Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:62525
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain nebm.ist.utl.pt from 193.136.128.21 cause and error)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: "Andrew Faulds" <ajf@ajf.me>, "Stas Malyshev" <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: "Yahav Gindi Bar" <g.b.yahav@gmail.com>, Laruence <laruence@php.net>, "PHP
 Internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <jnfx3k0jdlmpjlr0bb8rty3e.1346004170001@email.android.com>
 <503A68F9.9050405@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:41:26 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: =?utf-8?Q?N=C3=BAcleo_de_Eng=2E_Biom=C3=A9di?=
 =?utf-8?Q?ca_do_I=2ES=2ET=2E?=
Message-ID: <op.wjnvjcqridpuyk@damnation.nl.lo.geleia.net>
In-Reply-To: <503A68F9.9050405@sugarcrm.com>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.01 (Linux)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE]Call for voting: support use list in foreach
From: glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt ("Gustavo Lopes")

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:20:41 +0200, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>  
wrote:

> Putting aside the fact that democracy has very little to do with what
> we're trying to do here (we're not government, we're opensource
> project), that's how democracy *doesn't work*. As you noticed, it is
> "too bad", and it is exactly the problem we're having - without
> participation, votes are decided by a random sample of whoever bothered
> to appear, often on a single vote.
> This is not a way to build consensus.  It is a very unhealthy state of
> things, and it only contributes to the image of PHP as a project having
> no direction, no governance and basically existing in a state of
> brownian motion. I thought we were trying to shed this image.

I honestly don't see what the problem is. If the sample is indeed random,  
there's no bias as to what the voters as whole would do, tough for close  
votes or for votes where very few people vote the result could differ.

But most importantly, I would prefer that the people voting actually  
thought hard about the proposal. And it's more likely (I think) that  
people who invested time in that process and in the discussion actually  
voted. So this way we get more knowledgeable voters on average than if,  
say, 90% of the people voted (because a large part of the voting  
population doesn't care about many of the proposals).

In fact, I think that in this model, we still get a lot of people that  
vote without a clue; a model with an elected committee could make more  
sense.

-- 
Gustavo Lopes