Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76156 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 93202 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2014 07:01:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 26 Jul 2014 07:01:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.214 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.147.176.214 mail4-2.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [217.147.176.214] ([217.147.176.214:44990] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id FF/20-22380-E2253D35 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 03:01:07 -0400 Received: (qmail 563 invoked by uid 89); 26 Jul 2014 07:00:50 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 510, pid: 558, t: 1.4555s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.8?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@81.138.11.136) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 26 Jul 2014 07:00:49 -0000 Message-ID: <53D35210.4060309@lsces.co.uk> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 08:00:32 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] On voting, including the next release name. From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 26/07/14 02:42, Bishop Bettini wrote: > So I'm all for open information. My point is about human factors. When the > results are listed alongside the argument, the results themselves *become > part of the argument*. That is the nature of the bandwagon effect. *The > brain treats the results as a data point.* While $personA might be able to > compartmentalize, $personB might not. To the extent we can help people stay > focused on the issue, we should, to preserve the essence of the vote. We have had this debate already and perhaps there should be a hidden vote on it, but since many of us simply do not have a vote, seeing how people who's opinions we respect voted is an important element! Even those who do vote made it clear that how people are voting DOES affect their decision on if they bother to vote. Alright getting more people voting may be important, but in many cases the vote is almost pointless as agreement has already been reached so there is no need to waste the time ... where things are split it was the fact that voters could not see the status that was complained about more. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk