Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90501
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5693C739.8010206@eliw.com>
References: <5690BCE6.6010908@gmail.com>
	<A1.30.14657.27961965@pb1.pair.com>
	<569182FD.6070404@gmail.com>
	<C1.11.14657.EC381965@pb1.pair.com>
	<5693BB43.5020103@eliw.com>
	<CAH-PCH7ZAH4_0Do9gaK4uS5rDzDK=yBjyhMq=t+CV5T3fDmpdg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5693C739.8010206@eliw.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:42:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH5qGYEP4MCq4XXESCETQ2SMPk--KqacgU+UKvmFRffwKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eli <eli@eliw.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114242a440d721052910c92e
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--001a114242a440d721052910c92e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Eli <eli@eliw.com> wrote:

> Thanks for all the backstory Ferenc, but I knew about the reasons for thi=
s
> pull request.   It's relation to the current CoC discussion, as well as t=
he
> 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 discussion=
s
> 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 helpe=
d
> 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
>
>
ok, I wasn't sure about if they were referring to the old discussion where
the anonymous voting was reverted almost instantly, or about the recent CoC
discussion which was back and forth between having the voters/reporters
privacy, shielding them from potential backlash or having more transparency
for the voting results, so I'm curious about what Stas meant as well.

--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--001a114242a440d721052910c92e--