Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59992 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 66528 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2012 08:29:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Apr 2012 08:29:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=theanomaly.is@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=theanomaly.is@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: theanomaly.is@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.214.170 mail-ob0-f170.google.com Received: from [209.85.214.170] ([209.85.214.170:46892] helo=mail-ob0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C7/30-05733-F78DB8F4 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 04:29:51 -0400 Received: by obbta17 with SMTP id ta17so6402351obb.29 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 01:29:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=S/Y94flc4L2B8Wjsl/AZPZCBM5tDABGA2iRgG7M+lTE=; b=DArd9wZq7QDUYQcxzc5c8p+zmfL/THOBScAzCJOFFe0DQyORJbklo6L2liwg6SGKUV A466pl9YoJYx5YAE9CV9nAzHqJBhVtwJiDiWF6vaefXgtwyMFIxIC+ZSfW7dF//+aEPC 8Il08ARd+bPz8y+0YVdN7o+fSgw/s+klL2PoERWJcCK4LKCAWe3z9Z8PtFJLM/l6Mg0Y i+pH11pVgw8Je2caHWUmHiCaZd02riSeQsoEF+Bvt74lieMr57JTzeVZRKDj8V3ETZz8 H+08qyvzOSBIlst0dO8TbXqnwOjKW69Tzh3aVwUnUSWABTy2AXbCotwR4TOjH0AFHGOj abEw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.74.4 with SMTP id p4mr14671985obv.79.1334564988735; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 01:29:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.14.225 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 01:29:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 04:29:48 -0400 Message-ID: To: Ferenc Kovacs Cc: PHP Internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] voting without vcs accounts From: theanomaly.is@gmail.com (Sherif Ramadan) On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > Hi, > > I sent an email last year about this issue, but it got sidetracked (partl= y > it was my fault): > http://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg54267.html > So this time, I would like focusing only on the following: > > =A0 1. What are the requirements for getting voting rights in the wiki > =A0 without having a vcs/master account? > =A0 =A0 =A0- The voting RFC states: > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 - Representatives from the PHP community, that will be ch= osen by > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 those with php.net SVN accounts > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0- Lead developers of PHP based projects (framework= s, cms, > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0tools, etc.) > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0- regular participant of internals discussions > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2. What are the necessary steps from a volunteer to reque= st voting > =A0 karma? > =A0 3. How do we handle the applicants? Who will "judge" the applications= ? > =A0 4. How can we see the list of the people having voting karma? Current= ly > =A0 only the wiki admins can see who are the people with the voting group > =A0 membership. > > > The wiki is already prepared to support voting without vcs account: there > is a voting group, anybody having membership in that group are able to vo= te > ( > http://git.php.net/?p=3Dweb/wiki.git;a=3Dcommit;h=3De3b97f03548fab661b5bc= 2dd66420db1024b1f39 > ). > > My personal opinion would be that we have an application form like we hav= e > for the vcs account request, which will send an email to the mailing list= , > we can discuss here whether we support/approve the applicant or not, and > somebody with proper karma can approve/decline the application, which wou= ld > also trigger an email to the mailing list. > > -- > Ferenc Kov=E1cs > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu I'm completely in favor of a formal process since it would mean there can be less biased and favor applied to the selection and this can eliminate the potential for people being included to vote for or against something for the purpose of overtaking the vote. I think PHP is already a very inclusive environment. Given that php.net now has edit.php.net and has streamlined the process of submitting bug reports both for documentation and language bugs I think the inclusion into the voting process as a formal outline and drafted step-by-step process will further help put PHP in a position of higher power among its neighboring communities. I propose three primary suggestions for helping formulate such a process: 1) The person requesting voting privileges in the RFC voting process should have either (a) contributed to the PHP community in a constructive and contemporary manner such as submitting helpful bug reports for docs or language bugs (did not contribute noise or repeat bugs or lack of reproducible test cases in the recent past), (b) participates in submitting patches to the PHP source repository, (c) participates in actively in php.net or wiki.php.net without a known history of disruptions among the community. 2) The person requesting voting privileges should only be allowed to make the request once every so often (such as on a monthly or quarterly, or even annual basis, for example). This will help avoid constant requests that just get turned down and avoid a load on applicants. Also, the applicant should be reviewed by their peers as well as the SVN account holders to avoid prejudice. If this is not possible it should at least be set in some fashion what guidelines/prerequisites would appeal to the potential applicant so that people can have a set expectation of what to look for before approaching such privileges. 3) Anyone who is not included in the voting process should not be turned down or discouraged from trying again (after an allotted waiting period) so as to keep the voting process lean and fair. However, I think it may also be fair to request that those re-sending a request to gain voting privileges should be required to produce some supporting evidence for their active and positive roles in their community, such as previous patches, bug report ids, mailing list archives discussions demonstrating some constructive feedback, logs, etc... I'm sure more can be made of this list in time. I just thought to start the discussion off with some constructive suggestions. :)