Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:62532 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 63145 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2012 20:27:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 26 Aug 2012 20:27:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.143 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.143 smtp143.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.143] ([67.192.241.143:35936] helo=smtp143.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 49/2C-00843-4B68A305 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 16:27:32 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp14.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A71AA2980D5; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 16:27:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp14.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id B204A29A66B; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 16:20:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <503A84F3.4080808@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 13:20:03 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gustavo Lopes CC: Andrew Faulds , Yahav Gindi Bar , Laruence , PHP Internals References: <503A68F9.9050405@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE]Call for voting: support use list in foreach From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > 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. The problem is that this is not consensus, this is apathy and disfunction. If out of 100 or 1000 or whatever we have project participants we can barely find a dozen that want to support a particular change - can we really say this change has the support of the developer community? > But most importantly, I would prefer that the people voting actually > thought hard about the proposal. And it's more likely (I think) that I'd prefer that too. That's another problem with votes which I did talk about in the past too. However, right now we do not have any guarantee that those 10 people that voted are those that thought hard about the proposal, and not just saw it first time yesterday and thought "neat, let's do it, I'll spend as much time on it as it takes to click 'yes' button". I want to emphasize here I don't mean anybody in particular that would do that (I hope nobody does), I am just saying we do not have any way of knowing that, so if you're concerned about that current situation is not ideal. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227