Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84888
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nEikYZNmaAnRy9hkRBnDDP=Ey43-nZbJGMHmQ_dAC_vgw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nEikYZNmaAnRy9hkRBnDDP=Ey43-nZbJGMHmQ_dAC_vgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 14:46:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN=kQJerdj=K4UcfshqVfU3nSRWtX-=GYvAk+6M_7kdWyU-ZGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities
From: leverton@gmail.com (Matthew Leverton)

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> 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.
>
...
>
> Something that I think we need to discuss as a group.
>
> So consider that discussion open.
>
I think this is likely because the votes are made public during voting
phase. To me, that is a bad thing. It makes for an ugly voting period.
That sort of politics should happen during the discussion phase.

So I don't think there's anything wrong with "first time voters"
voting No en masse here. I just think there's a major problem in
having a real-time count of votes during the voting period.

If votes weren't made public during the voting, then more people would
vote on more issues... avoiding this situation where people come from
"nowhere" to cast a vote as word gets out on blogs that something
terrible is about to happen.

In short, I think the real-time public vote results causes a few problems:

1) Bandwagon voting, or "vote for the winner" mindset. The early wave
of voters can impact the results by discouraging people from voting.
(Look at Zeev's RFC vote count vs Anthony's.)
2) The losing side feverishly drumming up votes, often with scare
tactics - i.e., vocal minority. (It's much easier for the "No" side of
any vote to appeal to this.)
3) In rare cases, Gaming the system - closing the vote at the exact
time that benefits the owner of the RFC.

So I don't think there's anything sinister here. It's just the natural
result of the voting rules.

--
Matthew Leverton