Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90232 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 4640 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2016 20:26:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Jan 2016 20:26:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:62781] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B7/4F-21755-6687D865 for ; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 15:26:14 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.240.16.115]) (Authenticated sender: flaupretre@free.fr) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A3FF54B01D3; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 21:25:11 +0100 (CET) To: Andrea Faulds , internals@lists.php.net References: <568C9ED7.30504@gmail.com> <568D4220.3050309@php.net> <4E.99.21755.1B96D865@pb1.pair.com> Message-ID: <568D7859.5000403@php.net> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 21:26:01 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4E.99.21755.1B96D865@pb1.pair.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160106-0, 06/01/2016), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Laupretre?=) Le 06/01/2016 20:23, Andrea Faulds a écrit : > Hi, > > Sara Golemon wrote: >>> So, I'm all for a mediation team, but no sanction, even temporary, >>> without a >>> public vote. >>> >> I'm glad you and I agree on this. > > There is the risk with public votes that whoever votes a particular way > gets harassed for the way they voted. While this doesn't happen very > much in technical discussions, I think there's a greater risk of that in > a vote on whether to sanction a person for unacceptable behaviour. > > Thanks. > That's another question. Ideally, votes should be anonymous, even on RFCs. Scalar type hints have proved that seeing other's vote may be a very bad thing. And you're right: for a sanctioning vote, votes *must* be anonymous. Regards François