Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90499 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 34313 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2016 15:16:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Jan 2016 15:16:17 -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 69.195.222.200 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: eli@eliw.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 69.195.222.200 mx-mia-3.servergrove.com Received: from [69.195.222.200] ([69.195.222.200:39787] helo=mx-mia-3.servergrove.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 20/EA-64385-F37C3965 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:16:16 -0500 Received: from [69.195.222.125] (port=58412 helo=smtp2.servergrove.com) by mx-mia-3.servergrove.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1aIeCa-00018P-9u for internals@lists.php.net; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:16:12 +0000 Received: from [69.136.226.104] (port=64130 helo=[192.168.1.132]) by smtp2.servergrove.com with esmtpsa (UNKNOWN:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1aIeCY-0000W6-Op; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:16:12 +0000 To: Ferenc Kovacs References: <5690BCE6.6010908@gmail.com> <569182FD.6070404@gmail.com> <5693BB43.5020103@eliw.com> Cc: PHP Internals X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <5693C739.8010206@eliw.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:16:09 -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="fWm5ahNC8Tn8m9HKCIe355Hva8QRq1CvS" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki From: eli@eliw.com (Eli) --fWm5ahNC8Tn8m9HKCIe355Hva8QRq1CvS Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060406070005010609010509" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060406070005010609010509 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for all the backstory Ferenc, but I knew about the reasons for this pull request. It's relation to the current CoC discussion, as well as the past cases of having anonymous votes and it's rollback. But my statement was in the context of the thread between Stas & Andrea. Wherein Stas stated that we'd talked about having anonymous voting and we all decided not to do it, and asked if anything had changed. Andrea stated that no, things probably hadn't. My point was: Given that, as far as I can remember, all those discussions of anonymous voting happened before the STH votes. We do have 'new information' and things that have changed. Because various issues were exposed during that voting process, wherein hidden votes could have helped some people from being beleaguered by people who disagreed with them, and it would have stopped the ability for people to be influenced/petitioned/pressed by others to change their vote. Hence: I think that there has been something that changed, a new data point, and therefore a discussion may be merited. Eli On 1/11/16 9:51 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Eli > wrote: > > 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 > > > Not sure which discussion you are referring(probably where were the > anonymous voting brought up again since the STH votes), but this pull > request was created because in the Code of Conduct thread somebody > mentioned that having anonymous votes can be useful when dealing with > code of conduct sanctions: > https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg82537.html > where it was mentioned that previously we had hidden votes for a short > while but people complained and we reverted it: > https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg82549.html > so Stas replied that he will be looking into porting the old patch: > https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg82651.html > and here we are now, afaik the current PR from Stas introduces the > anonymous votes as an optional vote type which is less > intrusive/controversial than the last one, so we could merge it > without having any visible effects. > personally I wouldn't merge until we decided if we need/want the anon > votes, be that for regular RFCs (in which case I would only support > the inclusion if closing the vote makes visible who voted what) or for > some other new type of voting. > > --=20 > Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --=20 | Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: EliW | --------------060406070005010609010509 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for all the backstory Ferenc, but I knew about the reasons for this pull request.=C2=A0=C2=A0 It's relation to the current CoC discussion, as well as the past cases of having anonymous votes and it's rollback.

But my statement was in the context of the thread between Stas & Andrea.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Wherein Stas stated that we'd talked about having= anonymous voting and we all decided not to do it, and asked if anything had changed.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Andrea stated that no, things proba= bly hadn't.

My point was:=C2=A0 Given that, as far as I can remember, all those discussions of anonymous voting happened before the STH votes.=C2=A0 = We do have 'new information' and things that have changed.=C2=A0 Because= various issues were exposed during that voting process, wherein hidden votes could have helped some people from being beleaguered by people who disagreed with them, and it would have stopped the ability for people to be influenced/petitioned/pressed by others to change their vote.

Hence:=C2=A0 I think that there has been something that changed, a ne= w data point, and therefore a discussion may be merited.

Eli


On 1/11/16 9:51 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Eli <eli@eliw.com> wrote:
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?=C2=A0 I know it's
been discussed before, but it seems that the STH vote kinda brought this
out of the woodwork a bit.=C2=A0 And honestly I haven't see= n a serious
discussion about 'by default anonymous' since that time.=C2= =A0 (But perhaps I
missed it)

Eli=C2=A0

Not sure which discussion you are referring(probably where were the anonymous voting brought up again since the STH votes), but this pull request was created because in the Code of Conduct thread somebody mentioned that having anonymous votes can be useful when dealing with code of conduct sanctions:
where it was mentioned that previously we had hidden votes for a short while but people complained and we reverted it:
so Stas replied that he will be looking into porting the old patch:
and here we are now, afaik the current PR from Stas introduces the anonymous votes as an optional vote type which is less intrusive/controversial than the last one, so we could merge it without having any visible effects.
personally I wouldn't merge until we decided if we need/want the anon votes, be that for regular RFCs (in which case I would only support the inclusion if closing the vote makes visible who voted what) or for some other new type of voting.

--
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--=20
|   Eli White   |   http://eliw.com/   |   Twitter: EliW   |
--------------060406070005010609010509-- --fWm5ahNC8Tn8m9HKCIe355Hva8QRq1CvS 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 iEYEARECAAYFAlaTxzoACgkQUTBVzmoxCKL2AACgtkYCvglFVCsW8jZ4wnYr4caR Y+cAnA100dS+lq9Za3uZhXJ5U+p3MChS =sNin -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fWm5ahNC8Tn8m9HKCIe355Hva8QRq1CvS--