Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90448 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 88246 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2016 10:20:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Jan 2016 10:20:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.204 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.147.176.204 mail4.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [217.147.176.204] ([217.147.176.204:48149] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 26/5A-14657-18032965 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 05:20:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 27680 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jan 2016 10:20:45 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 27673, pid: 27677, t: 0.0795s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52/d:10677 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.7?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@81.138.11.136) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 10 Jan 2016 10:20:45 -0000 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <5690BCE6.6010908@gmail.com> <569182FD.6070404@gmail.com> <56918458.1070101@gmail.com> <5691D2EA.1050808@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5692307D.5050900@lsces.co.uk> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 10:20:45 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5691D2EA.1050808@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 10/01/16 03:41, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >>>> Perhaps then show them once the vote is closed? >>> >> >>> >> That's possible. >> > >> > I do not see how it helps except to... know who voted what. Indeed if >> > we only show who voted but not how, that's fine. If not, it makes the >> > whole thing useless. > The idea is that while vote is open, only totals are shown. When the > vote is closed, the total and the list of voters are shown, but the > individual votes still aren't. > I'm not sure whether it is better or not, since secret ballot also means > confidentiality about whether somebody voted or not, and in some cases > (e.g. unanimous voting or some votes disclosed) it may still be possible > to deduce individual votes given the list of participants. The debate on Anonymous voting has been voted on already? From my own point of view, I like to know who supports and who opposes a particular RFC simply because I can't vote myself. It helps me to decide if I need to look deeper into the RFC or if I can rely on those with voting rights that I trust to get it right. We should not have to hide our views so the idea that anonymity is a right is part of the problem in the modern world? Part of the reason for now needing a CoC? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk