Newsgroups: php.internals,php.webmaster
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71031 php.webmaster:18058
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.143 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <52CB0622.6010508@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 11:38:10 -0800
Organization: SugarCRM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hannes Magnusson <hannes.magnusson@gmail.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>
References: <CAF+90c9VeZ8Y1UMy1aQAoDjRr5nmx6stdqESiC1uV8wAk_e=1A@mail.gmail.com>	<CAEZPtU7ywc2vg3Dj2Jrqq7GdEDZKOUcew-vHR6yDLnTFqnqeGw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAPg3XxJ7KcaWE3j1g5GLtAuQuVFqaMdrzOzJOnvyPZJw-_d6gw@mail.gmail.com>	<52CAFCE2.8060608@sugarcrm.com> <CADNQb0XdRAbvqnYbZ2C3vRxyM=WjwLw=-_CbO2xyCg6NKj-6gg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADNQb0XdRAbvqnYbZ2C3vRxyM=WjwLw=-_CbO2xyCg6NKj-6gg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-WEBMASTER] Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC votes no longer visible
From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev)

Hi!

> 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.

I think we understand pretty well what the change was - the change was
that individual votes can no longer be seen while the vote is in
progress. Is this understanding incorrect?

> This also seems very true for people that vote in general, which made
> the patch look like a really good idea:

These are all very logical arguments, and even though I disagree with
them I see where they are coming from. My main objection, though, is
that these arguments should have been brought forward *before* the patch
was merged, not post factum. We all agreed that that's the right way to
do things, let's abide by it.

> - 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 vote
> - 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

While I see the point here, I think you are not giving enough credit to
people in the community. I've seen a number of votes, and people have
absolutely no problem dissenting or casting their vote against the
prevailing opinion, as far as I could see. But if somebody does feel
intimidated let's hear it and see how many people actually have this
issue, maybe my impression is wrong.

> The voting RFC says nothing about the individual vote needing to
> actually be public even after the results are in.

This is true, however we have always had open votes, so this is the
status quo. Which means changing it needs agreement, and not the silent
"facts on the ground" kind of one since it is obviously not unanimously
accepted right now.
-- 
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227