Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90247
Return-Path: <francois@php.net>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 94148 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2016 12:56:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 7 Jan 2016 12:56:33 -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] ([212.27.42.2:40896] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id BF/DC-21755-0806E865 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 07:56:32 -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 40A9B4B015C;
	Thu,  7 Jan 2016 13:55:26 +0100 (CET)
To: Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nFbngZ42qzbSFyveH+vsyir9QNtMJq8H=u9VqTBVBv5Og@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAyV7nGzsuhDSgenmLUjWPYiNfamcqCgvXpM4Sb30VECpTrHpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <568C9ED7.30504@gmail.com>
 <CAAyV7nEnovW3YqmTjBnhtmAGhKiwYo1tYq_QHDYBgRNKNG61zQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <568D4220.3050309@php.net>
 <CAESVnVob7SweHuHed3yx8uh4hBKtW9+=p9_eX6cgsbGBEAKYfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4E.99.21755.1B96D865@pb1.pair.com> <568D7859.5000403@php.net>
 <CAPg3Xx+og-WDhAb3GsUJ1LYrQPcMTsnAUKf+7huPeOWvfFHOpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <568E6071.8060300@php.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 13:56:17 +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: <CAPg3Xx+og-WDhAb3GsUJ1LYrQPcMTsnAUKf+7huPeOWvfFHOpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160107-0, 07/01/2016), 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 07/01/2016 10:03, Peter Cowburn a écrit :
> Just replying on the anonymous RFC votes side-topic.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> This was tried once [1] and there was an immediate knee-jerk reaction [1]
> which resulted in quickly removing the feature.  Maybe the winds have
> changed between then and now?

The reaction was mostly caused by the fact that the change had been 
introduced without prior discussion. Once again, in the light of the 
recent STH votes, I think we have good reasons to re-evaluate Hannes' 
arguments :

 > - The author of the RFC can no longer bribe and "convince" individual
 > person to change his/hers vote
 > - Your vote is more meaningful now, as it could actually be the 
winning vote
 > - First 5 votes one way? No point in voting the other way (or at all)
 > - Last minute twitter "lets all vote yes/no to change the vote around"
 > doesn't work
 > - The "I just wanna be in the winning/loosing team" is difficult

Regards

François