Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71030
Return-Path: <hannes.magnusson@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 4335 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2014 19:26:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 6 Jan 2014 19:26:34 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=hannes.magnusson@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=hannes.magnusson@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.52 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: hannes.magnusson@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.220.52 mail-pa0-f52.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.220.52] ([209.85.220.52:54266] helo=mail-pa0-f52.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 50/B8-62543-9630BC25 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 14:26:33 -0500
Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id ld10so19069525pab.11
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 11:26:29 -0800 (PST)
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=PKHLD2l4jnaN/LQxCfYuhdVjXDkDXyhTsAIGj3VcfpQ=;
        b=txAFW7VsQUEmo8fPbFOtsZwO5m0I2MY+HtP58Fyw1MAjCYWpwGIgyXFJRng/cLvj4X
         E4tc+pYfRKpx0hYtpkt+T/VpP20KLaoiujyZQaLYxlmsUu/2V2Y7Zr8cAjT9oieHmtTo
         HinlL4WUs1VqNAD4gk9zxP/jYWD85GEghRyk3aNftQEFdjGTL1w74KGBTYVlF3uvQzLA
         lSuxolifcydLQ3jj18O9N6KWDRccWqiiVQCsu3h66GbjOInLzVvrf7zqRZPAPGOqDqdw
         BK/ScvdJYi6d2Rh3fnaEuyK4ajbORTlqAGIvfx+OjMyMMSxcaYr+K/VSiIONtykpe8om
         +nMA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.143.231 with SMTP id sh7mr130871514pbb.7.1389036389824;
 Mon, 06 Jan 2014 11:26:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.183.4 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 11:26:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52CAFCE2.8060608@sugarcrm.com>
References: <CAF+90c9VeZ8Y1UMy1aQAoDjRr5nmx6stdqESiC1uV8wAk_e=1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7ywc2vg3Dj2Jrqq7GdEDZKOUcew-vHR6yDLnTFqnqeGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg3XxJ7KcaWE3j1g5GLtAuQuVFqaMdrzOzJOnvyPZJw-_d6gw@mail.gmail.com>
	<52CAFCE2.8060608@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 11:26:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CADNQb0XdRAbvqnYbZ2C3vRxyM=WjwLw=-_CbO2xyCg6NKj-6gg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: Peter Cowburn <salathe@php.net>, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, 
	Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	php-webmaster <php-webmaster@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-WEBMASTER] Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC votes no longer visible
From: hannes.magnusson@gmail.com (Hannes Magnusson)

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wro=
te:
> Hi!
>
>> I=E2=80=99d rather see discussion on the subject than an immediate rever=
t; not that
>> I=E2=80=99m against reverting in any way. Let=E2=80=99s make the changes=
, if we do decide
>> to make any, be beneficial.
>
> I don't think this is how it should work. This is a pretty big change in
> voting process, it should be discussed *first*, and only then merged, if
> it's agreeable. Going back to the old "first merge, then maybe discuss
> if enough people protest" is not a good development. It's not the PHP
> source code but the community environment now but it doesn't differ - we
> should still do it the right way. I don't see this change as anything
> urgent or necessary to be put in immediately, and there are obvious
> objections from many people - myself included, btw. So let's please
> first back off the controversial change and then discuss it.
>
>> It had been around for such a long time that I figure any complaints wou=
ld
>> have been raised and addressed between the initial PR [1] and now.  Funn=
y
>
> Nobody looked at this PR or knew it is going to be merged. That's why we
> have a process of announcing things and initiating discussion - because
> most people don't regularly review all pulls that are pending in all repo=
s.

There also seems to be confusion here as to what exactly the change
was, and people arguing one way or the other without actually
understanding it.

This also seems very true for people that vote in general, which made
the patch look like a really good idea:
- The author of the RFC can no longer bribe and "convince" individual
person to change his/hers vote
- Your vote is more meaningful now, as it could actually be the winning vot=
e
- First 5 votes one way? No point in voting the other way (or at all)
- Last minute twitter "lets all vote yes/no to change the vote around"
doesn't work
- The "I just wanna be in the winning/loosing team" is difficult

Note that all votes become public after the voting has been closed.
There is no secret here - except when the votes are being counted, the
results are "pending".

I personally think this could fix some of the flaws we have in the
voting RFC, and maybe even get more people to participate in the
voting.

The voting RFC says nothing about the individual vote needing to
actually be public even after the results are in.
It is also very unclear on who actually can vote, but thats a separate ting=
.

-Hannes