> On Oct 8, 2019, at 4:29 PM, Lynn <kja...@gmail.com> wrote: > My middle ground is a vote, regardless of outcome.
If a vote is the middle ground then why the need to participate in any discussion? Also, how is a vote a middle ground? A vote ensures that one sides wins and the other side looses. IOW, a zero-sum game. Why does it not make better sense to actively look for ways to optimize outcomes so that the most people can win? For example... > This RFC is pretty simple, a deprecation + removal in a later patch, there's > not much to compromise on the implementation. A compromise might be "NO agreement to remove in a later patch." Why does it not make sense to offer that up as a consolation to the one asking for deprecation? If they accepted and changed the RFC, then more people could get a "win." > If people think a deprecation should not be done or if it's not worth it, a > vote is the way to show that opinion. > If there are enough reasons to not deprecate them, the voting process will > show this and the RFC will be rejected. I have noticed on this list much discussion of the "minority vs. the majority." But that is a red-herring. There are a small number of people who have a vote (~200?) whereas there are over 5 million PHP developers and even more PHP stakeholders who have no vote. In other words, when internals@ votes unanimously on an RFC they still only represent ~0.004% of PHP stakeholders. Basically an aristocracy. So while a vote is a way to share an opinion, it is not representative of the opinions of those it may affect. It is a shame that the PHP voting process has no objective way to incorporate userland concerns except when some act as their proxy. Which is not the same as userland having explicit representatives with a vote. > PS. We need a CoC. 100% agree. -Mike P.S. I also think PHP needs an agreed statement of principles (Mission, Vision and Values.) With said statement RFCs could be evaluated to determine if they align with PHP's previously-agreed principles. Such a statement could be revised from time to time, but having one would resolve a lot of contentious debates before they happen.
