Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84855
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain Blankerts.de from 188.94.27.5 cause and error)
Message-ID: <1426441678.11329.29.camel@Blankerts.de>
To: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 18:47:58 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nEikYZNmaAnRy9hkRBnDDP=Ey43-nZbJGMHmQ_dAC_vgw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<CAAyV7nEikYZNmaAnRy9hkRBnDDP=Ey43-nZbJGMHmQ_dAC_vgw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="=-O04qgUTsy7+ytQz72Aed"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Voting irregularities
From: Arne@Blankerts.de (Arne Blankerts)

--=-O04qgUTsy7+ytQz72Aed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,

since my handle was included in the list compiled by Anthony, I figured
I'd reply to internals list as well.=20

On So, 2015-03-15 at 10:19 -0400, Anthony Ferrara wrote:

> 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.

You may not recognize my account but I sure hope you recall speaking to
me in person before. You even attended one of my talks at Confoo last
year..

>  So I
> decided to pull some stats.
>=20
> The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up:

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I indeed didn't actively vote
before. I honestly though don't recall if me voting on this RFC was my
first vote or not. I also voted on other RFCs though.

> 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.

Since sounds awfully like 2nd class voting. And, would you ask for the
same if the situation would be reversed?

> I'm not saying that all of these are bad votes. Nor that they
> shouldn't be counted.=20

Why would you calculate the "alternative" result then?

> I think it does raise a significant question
> around the voting practices.
>=20
> Something that I think we need to discuss as a group.

Again, I can't speak for others but only myself. I decided to vote on
this RFC as well as some others since I believe my experience and
expertise might qualify. I didn't (and don't) vote on anything where I
feel I don't fully oversee the consequences or can judge the impact.

And because I think the RFCs I voted on are important.

Quite often before, I discussed things with others - for instance with
Sebastian Bergmann -, who then posted the results of our thoughts on
internals or talked to others on IRC to get more feedback. Last that
happened with the idea of providing the "throwable" interface as an
addition to the engine exceptions and in favor of the "base exception"
class.

Either way, I mostly only passively read on internals. I prefer talking
to people in person, or if there is no timely alternative on chat.=20

For what it's worth: I do have a php.net account since 2001, mostly
working on the German translation of the docs. If that and my general
"visibility" in the community entitles me to add my vote here is
something others have to judge. I honestly can't say.=20

But having my vote ignored (or at least considered questionable) because
it tends to sway the RFC results "in the wrong direction" feels really
odd.


Regards,
   Arne

--=20
Those who do not understand Unix=20
      are condemned to reinvent it, poorly (Henry Spencer,1987)


--=-O04qgUTsy7+ytQz72Aed
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQIcBAABAgAGBQJVBcXOAAoJECqCmc6ELdOM1FUP/iBrE4q7uobmqEUYkE5bERDb
IbganxqcoS8gIgZAz+Ty5LkcEwtX4U7N92ilxHmLqqG7IfnuzMvS+3xLLGiAhlb4
1+EhXxnAMboE8Fc3XSQhtHq6DP+Uavu02ETU1My5FglQnxjmoE9MoH1x4o9foyJ6
IY/YAFnMKL8T+HZqfvZ9+zaSBHdSbB6/dvO7QmTVpdISa+4jMALYDIwpmTGfui+C
OeflAdk9l62C92rnEx2i1e89nZxsNXYZDL0VHcNl3sKlxGKU8ozIbKN3hHat+4I9
lkNT2NR0H5k5++Rw/qvSAA5wZ7+G0B+iD12N9T+mJopd6QBfMJoklUk9i323mhKl
nwOOzu7NQdCFt52QFTFnTsR2Ey+wiCCMT7+PcCf6wtVTY5RRhJPazJmm0MRzUwCH
5LowpadO4nkLpgMpV7u7+oiolj+mZEuxEDpV/J2gQPmfmeo7BaZ2qk3aB0i50ZY2
3BwT9D6lXFzpOkqJHYXxy3m4d6SMjM1/asqs8Qk8ZAZgBijwG7T98VK05U/I1YWw
BbWbGlGWbelHypnVJwdD5OaFjpVHg4dNG6O+fZW93DLX4kLYvFANVyiZ/AYtDeiS
nwC1n4NRGBd746zF32+end98ZSbFv0+IuR/57kvCMbjWpvabN6UH8BwRu4+bdBK8
ACDeNwyAoe6WmFGDnsWJ
=qgpN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-O04qgUTsy7+ytQz72Aed--