Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84840 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 11553 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2015 15:54:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Mar 2015 15:54:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ml@anderiasch.de; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ml@anderiasch.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain anderiasch.de designates 81.169.138.148 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ml@anderiasch.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 81.169.138.148 ares.art-core.org Received: from [81.169.138.148] ([81.169.138.148:42110] helo=ares.art-core.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 99/4E-29489-E1BA5055 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:54:07 -0500 Received: from [192.168.178.20] (p50896177.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.97.119]) by ares.art-core.org (mail.art-core.org) with ESMTPSA id 2287B2EE010; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:54:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5505AB1A.5030807@anderiasch.de> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:54:02 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?UMOhZHJhaWMgQnJhZHk=?= , Michael Wallner CC: Anthony Ferrara , "internals@lists.php.net" References: <07EB6CE3-B002-42C8-9D5B-C53602609B0A@php.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities From: ml@anderiasch.de (Florian Anderiasch) On 15.03.2015 16:44, Pádraic Brady wrote: > > I don't think it's ridiculous in a separate thread around discussing > voting practices. Anthony specifically notes that he is not calling > them bad, or calling for them to be ignored in the context of the > current RFCs. Merely noting that their existence has skewed this > particular vote, as a recent ongoing example, which it has. I have to > make an admission here, I cast a vote. I'm not on Anthony's list > because I have used it previously a couple of times. I'm honestly a > bit hesitant to believe I should have it, so I've deliberately > moderated my voting. However, watching those with no prior voting > history/or minimal history vote No compelled me to use it if only to > offset one more arguably irregular vote by casting an opposing > arguably irregular vote. Maybe many people don't see it that way, but for example for me there's hardly been any RFC that would shape the *spirit* of the language as much as this RFC. So I think that's a perfectly valid reason to - for the first time ever - pitch in with your vote, even if it's not the case for me personally. > The entire idea that such arguably irregular votes are spoiling RFC > votes, i.e. not reflective of what the majority would consider votes > by those who truly earned it, has been brought up by both sides to > RFCs inside and outside of this list. I don't think it's possible to create a system that a) represents the majority of PHP users b) represents the most active contributors to internals c) can't be gamed in any way. We have this system now and until a RFC comes along to change voting rights or revert to the old "do what you want until someone calls you out on it" there's hardly some constructive discussion about it in all the threads where it came up. Greetings, Florian