussion.
> >
> > Obvi
Hi Joe,
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> I think most people would be happy to provide a reason, if you have it
> listed.
> It should be listed, because it should have been brought up during
> discussion.
>
> Obviously we don't live in an ideal world, and you may get lots of
Afternoon Yasuo,
Maybe, it is our fault - the person who created the RFC.
In an ideal world, during discussion you should collect legitimate
unresolved objections, and have those as "no" options on the vote.
If when it came to vote time, the options were:
Yes
No because X
No because Y
No becaus
On 18.11.2016 at 12:05, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abolish-narrow-margins
>
> Requiring 2/3 majority is reasonable.
>
> I'll vote yes for this if people who are not in favor disclose the
> reason why. Just voting "no"
Hi Joe,
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abolish-narrow-margins
Requiring 2/3 majority is reasonable.
I'll vote yes for this if people who are not in favor disclose the
reason why. Just voting "no" for a RFC is not constructive. Improving
a RFC is
Morning Micheal,
In general, we don't have RFC's that have many choices, nor do we for this
RFC.
We are only choosing between requiring 2/3's all the time, and not
requiring 2/3 all the time.
While it has been suggested that we raise the bar higher than our current
standards raise it, we won't b
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Adam Baratz wrote:
>
>
> I agree with this. We could end up with a different system if we look at
> this holistically. Also, I'm not sure what the urgency in making this
> change is. I'd rather be thoughtful about a substantive change like this.
>
> It might help
>
> The minimum number of votes is going to be the subject of another RFC,
>> let's leave that aside for now.
>>
>
> I'm not sure splitting this into lots of micro-decisions is wise: why not
> discuss a general reform of the voting system, and have a single RFC which
> can then document the agreed
Hi,
Michael Morris wrote:
I'm putting this forward because I worry the group might paint themselves
into a corner by requiring all issues require a super majority, because
that's going to fall apart when there are three or more possibilities. The
methods can be combined, using ranked choice to
The study of voting systems is a hobby of mine and I've encoding vote
gathering algorithms implementing them before, so this gives me a bit of
insight into the discussion at hand that I would like to share. The goal
of any voting system is to reach a consensus, and while majority rule
(regardless
Hi Joe,
Joe Watkins wrote:
Afternoon Andrea,
Intention was to just update the voting page, and any other related docs
that might exist (maybe rfc template).
Okay, that's fine. Make sure to mention on the voting RFC that it was
amended, then. :)
--
Andrea Faulds
https://ajf.me/
--
PHP Int
Afternoon Andrea,
Intention was to just update the voting page, and any other related docs
that might exist (maybe rfc template).
Cheers
Joe
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Rowan,
>
> Rowan Collins wrote:
>
>> On 17/11/2016 18:03, Joe Watkins wrote:
>>
>>> Afternoon
Hi Rowan,
Rowan Collins wrote:
On 17/11/2016 18:03, Joe Watkins wrote:
Afternoon Chrisoph,
The minimum number of votes is going to be the subject of another RFC,
let's leave that aside for now.
I'm not sure splitting this into lots of micro-decisions is wise: why
not discuss a general reform
Afternoon Rowan,
The sum of their parts amounts to a substantial change in the way we
conduct development here.
If we are going to make changes, we should not draw out the process, but
nor should we have too much haste in making these decisions.
Having a one week discussion period is some kind o
On 17/11/2016 18:03, Joe Watkins wrote:
Afternoon Chrisoph,
The minimum number of votes is going to be the subject of another RFC,
let's leave that aside for now.
I'm not sure splitting this into lots of micro-decisions is wise: why
not discuss a general reform of the voting system, and have
Afternoon Chrisoph,
The minimum number of votes is going to be the subject of another RFC,
let's leave that aside for now.
I've written many RFC's that change the language, the majority have failed.
Setting the bar high is the aim, and the bar feels high at 2/3+1, but
crucially, not higher than
On 17.11.2016 at 18:18, 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 vote
Afternoon internals,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abolish-narrow-margins
Cheers
Joe
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:18 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
22 matches
Mail list logo
