Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90493 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 23354 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2016 14:25:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Jan 2016 14:25:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=eli@eliw.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=eli@eliw.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain eliw.com designates 69.195.198.246 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: eli@eliw.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 69.195.198.246 mx-mia-1.servergrove.com Received: from [69.195.198.246] ([69.195.198.246:41100] helo=mx-mia-1.servergrove.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5B/A8-64385-A4BB3965 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:25:14 -0500 Received: from [69.195.222.125] (helo=smtp2.servergrove.com) by mx-mia-1.servergrove.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1aIdPD-0005Y5-O6 for internals@lists.php.net; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:25:11 +0000 Received: from [69.136.226.104] (port=62216 helo=[192.168.1.132]) by smtp2.servergrove.com with esmtpsa (UNKNOWN:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1aIdPA-0004DK-GN; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:25:08 +0000 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <5690BCE6.6010908@gmail.com> <569182FD.6070404@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5693BB43.5020103@eliw.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:25:07 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jP9EWdLeU1J8wQjduFS8sb2SRELmXQBkh" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki From: eli@eliw.com (Eli) --jP9EWdLeU1J8wQjduFS8sb2SRELmXQBkh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 1/9/16 5:03 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote: > Hi Stas, > > Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> Hi! >> >>> This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for >>> RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing >>> who >> >> I think we talked about it, and decided not to do it. Anything changed= ? > > Actually, I don't think so. My fear was probably unfounded. Has this discussion happened since the STH votes happened? I know it's been discussed before, but it seems that the STH vote kinda brought this out of the woodwork a bit. And honestly I haven't seen a serious discussion about 'by default anonymous' since that time. (But perhaps I missed it) Eli --=20 | Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: EliW | --jP9EWdLeU1J8wQjduFS8sb2SRELmXQBkh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlaTu0MACgkQUTBVzmoxCKIcHQCgqPzGYBdo0x+19NGBpJMvtlLh /AMAoJqM+H0FRkvx2xHo6XqULJFmwVx7 =Y5Lu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jP9EWdLeU1J8wQjduFS8sb2SRELmXQBkh--