Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84829
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.47 as permitted sender)
Sender: Michael Wallner <mike.php.net@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nEikYZNmaAnRy9hkRBnDDP=Ey43-nZbJGMHmQ_dAC_vgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 15:29:28 +0100
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <07EB6CE3-B002-42C8-9D5B-C53602609B0A@php.net>
References: <CAAyV7nEikYZNmaAnRy9hkRBnDDP=Ey43-nZbJGMHmQ_dAC_vgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities
From: mike@php.net (Michael Wallner)


> On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> All,
>=20
> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
> now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
> decided to pull some stats.
>=20
> The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up:
>=20
> dom - no
> eliw - no
> kguest - yes
> kk - no
> nohn - no
> oliver - yes
> richsage - yes
> sammywg - no
> spriebsch - no
> srain - no
> theseer - no
> zimt - no
>=20
> Some of these names I recognize from list (sammywg and eliw), but many =
I do not.
>=20
> The interesting thing happens when you look at the voting direction.
>=20
> Currently, the RFC is slightly losing 70:37 (65.4%).
>=20
> If we look at percentages, 4.2% of yes voters have never voted in a
> prior RFC. But a whopping 24.3% of no voters have never voted before.
>=20
> If we adjust the votes to remove these "never voted" accounts, it
> stands at 67:28. Which is 70.5%. Which is basically where the vote was
> prior to the competing RFC opening.
>=20
> I'm not saying that all of these are bad votes. Nor that they
> shouldn't be counted. I think it does raise a significant question
> around the voting practices.
>=20
> Something that I think we need to discuss as a group.
>=20
> So consider that discussion open.

Jeez, that is becoming ridiculous. So, if you=E2=80=99re that good in =
counting, how many did not vote before STHv0.3?=