Re: Re: Anonymous voting on wiki

Le 12/01/2016 20:29, Ferenc Kovacs a écrit :

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:00 PM, François Laupretre <francois@php.net> wrote:

Le 12/01/2016 15:52, Dan Ackroyd a écrit :

François Laupretre wrote: I would like the process to be amended to disable posting

opinions/discussions about an RFC while the vote is open, considering there was enough time for that during the discussion phase.

This is not a good idea. That won't actually make people discuss a proposal during the discussions phase. Instead people will be voting with the conversation about the proposal not being complete. And then we'll be stuck with bad decisions.

Well, it was just a suggestion. What I want to avoid is people jumping in when vote starts and asking for fundamental changes. Each time it happened to me, I had to stop the vote, modify the RFC, and restart the whole process. This also caused a pair of RFC not to be included in PHP 7. Some of them are even abandoned because I am quite tired of such behaviors. I'm OK with the discussion *going on* during the vote but I'm looking for a solution to a real problem.

yeah, that(discussion only seems to happen after introducing the voting phase) is frustrating for the rfc author, but that is the last phase where complaints can be voiced and most people have a tendency to defer stuff until the last minute, that sucks, but not specific to our project, and don't know what can we do about it. some of those last minute feedback are actually useful, so if we are looking for the best solution it i better to have those concerns to be raised and heard even if late than ignored and voted on a flawed proposal. I think one possible countermeasure can be to start the voting as soon as the discussion dies down (while still keeping the minimal discussion period) instead of waiting for more feedback arbitrarly and getting frustrated that it only comes after one puts the rfc up for votes.

What do you think of the opposite solution : merge the discussion and voting phases, e.g. allow voting as soon as discussion starts ? This discussion/vote phase would be required to last at least 1 month. People could either vote early and, maybe, change their vote if the discussion makes them think otherwise, or wait for others' arguments. The big difference would be that the RFC could be amended during this discussion/voting phase. It could be a way to avoid having to restart the whole process from the beginning. Regards François