# voting without vcs accounts - Thread: https://externals.io/message/59990 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/59990 - Started by Ferenc Kovacs on 2012-04-16T08:14:39+00:00 - Messages: 37 - Page 1 of 2: messages 1 to 25 (25 per page, add `?page=N` to the URL) - Next page: https://externals.io/message/59990.md?page=2 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #59990 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2012-04-16T08:14:39+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#59990 Hi, I sent an email last year about this issue, but it got sidetracked (partly it was my fault): http://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg54267.html So this time, I would like focusing only on the following: 1. What are the requirements for getting voting rights in the wiki without having a vcs/master account? - The voting RFC states: - Representatives from the PHP community, that will be chosen by those with php.net SVN accounts - Lead developers of PHP based projects (frameworks, cms, tools, etc.) - regular participant of internals discussions 2. What are the necessary steps from a volunteer to request voting karma? 3. How do we handle the applicants? Who will "judge" the applications? 4. How can we see the list of the people having voting karma? Currently only the wiki admins can see who are the people with the voting group membership. The wiki is already prepared to support voting without vcs account: there is a voting group, anybody having membership in that group are able to vote ( http://git.php.net/?p=web/wiki.git;a=commit;h=e3b97f03548fab661b5bc2dd66420db1024b1f39 ). My personal opinion would be that we have an application form like we have for the vcs account request, which will send an email to the mailing list, we can discuss here whether we support/approve the applicant or not, and somebody with proper karma can approve/decline the application, which would also trigger an email to the mailing list. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --- ## #59992 — Sherif Ramadan — 2012-04-16T08:29:48+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#59992 · In reply to: #59990 > Hi, > > I sent an email last year about this issue, but it got sidetracked (partly > it was my fault): > http://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg54267.html > So this time, I would like focusing only on the following: > >   1. What are the requirements for getting voting rights in the wiki >   without having a vcs/master account? >      - The voting RFC states: >         - Representatives from the PHP community, that will be chosen by >         those with php.net SVN accounts >            - Lead developers of PHP based projects (frameworks, cms, >            tools, etc.) >            - regular participant of internals discussions >         2. What are the necessary steps from a volunteer to request voting >   karma? >   3. How do we handle the applicants? Who will "judge" the applications? >   4. How can we see the list of the people having voting karma? Currently >   only the wiki admins can see who are the people with the voting group >   membership. > > > The wiki is already prepared to support voting without vcs account: there > is a voting group, anybody having membership in that group are able to vote > ( > http://git.php.net/?p=web/wiki.git;a=commit;h=e3b97f03548fab661b5bc2dd66420db1024b1f39 > ). > > My personal opinion would be that we have an application form like we have > for the vcs account request, which will send an email to the mailing list, > we can discuss here whether we support/approve the applicant or not, and > somebody with proper karma can approve/decline the application, which would > also trigger an email to the mailing list. > > -- > Ferenc Kovács > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu I'm completely in favor of a formal process since it would mean there can be less biased and favor applied to the selection and this can eliminate the potential for people being included to vote for or against something for the purpose of overtaking the vote. I think PHP is already a very inclusive environment. Given that php.net now has edit.php.net and has streamlined the process of submitting bug reports both for documentation and language bugs I think the inclusion into the voting process as a formal outline and drafted step-by-step process will further help put PHP in a position of higher power among its neighboring communities. I propose three primary suggestions for helping formulate such a process: 1) The person requesting voting privileges in the RFC voting process should have either (a) contributed to the PHP community in a constructive and contemporary manner such as submitting helpful bug reports for docs or language bugs (did not contribute noise or repeat bugs or lack of reproducible test cases in the recent past), (b) participates in submitting patches to the PHP source repository, (c) participates in actively in php.net or wiki.php.net without a known history of disruptions among the community. 2) The person requesting voting privileges should only be allowed to make the request once every so often (such as on a monthly or quarterly, or even annual basis, for example). This will help avoid constant requests that just get turned down and avoid a load on applicants. Also, the applicant should be reviewed by their peers as well as the SVN account holders to avoid prejudice. If this is not possible it should at least be set in some fashion what guidelines/prerequisites would appeal to the potential applicant so that people can have a set expectation of what to look for before approaching such privileges. 3) Anyone who is not included in the voting process should not be turned down or discouraged from trying again (after an allotted waiting period) so as to keep the voting process lean and fair. However, I think it may also be fair to request that those re-sending a request to gain voting privileges should be required to produce some supporting evidence for their active and positive roles in their community, such as previous patches, bug report ids, mailing list archives discussions demonstrating some constructive feedback, logs, etc... I'm sure more can be made of this list in time. I just thought to start the discussion off with some constructive suggestions. :) --- ## #60014 — Stas Malyshev — 2012-04-16T20:23:08+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60014 · In reply to: #59990 Hi! > So this time, I would like focusing only on the following: I think before going into these, it is important to answer this question: what is the problem we're trying to solve? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #60016 — Kris Craig — 2012-04-16T20:57:18+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60016 · In reply to: #60014 On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > […] > > I think before going into these, it is important to answer this > question: what is the problem we're trying to solve? > > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 > > -- > > > > I reject the premise of that question because it implies that nothing in PHP should ever be changed unless it's "fixing" something that's broken. By that standard, it would be virtually impossible to get any new features added. With that in mind, here's the short answer: The problem is that there is a feature people are requesting that currently does not exist. The longer answer: This is not a bugfix, nor does it purport to be. This is a requested new feature proposed for the next *major* PHP release (i.e. 6.0). This feature will add convenience and allow developers o flexibly assert more control over their code structure. --Kris --- ## #60017 — Nikita Popov — 2012-04-16T21:00:15+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60017 · In reply to: #60016 > I reject the premise of that question because it implies that nothing in > PHP should ever be changed unless it's "fixing" something that's broken. > By that standard, it would be virtually impossible to get any new features > added. > > With that in mind, here's the short answer:  The problem is that there is a > feature people are requesting that currently does not exist. > > The longer answer:  This is not a bugfix, nor does it purport to be.  This > is a requested new feature proposed for the next *major* PHP release (i.e. > 6.0).  This feature will add convenience and allow developers o flexibly > assert more control over their code structure. I think you mixed up two threads here :) This one is about voting ;) Nikita --- ## #60018 — Kris Craig — 2012-04-16T21:03:53+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60018 · In reply to: #60017 On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Nikita Popov wrote: > > > […] > features > > […] > is a > > […] > This > > […] > (i.e. > > […] > I think you mixed up two threads here :) This one is about voting ;) > > Nikita > Oh, crap! You're right. Sorry, NM on that last post, everyone. I hate Mondays.... :/ --Kris --- ## #60028 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2012-04-16T22:43:55+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60028 · In reply to: #60014 On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > […] > > I think before going into these, it is important to answer this > question: what is the problem we're trying to solve? > > the voting RFC explicitly states that it is possible for (some) non-vcs users to vote, but there isn't any formal process on how can someone apply for voting karma, and what is the decision making process on this. we already had at least one formal submission ( http://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg54229.html) which went unanswered and I was also questioned on irc/twitter multiple times about how can somebody request voting karma. I would like to be able point people to the right direction about this kind of questions, but currently there is no official way of doing this. I know that some of the wiki admins are already handed out a few people voting karma, but there is no formal process, and it isn't transparent in any way. I would like to see that fixed. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --- ## #60036 — Stas Malyshev — 2012-04-16T23:32:08+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60036 · In reply to: #60028 Hi! > the voting RFC explicitly states that it is possible for (some) non-vcs > users to vote, but there isn't any formal process on how can someone > apply for voting karma, and what is the decision making process on this. And what is the problem in not having the formal process? > which went unanswered and I was also questioned on irc/twitter multiple > times about how can somebody request voting karma. I'd say if you have to request it and you have to ask about it on twitter, you probably do not know enough about PHP development process to have a deciding vote on PHP features. For non-deciding votes, we have community voting where pretty much anyone can vote. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #60038 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2012-04-16T23:45:31+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60038 · In reply to: #60036 On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > […] > > And what is the problem in not having the formal process? > uhm. do I really have to explain it? for you? the same reason why we have the rfc process, the release process, the voting process. I'm not talking about 100% complete, unchangeable rules, but some kind of process to follow. mentioning the option for non-vcs users to vote in the voting RFC without providing them a way to apply for karma is the same as we wouldn't mention it at all. I could also accept if we don't allow them, but then we should be clear about it. > > > […] > > I'd say if you have to request it and you have to ask about it on > twitter, you probably do not know enough about PHP development process > to have a deciding vote on PHP features. no, it only means that our internal processes aren't clear or easily accessible. people outside the circle can't do much, than asking people inside to let them in. > For non-deciding votes, we have > community voting where pretty much anyone can vote. > you mean the +1/-1 on the mailing list threads? that's nice, but I'm talking about the voting laid out in the voting process rfc https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting (what you also supported). as I mentioned before, I can live with it if we remove the ability for non-vcs users to vote, but in that case we should update the rfc (and the karma check in the wiki) accordingly. but if we decide to keep it, we should make it possible for people to be able to request for voting karma, and a way to handle those requests. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --- ## #60039 — Stas Malyshev — 2012-04-16T23:58:32+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60039 · In reply to: #60038 Hi! > no, it only means that our internal processes aren't clear or easily > accessible. > people outside the circle can't do much, than asking people inside to > let them in. If somebody is an outsider to PHP development, why do you think giving him a deciding vote on it would be a good thing? One can discuss things, propose changes, etc. without any special access. > you mean the +1/-1 on the mailing list threads? No, I mean community voting in the wiki. Voting plugin has option to allow anybody to vote. We did such polls in the past. We can do it any day. > but if we decide to keep it, we should make it possible for people to be > able to request for voting karma, and a way to handle those requests. Why sending a message to the list is not enough? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #60041 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2012-04-17T00:07:06+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60041 · In reply to: #60039 On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > […] > > If somebody is an outsider to PHP development, why do you think giving > him a deciding vote on it would be a good thing? One can discuss things, > propose changes, etc. without any special access. > thats something which the current voting RFC allows. it seems that we are already over on that decision, as the accepted RFC had that clause. > > > […] > > No, I mean community voting in the wiki. Voting plugin has option to > allow anybody to vote. We did such polls in the past. We can do it any day. > I'm not sure about it. AFAIK when I implemented my patch to restrict the voting to the vcs users + the voting wiki group, we lost that ability. (see http://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg51932.html for the history of that change) > > > […] > > Why sending a message to the list is not enough? > dunno, but it seems it isn't, as nobody replied or gave voting karma to William. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --- ## #60042 — Stas Malyshev — 2012-04-17T00:28:24+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60042 · In reply to: #60041 Hi! > I'm not sure about it. AFAIK when I implemented my patch to restrict the > voting to the vcs users + the voting wiki group, we lost that ability. > (see http://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg51932.html for > the history of that change) I don't see any indication there that community vote is not possible, but if it was changed we can make community vote be available again. My point is that we are talking about some formal processes but I don't see what would be the desired purpose of such processes. For release process, it's releasing a stable code in time. For RFC, it is informing people about proposed feature and getting it discussed and hopefully accepted. Here, I'm not sure what is the goal. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #60043 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2012-04-17T01:05:03+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60043 · In reply to: #60042 On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > […] > > I don't see any indication there that community vote is not possible, > but if it was changed we can make community vote be available again. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg51948.html Pierre said that it was a bug(better to say lack of restriction), that everybody with wiki account was able to vote, so I changed the voting plugin to only allow the specific groups(vcs + voting) to be able to vote. nobody asked that we would still need to keep the ability to create "open" votes where anybody can vote, so it wasn't implemented. > My point is that we are talking about some formal processes but I don't > see what would be the desired purpose of such processes. For release > process, it's releasing a stable code in time. For RFC, it is informing > people about proposed feature and getting it discussed and hopefully > accepted. Here, I'm not sure what is the goal. > To be able to get voting karma if you meet the requirements. without the need to bribe Hannes, Philip or any other wiki admin. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --- ## #60044 — Kris Craig — 2012-04-17T01:05:22+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60044 · In reply to: #60039 On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > […] > > If somebody is an outsider to PHP development, why do you think giving > him a deciding vote on it would be a good thing? One can discuss things, > propose changes, etc. without any special access. > Just to play devil's advocate (Satan and I go way back), what about people who are established PHP developers but who generally don't participate in the development/discussion of PHP core? An argument could be made that, as the users of PHP, they should be able to have some say in its development. That's not my position, mind you; I'm just throwing that premise out there to see if it holds up. =) > > > […] > > No, I mean community voting in the wiki. Voting plugin has option to > allow anybody to vote. We did such polls in the past. We can do it any day. > > > […] > > Why sending a message to the list is not enough? > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #60045 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2012-04-17T01:10:34+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60045 · In reply to: #60044 > > > Just to play devil's advocate (Satan and I go way back), what about people > who are established PHP developers but who generally don't participate in > the development/discussion of PHP core? An argument could be made that, as > the users of PHP, they should be able to have some say in its development. > That's not my position, mind you; I'm just throwing that premise out there > to see if it holds up. =) > could you please open a separate thread for that? btw. "regular participant of internals discussions" is one of the reason on which group someone can get voting karma. so if that is provided, anybody have a chance to get join the decision making process. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --- ## #60046 — Kris Craig — 2012-04-17T01:14:37+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60046 · In reply to: #60045 > > > […] > > could you please open a separate thread for that? > btw. "regular participant of internals discussions" is one of the reason > on which group someone can get voting karma. > so if that is provided, anybody have a chance to get join > the decision making process. > > -- > Ferenc Kovács > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu > Why would that be a separate thread? Isn't that what we're talking about? I.e. determining who gets voting access and who doesn't? --Kris --- ## #60047 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2012-04-17T01:21:24+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60047 · In reply to: #60046 > > > > > > […] > > Why would that be a separate thread? Isn't that what we're talking > about? I.e. determining who gets voting access and who doesn't? I just ask for clarification on how the community representatives (which is defined in the accepted voting RFC) can get their karma. You are talking about changing the requirements for somebody to be able to participate in the voting, thus changing/extending the original RFC. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --- ## #60048 — Kris Craig — 2012-04-17T01:31:33+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60048 · In reply to: #60047 > > > > > > […] > > > I just ask for clarification on how the community representatives (which > is defined in the accepted voting RFC) can get their karma. > You are talking about changing the requirements for somebody to be able to > participate in the voting, thus changing/extending the original RFC. > It's the same topic, and the question of who *should* or should not be allowed to vote was already raised previously on this thread. That's what I was responding to. So, deep breath.... =) --Kris > -- > Ferenc Kovács > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --- ## #60049 — Ryan McCue — 2012-04-17T02:41:18+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60049 · In reply to: #60044 Kris Craig wrote: > An argument could be made that, as the users of PHP, they should be > able to have some say in its development. As a PHP developer (that is, a developer who writes in PHP), I'd agree, *to an extent*. There are certainly things that I'd like to be able to vote on (such as additions to the language/syntax and things such as .phpp). However, I've got no idea how easy such things are to implement, so I don't feel qualified to even ask to be able to vote. However, these things are going to influence me as a developer, so I'd like to be able to vote. Take, as an example, the .phpp debates. (Just as an example.) If I didn't like it, I'd like to be able to vote against it to avoid having to handle it later. However, if I *was* for it, I wouldn't feel qualified to comment, as I have no idea how hard these things are to implement. (Just my $0.02. Apologies if this is confusing, I'm a mixture of tired and distracted.) --- ## #60050 — Kris Craig — 2012-04-17T03:05:07+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60050 · In reply to: #60049 > Kris Craig wrote: > > > […] > > As a PHP developer (that is, a developer who writes in PHP), I'd agree, > *to an extent*. There are certainly things that I'd like to be able to vote > on (such as additions to the language/syntax and things such as .phpp). > However, I've got no idea how easy such things are to implement, so I don't > feel qualified to even ask to be able to vote. > > However, these things are going to influence me as a developer, so I'd > like to be able to vote. > > Take, as an example, the .phpp debates. (Just as an example.) If I didn't > like it, I'd like to be able to vote against it to avoid having to handle > it later. However, if I *was* for it, I wouldn't feel qualified to comment, > as I have no idea how hard these things are to implement. > > (Just my $0.02. Apologies if this is confusing, I'm a mixture of tired and > distracted.) > > > -- > > > > Hmm yeah that makes sense. What if we split the questions into multiple parts? For example, the first question would be something along the lines of, "Conceptually, do you think this is a good idea?" That could be open to PHP developers as well. Then the second question could be, "If you answered 'Yes', as a core contributor, do you believe this proposal is technically feasible?" That question would be open only to the people who can vote now. Mind you, I'm just throwing this out there off the top of my head. It could be a really stupid idea, but I thought it might provoke some interesting discussion at the very least. With that in mind.... Thoughts? =) --Kris --- ## #60056 — Philip Olson — 2012-04-17T04:26:51+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60056 · In reply to: #60047 > > > > […] > > > I just ask for clarification on how the community representatives (which is > defined in the accepted voting RFC) can get their karma. > You are talking about changing the requirements for somebody to be able to > participate in the voting, thus changing/extending the original RFC. The voting RFC is unclear but aside from that, there are two non-vcs accounts with voting karma today: User: damz: Damien Tournoud - damz@damz.org User: hywan: Ivan Enderlin - ivan.enderlin@hoa-project.net Not saying they should or should not, but just saying. And I'm not sure how/when they received the voting karma but it happened. Regards, Philip --- ## #60060 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2012-04-17T07:32:28+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60060 · In reply to: #60048 > > > > […] > > It's the same topic, and the question of who *should* or should not be > allowed to vote was already raised previously on this thread. That's what > I was responding to. So, deep breath.... =) > > I think Stas was a little bit offtopic/red herring with the discussion on why do we need non-vcs people to be allowed to vote. But to use that as an excuse to hijack the thread to resurrect the "why can't everybody vote" discussion isn't really nice, and I even asked it especially to not to do, as that was the reason which halted my previous attempt to address this issue. Could we all please focus on the original topic? Thanks! -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --- ## #60114 — Stas Malyshev — 2012-04-17T21:48:14+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60114 · In reply to: #60043 Hi! > http://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg51948.html > Pierre said that it was a bug(better to say lack of restriction), that > everybody with wiki account was able to vote, so I changed the voting > plugin to only allow the specific groups(vcs + voting) to be able to vote. This is the authenticated vote. It has also option of having non-authenticated vote. > My point is that we are talking about some formal processes but I don't > see what would be the desired purpose of such processes. For release > process, it's releasing a stable code in time. For RFC, it is informing > people about proposed feature and getting it discussed and hopefully > accepted. Here, I'm not sure what is the goal. > > > To be able to get voting karma if you meet the requirements. without the > need to bribe Hannes, Philip or any other wiki admin. I don't see how getting you "voting carma", whatever it might be, can be a goal of PHP project. I'm talking about the goal of the whole thing. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- ## #60115 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2012-04-17T21:54:14+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60115 · In reply to: #60114 On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > […] > vote. > > This is the authenticated vote. It has also option of having > non-authenticated vote. > ok, I didn't knew/remembered that. > To be able to get voting karma if you meet the requirements. without the > > […] > > I don't see how getting you "voting carma", whatever it might be, can be > a goal of PHP project. I'm talking about the goal of the whole thing. > > sorry, I can't really follow you with that. do you have a problem allowing the non-vcs users (defined by the voting rfc) to vote, or do you have a problem providing a clear way for them to get their voting karma? -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --- ## #60125 — Stas Malyshev — 2012-04-17T22:50:02+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/59990#60125 · In reply to: #60115 Hi! > sorry, I can't really follow you with that. > do you have a problem allowing the non-vcs users (defined by the voting > rfc) to vote, or do you have a problem providing a clear way for them to > get their voting karma? I have a problem that we don't have understanding of what is the goal of this whole vote setup. What is it for? What we will be doing with it? And please don't say "it says so in RFC" - it is not a goal. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 --- Next page: https://externals.io/message/59990.md?page=2