Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90560 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98784 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2016 15:45:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Jan 2016 15:45:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain myrasecurity.com designates 185.85.3.44 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 185.85.3.44 mailoutb.myrasec.de Received: from [185.85.3.44] ([185.85.3.44:7084] helo=mailoutb.myrasec.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C6/11-27877-39F15965 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:45:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:45:20 +0100 (CET) To: Peter Petermann , Andreas Heigl , internals@lists.php.net Message-ID: <1382704214.3241.fd941ca0-f3d1-4b3c-8747-f8166ff46b39.open-xchange@ox.myrasec.de> In-Reply-To: <56951798.4050000@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> <56951798.4050000@heigl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Medium X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.8.0-Rev6 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki From: sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com (Sascha Schumann) > During the CoC-Discussion the idea came up to vote certain CoC-issues > (call them whatever you like) in a more secure way so that no one sould > be able to bully someone into an - for him or her - inappropriate > decission. One way to do so could be a somehow anonymised vote. Is discussing things openly considered 'bullying'? > So I think we have to distinguish between technical votes on what way > the language itself develops (which should always be open and as > transparent as possible) and non-technical votes (which can be very > personal and should therefore respect the privacy of the voter). As this concerns the future of the community, the vote should definitely be public, and not secret. Sascha