Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84917
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.175 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 21:15:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CALwr1G=NBFrt6k+Sv8EExH=W=BY-Ex+7M=YojtKuHAFENT+HOg@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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities
From: padraic.brady@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draic_Brady?=)

Hi,

On 15 March 2015 at 14:19, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I think folk should be cautious about linking the proximity of a
certain RFC to this topic. It appears to be leading to "conspiracy
theory" cries despite Anthony's statement above. As I've already
indicated, and being a Yes voter, I'm sort of dubious about even my
own voting rights, and votes of my nature have previously been called
out as a bad thing by people on both sides of the RFC.

As such, there does appear to be a debate to be had. The timing may be
unfortunate, given the sensitivity around the scalar type RFCs, but
that doesn't remove the fact that the debate should be had if it's
going to be dumped onto Twitter and other threads by other people who
are not called Anthony ;).

As to whether the quoted data suggests suspicious activities: no. The
pool of voters is tiny and no trends or conclusions can be drawn, and
the number of votes shows that the RFCs have attracted immense
attention which would attract erstwhile non-voters which might easily
warp the expected result of any vote simply by them exercising their
vote unexpectedly. The concern around handing out votes too freely
still exists, and I respect that. From the responses thus far, others
have declined to exercise or restrict their votes so we do have
"issues" to resolve in making it absolutely clear who may or may not
vote without feeling some sense of guilt or inviting comment when the
vote count reaches for the sky and those like me come out of the
woodwork ;).

Paddy

--
P=C3=A1draic Brady

http://blog.astrumfutura.com
http://www.survivethedeepend.com