Everything

php

Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » [VOTE] "Abstain" voting option for RFCs »

[VOTE] "Abstain" voting option for RFCs

php.internals

Tim Düsterhus

1 year ago

Hi

I just opened the vote for the "'Abstain' voting option for RFCs" policy
RFC:

RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_vote_abstain
Discussion: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
PR: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185

As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
15:00:00 UTC.

The vote already includes the “Abstain” option to dogfood the RFC and to
showcase how the voting widget will look like should the RFC be
accepted. Although it could be argued that selecting the “Abstain”
option would be a vote in favor of having such an option, it will be
considered an abstention. Please vote “Yes” if you are in favor of the
RFC :-)

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

Tim Düsterhus

1 year ago

Hi

On 8/17/25 16:41, Tim Düsterhus wrote:

> RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_vote_abstain
> Discussion: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
> PR: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185

Apparently my clipboard didn't work properly. The PR link should of
course be different from the discussion link. The correct one is:

https://github.com/php/policies/pull/20

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

Niklas Keller

1 year ago

On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 16:41 Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrote:

> As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
> 15:00:00 UTC.

Hi Tim,

Please also add the voting dates to the RFC itself.

Kind regards,
Niklas

Tim Düsterhus

1 year ago

Hi

Am 2025-08-18 07:14, schrieb Niklas Keller:

> Please also add the voting dates to the RFC itself.

They were already entered in the widget, but I've also just copied the
paragraph from my email into the text:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_vote_abstain?do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1755441537&rev2%5B1%5D=1755500397&difftype=sidebyside

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

Nicolas Grekas

1 year ago

Hi Tim

Le dim. 17 août 2025 à 16:43, Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> a écrit :

> Hi
>
> I just opened the vote for the "'Abstain' voting option for RFCs" policy
> RFC:
>
> RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_vote_abstain
> Discussion: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
> PR: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
>
> As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
> 15:00:00 UTC.
>
> The vote already includes the “Abstain” option to dogfood the RFC and to
> showcase how the voting widget will look like should the RFC be
> accepted. Although it could be argued that selecting the “Abstain”
> option would be a vote in favor of having such an option, it will be
> considered an abstention. Please vote “Yes” if you are in favor of the
> RFC :-)

Thanks for putting this RFC together.

I’ve been torn on the topic, but I ultimately decided to vote against it
because I’m not comfortable with the possible “tracking” aspect. At the
moment, it’s not possible to tell whether someone didn’t vote because they
were undecided or simply because they moved on to something else at the
time.

As you note in the RFC, selecting “abstain” should be interpreted the same
as “didn’t vote”. However, once explicit abstention becomes part of the
recorded stats, that changes the dynamic: we’d be tracking a choice that
was previously invisible. To me, that only makes sense in a representative
context, where voters hold a mandate. In our setting, I think it might
better to avoid opening that door.

Cheers,
Nicolas

Andreas Heigl

1 year ago

Hey all.

Am 19.08.25 um 12:25 schrieb Nicolas Grekas:

> Hi Tim
>
> Le dim. 17 août 2025 à 16:43, Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> a écrit :
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I just opened the vote for the "'Abstain' voting option for RFCs" policy
>> RFC:
>>
>> RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_vote_abstain
>> Discussion: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
>> PR: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
>>
>> As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
>> 15:00:00 UTC.
>>
>> The vote already includes the “Abstain” option to dogfood the RFC and to
>> showcase how the voting widget will look like should the RFC be
>> accepted. Although it could be argued that selecting the “Abstain”
>> option would be a vote in favor of having such an option, it will be
>> considered an abstention. Please vote “Yes” if you are in favor of the
>> RFC :-)
>

I also voted "no" as for me there is no added value in the
Abstain-option from a voting point of view.

And as the RFC does not mention any possible future
additions/modifications regarding quorum I do not see a reason to change
the current voting process just to make it clear that someone didn't
want to vote opposed to someone forgot to vote.

Cheers

Andreas

PS: I do hope that we at one point get to introduce quorum! And then I
will definitely support it!

--
,,,
(o o)
+---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+
| Andreas Heigl                                                       |
| mailto:andreas@heigl.org                  N 50°22'59.5" E 08°23'58" |
| https://andreas.heigl.org                                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| https://hei.gl/appointmentwithandreas                               |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| GPG-Key: https://hei.gl/keyandreasheiglorg                          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

Tim Düsterhus

1 year ago

Hi

Am 2025-08-19 14:06, schrieb Andreas Heigl:

> And as the RFC does not mention any possible future
> additions/modifications regarding quorum

The RFC literally mentions “Quorum” as a “possible future modification”
by listing “Introducing a quorum” in the “Future Scope” section. So I
don't quite follow.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

Andreas Heigl

1 year ago

Hi all

Am 19.08.25 um 14:47 schrieb Tim Düsterhus:

> Hi
>
> Am 2025-08-19 14:06, schrieb Andreas Heigl:
>> And as the RFC does not mention any possible future additions/
>> modifications regarding quorum
>
> The RFC literally mentions “Quorum” as a “possible future modification”
> by listing “Introducing a quorum” in the “Future Scope” section. So I
> don't quite follow.

I explicitly looked for that and seem to indeed have overlooked it!

Thank you, Tim!

In that case I stand corrected and - as already mentioned - changed my vote!

Regards

Andreas

--
,,,
(o o)
+---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+
| Andreas Heigl                                                       |
| mailto:andreas@heigl.org                  N 50°22'59.5" E 08°23'58" |
| https://andreas.heigl.org                                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| https://hei.gl/appointmentwithandreas                               |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| GPG-Key: https://hei.gl/keyandreasheiglorg                          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

Jakub Zelenka

1 year ago

On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 4:42 PM Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I just opened the vote for the "'Abstain' voting option for RFCs" policy
> RFC:
>
> RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_vote_abstain
> Discussion: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
> PR: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
>
> As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
> 15:00:00 UTC.
>
> The vote already includes the “Abstain” option to dogfood the RFC and to
> showcase how the voting widget will look like should the RFC be
> accepted. Although it could be argued that selecting the “Abstain”
> option would be a vote in favor of having such an option, it will be
> considered an abstention. Please vote “Yes” if you are in favor of the
> RFC :-)
>
>

I don't have issue with this. The only minor cosmetic thing is that it
makes the table wider so it will more often not fit to the mobile screen
and will need horizontal scroll. I think the solution for that could be to
remove that user name in brackets that just repeats the linked name - e.g
bukka (bukka). That would be nice to do as part of the "implementation" for
this... :)

Regards

Jakub

Paul Dragoonis

1 year ago

On Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 2:18 PM Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 4:42 PM Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I just opened the vote for the "'Abstain' voting option for RFCs" policy
>> RFC:
>>
>> RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_vote_abstain
>> Discussion: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
>> PR: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
>>
>> As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
>> 15:00:00 UTC.
>>
>> The vote already includes the “Abstain” option to dogfood the RFC and to
>> showcase how the voting widget will look like should the RFC be
>> accepted. Although it could be argued that selecting the “Abstain”
>> option would be a vote in favor of having such an option, it will be
>> considered an abstention. Please vote “Yes” if you are in favor of the
>> RFC :-)
>>
>>
> I don't have issue with this. The only minor cosmetic thing is that it
> makes the table wider so it will more often not fit to the mobile screen
> and will need horizontal scroll. I think the solution for that could be to
> remove that user name in brackets that just repeats the linked name - e.g
> bukka (bukka). That would be nice to do as part of the "implementation" for
> this... :)
>

Good call about the table. I've been thinking of this for a while now.

Tim Düsterhus

1 year ago

Hi

Am 2025-08-19 15:14, schrieb Jakub Zelenka:

> bukka (bukka). That would be nice to do as part of the "implementation"
> for
> this... :)

I've sent a PR: https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/33

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

Tim Düsterhus

1 year ago

Hi

Am 2025-08-19 15:38, schrieb Tim Düsterhus:

>> bukka (bukka). That would be nice to do as part of the
>> "implementation" for
>> this... :)
>
> I've sent a PR: https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/33

Changes are live.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

Derick Rethans

1 year ago

On 19 August 2025 14:14:07 BST, Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net> wrote:

>On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 4:42 PM Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I just opened the vote for the "'Abstain' voting option for RFCs" policy
>> RFC:
>>
>> RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_vote_abstain
>> Discussion: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
>> PR: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
>>
>> As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
>> 15:00:00 UTC.
>>
>> The vote already includes the “Abstain” option to dogfood the RFC and to
>> showcase how the voting widget will look like should the RFC be
>> accepted. Although it could be argued that selecting the “Abstain”
>> option would be a vote in favor of having such an option, it will be
>> considered an abstention. Please vote “Yes” if you are in favor of the
>> RFC :-)
>>
>>
>I don't have issue with this. The only minor cosmetic thing is that it
>makes the table wider so it will more often not fit to the mobile screen
>and will need horizontal scroll. I think the solution for that could be to
>remove that user name in brackets that just repeats the linked name - e.g
>bukka (bukka). That would be nice to do as part of the "implementation" for
>this... :)
>
>Regards
>
>Jakub

It's the long commit hash in the table that makes it wide in this case.

But I can have a look at getting rid of the duplication (regardless of whether the RFC passes)

cheers
Derick

Tim Düsterhus

1 year ago

Hi

On 8/17/25 16:41, Tim Düsterhus wrote:

> RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rfc_vote_abstain
> Discussion: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
> PR: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128185
>
> As with every RFC, a 2/3 majority is required. Voting ends 2025-08-31 at
> 15:00:00 UTC.

The RFC was accepted with 27 (Yes) to 7 (No) votes and 6 abstentions (79%).

I've asked for the PR to be merged and will proceed with updating the
template and the RFCs that are currently under discussion to include the
“Abstain” option.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus