Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76112 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 74389 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2014 11:40:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Jul 2014 11:40:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@beccati.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@beccati.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain beccati.com designates 176.9.114.167 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@beccati.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 176.9.114.167 spritz.beccati.com Received: from [176.9.114.167] ([176.9.114.167:44531] helo=mail.beccati.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id D1/00-08559-C1242D35 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:40:13 -0400 Received: (qmail 7934 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2014 11:33:33 -0000 Received: from home.beccati.com (HELO ?192.168.1.202?) (88.149.176.119) by mail.beccati.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 2014 11:33:33 -0000 Message-ID: <53D2407F.5060900@beccati.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:33:19 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bishop@php.net, PHP internals References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] On voting, including the next release name. From: php@beccati.com (Matteo Beccati) On 25/07/2014 13:17, Bishop Bettini wrote: > I propose that a poll's results tabulation be hidden until after the poll > closes to avoid this Bandwagon Effect > . Otherwise, how do we know > the vote reflects just the presented arguments instead of the arguments > *and* the weight of popularity? I might be wrong, but I think someone tried, but was asked to revert the change soon after. I would also expect that people who have voting rights on the wiki are mature enough to vote based on their own knowledge and experience, and not only because someone else voted a certain way (or didn't). Speaking for myself if I don't have an opinion on some RFCs, I just avoid voting. About this specific RFC, are you trying to suggest that 7 is leading (49 vs 21 atm) because of the bandwagon effect and we should restart the vote? /me facepalm ;) Cheers -- Matteo Beccati Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/