Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90550 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 82432 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2016 14:52:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Jan 2016 14:52:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=danack@basereality.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=danack@basereality.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain basereality.com from 209.85.220.181 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: danack@basereality.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.220.181 mail-qk0-f181.google.com Received: from [209.85.220.181] ([209.85.220.181:36282] helo=mail-qk0-f181.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F0/68-32047-92315965 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:52:26 -0500 Received: by mail-qk0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q19so199632918qke.3 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 06:52:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=basereality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RVYCn5D1nElnBhb8D2ql9/xEGbTyeLZXmm9Or8esW4c=; b=QmblG9D4mdlFlPr6L2lAQ6sEpPIKB5Kk5ITs8qbE2jUmBxtNK2Oc7ZygliCF6y3CPM r6j/2eZd1O//bDX23hXG19W/Qg9Y3qXO2EuIJ6EpVxhNs1dl7z6/0hQoDqoahdCR9xW2 wLS/CU04ehUk0ltUhTc26PXUAqiiu4c79AgGcxgofwD9OcfSmcGhbdStVbE2f1R79muA rSS8q1hSpRvDp7wCr82h+4lwiRhKE2lM2OVa7WOtdFOJ+EmpVrdb21Lgboumrl4O/GFj Bv8T980ftspub+96khqAnDs9XDMnv7cYueV/gySNLp2XdMkiVtNP81Iih19Z2bpmB7UV WY8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=RVYCn5D1nElnBhb8D2ql9/xEGbTyeLZXmm9Or8esW4c=; b=l9YIJEI16obkXQy3erg4bAtdjA5smbejIGH1OOs81q5xOHw0RPuHcNbiez8UQ/D1Wz 1Ln44KpYs96OUrgwnNhOleqIop55o9K8h23LhITr0PUQGd6vAX5s1WGJhuJRf6EhmSTi c0LLQwAhXRgxpzrVQKOfnMKAHCGQtwJ7Pvh/xK19rl0XGyCPR1Z0ody0wN1//hcpvM0A uo7iudKTsoo3orbX0+Cc25GI6t/ZBwz50CFgsB/e1yTsJbdCLyWxJWKIFb2w43NiscSk mNCLGGcPVauqh5NveMy/gTOv7QlaxFsTF6o+kbUUOVrgj9MOR06gMt0mIDoa3I0vcaFX dngQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnQmaNi+edadUSvjPb5VduwmhRba0F1G9ZSeQQZo+RZAaAqLoDCja7xhbySx6JjcvIgeq6/y6XHmE+QuAKANBPDiZeJkw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.129.147.132 with SMTP id k126mr16610843ywg.206.1452610343341; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 06:52:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.83.131 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 06:52:23 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [78.147.1.180] In-Reply-To: <56950BB4.7040400@heigl.org> References: <5690BCE6.6010908@gmail.com> <569182FD.6070404@gmail.com> <56918458.1070101@gmail.com> <5691D2EA.1050808@gmail.com> <5692307D.5050900@lsces.co.uk> <56925977.1040801@dennis.birkholz.biz> <5693C027.4070804@eliw.com> <5694D270.3050109@dennis.birkholz.biz> <56950882.7020008@eliw.com> <56950BB4.7040400@heigl.org> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:52:23 +0000 Message-ID: To: Andreas Heigl Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki From: danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd) Fran=C3=A7ois Laupretre wrote: > I would like the process to be amended to disable posting > opinions/discussions about an RFC while the vote is open, > considering there was enough time for that during the > discussion phase. This is not a good idea. That won't actually make people discuss a proposal during the discussions p= hase. Instead people will be voting with the conversation about the proposal not being complete. And then we'll be stuck with bad decisions. Andreas Heigl wrote: > 3. An "Anonymous vote during voting period" > That way no one can be actively influenced on their vote. I would be against this. There is at least one RFC where: * I voted a particular way. * Two people who saw that, asked why I voted that way. * I pointed out the sentence in the RFC that they had almost certainly misr= ead. * They acknowledged that they had misread it, and that influenced their vot= e. I agree there have been problems with people being hassled during a vote. I don't think restricting information is the way to solve that problem. cheers Dan