Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84922
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain cu.be from 194.50.97.15 cause and error)
Message-ID: <5505F9EA.4080206@cu.be>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 22:30:18 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
CC: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAAyV7nEikYZNmaAnRy9hkRBnDDP=Ey43-nZbJGMHmQ_dAC_vgw@mail.gmail.com> <5505C875.1030202@gmail.com> <4938435E-F283-42A6-88AC-930881D97501@php.net> <470c025a9cf0cc61d2d17683800d1fbf@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <470c025a9cf0cc61d2d17683800d1fbf@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities
From: wim.godden@cu.be (Wim Godden)


On 15/03/2015 20:30, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue writing
>> this:
>>
>> https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/ijoDNH2M8mB
>
> Do you know who Kristian is and how instrumental he was in the proliferation
> of PHP?  How can you bring yourself to say he has no clue?  It's fine that
> you disagree with him, but saying he has no clue is offensive.
>
> Let's also not pretend there hasn't been countless calls by the RFC
> supporters to vote Yes, including ones that pretend there's no problem here
> and it's good for everyone.  If Kristian's position is FUD, so is that.
>
>
Zeev,

I agree that Kristian might have played a part in the proliferation of 
PHP,  but shouldn't we consider not only creating a clearer set of 
guidelines as to who receives voting karma, but also what the conditions 
are for keeping voting karma ? Otherwise in 10 years time we'll have 250 
people with voting karma, 150 of them for writing documentation or 
submitting a single patch 20 years ago.
If at that point a critical RFC requires voting, those 150 people could 
seriously skew the result and their votes would in some cases be 
completely opposite to what the majority of active users would want.

Maybe this is a good topic for an unconference round table discussion at 
one of the next conferences...

Just my 2 non-karma cents...

Wim