Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90506
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.51 as permitted sender)
To: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.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>
 <CAH-PCH5qGYEP4MCq4XXESCETQ2SMPk--KqacgU+UKvmFRffwKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <5693D500.9070800@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:14:56 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH5qGYEP4MCq4XXESCETQ2SMPk--KqacgU+UKvmFRffwKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> 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.

I refer to the time when we had a patch that introduced anonymous votes.

My personal opinion is that *if* we were to get to the point when
substantial number of people are being attacked personally merely for
voting this way or that way, that makes them fearful, it would be
horrible. And we'd have to think really hard how to fix that - starting
maybe for them to find out a trusted individual in the community which
would assemble this information and try to figure out where it is coming
from and how to counter that.

If however it is just some people not wishing to invest in supporting
one side or another, out of concern that it takes too much time and
effort to sustain discussion - this is completely normal. We do want
more contributors, but when it comes to voting, I think we want the
contributors to commit to being serious about their position. There's no
obligation to vote if you prefer not to. But if you do, standing by your
vote is part of it.

This was the idea why we decided to have open vote, as I understand it.
So far I don't think it changed - unless, of course, there would be new
data that changes the picture.

When voting on behavioral matters, however, it is different, since the
pattern of bad conduct is at least alleged by the very nature of the
matter in question. So there the benefits of anonymous vote outweigh the
issues, I think.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com