# Voting irregularities - Thread: https://externals.io/message/84828 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/84828 - Started by Anthony Ferrara on 2015-03-15T14:19:29+00:00 - Messages: 54 - Page 1 of 3: messages 1 to 25 (25 per page, add `?page=N` to the URL) - Next page: https://externals.io/message/84828.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 --- ## #84828 — Anthony Ferrara — 2015-03-15T14:19:29+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84828 All, I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I decided to pull some stats. The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up: dom - no eliw - no kguest - yes kk - no nohn - no oliver - yes richsage - yes sammywg - no spriebsch - no srain - no theseer - no zimt - no Some of these names I recognize from list (sammywg and eliw), but many I do not. The interesting thing happens when you look at the voting direction. Currently, the RFC is slightly losing 70:37 (65.4%). If we look at percentages, 4.2% of yes voters have never voted in a prior RFC. But a whopping 24.3% of no voters have never voted before. If we adjust the votes to remove these "never voted" accounts, it stands at 67:28. Which is 70.5%. Which is basically where the vote was prior to the competing RFC opening. I'm not saying that all of these are bad votes. Nor that they shouldn't be counted. I think it does raise a significant question around the voting practices. Something that I think we need to discuss as a group. So consider that discussion open. Anthony --- ## #84829 — Michael Wallner — 2015-03-15T14:29:28+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84829 · In reply to: #84828 > > > All, > > I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right > now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I > decided to pull some stats. > > The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up: > > dom - no > eliw - no > kguest - yes > kk - no > nohn - no > oliver - yes > richsage - yes > sammywg - no > spriebsch - no > srain - no > theseer - no > zimt - no > > Some of these names I recognize from list (sammywg and eliw), but many I do not. > > The interesting thing happens when you look at the voting direction. > > Currently, the RFC is slightly losing 70:37 (65.4%). > > If we look at percentages, 4.2% of yes voters have never voted in a > prior RFC. But a whopping 24.3% of no voters have never voted before. > > If we adjust the votes to remove these "never voted" accounts, it > stands at 67:28. Which is 70.5%. Which is basically where the vote was > prior to the competing RFC opening. > > I'm not saying that all of these are bad votes. Nor that they > shouldn't be counted. I think it does raise a significant question > around the voting practices. > > Something that I think we need to discuss as a group. > > So consider that discussion open. Jeez, that is becoming ridiculous. So, if you’re that good in counting, how many did not vote before STHv0.3? --- ## #84832 — Levi Morrison — 2015-03-15T15:23:37+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84832 · In reply to: #84829 > > > […] > > Jeez, that is becoming ridiculous. So, if you’re that good in counting, how many did not vote before STHv0.3? Is there a way to check when someone got a php.net account/karma? --- ## #84833 — Michael Wallner — 2015-03-15T15:30:26+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84833 · In reply to: #84832 > > > > > […] > > Is there a way to check when someone got a php.net account/karma? http://people.php.net > Jeez, that is becoming ridiculous. So, if you’re that good in counting, how many did not vote before STHv0.3? > -- > > > I don't think it's ridiculous in a separate thread around discussing voting practices. Anthony specifically notes that he is not calling them bad, or calling for them to be ignored in the context of the current RFCs. Merely noting that their existence has skewed this particular vote, as a recent ongoing example, which it has. I have to make an admission here, I cast a vote. I'm not on Anthony's list because I have used it previously a couple of times. I'm honestly a bit hesitant to believe I should have it, so I've deliberately moderated my voting. However, watching those with no prior voting history/or minimal history vote No compelled me to use it if only to offset one more arguably irregular vote by casting an opposing arguably irregular vote. Should people like me have a vote? I got it by contributing some code to PEAR long ago before I moved onto Zend Framework stuff, Mockery, and other things. I consider it a relatively small contribution, and the list makes clear many would prefer I didn't have a vote on that basis. I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment, but we're stuck with the situation where contentious votes bring up the "who deserves the right to vote" debate from both sides (Anthony is hardly going solo in airing it here). The entire idea that such arguably irregular votes are spoiling RFC votes, i.e. not reflective of what the majority would consider votes by those who truly earned it, has been brought up by both sides to RFCs inside and outside of this list. Paddy -- Pádraic Brady http://blog.astrumfutura.com http://www.survivethedeepend.com --- ## #84840 — Florian Anderiasch — 2015-03-15T15:54:02+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84840 · In reply to: #84836 > > I don't think it's ridiculous in a separate thread around discussing > voting practices. Anthony specifically notes that he is not calling > them bad, or calling for them to be ignored in the context of the > current RFCs. Merely noting that their existence has skewed this > particular vote, as a recent ongoing example, which it has. I have to > make an admission here, I cast a vote. I'm not on Anthony's list > because I have used it previously a couple of times. I'm honestly a > bit hesitant to believe I should have it, so I've deliberately > moderated my voting. However, watching those with no prior voting > history/or minimal history vote No compelled me to use it if only to > offset one more arguably irregular vote by casting an opposing > arguably irregular vote. Maybe many people don't see it that way, but for example for me there's hardly been any RFC that would shape the *spirit* of the language as much as this RFC. So I think that's a perfectly valid reason to - for the first time ever - pitch in with your vote, even if it's not the case for me personally. > The entire idea that such arguably irregular votes are spoiling RFC > votes, i.e. not reflective of what the majority would consider votes > by those who truly earned it, has been brought up by both sides to > RFCs inside and outside of this list. I don't think it's possible to create a system that a) represents the majority of PHP users b) represents the most active contributors to internals c) can't be gamed in any way. We have this system now and until a RFC comes along to change voting rights or revert to the old "do what you want until someone calls you out on it" there's hardly some constructive discussion about it in all the threads where it came up. Greetings, Florian --- ## #84842 — Levi Morrison — 2015-03-15T15:57:38+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84842 · In reply to: #84833 > > > > > > > > > All, > > I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right > now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I > decided to pull some stats. > > The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up: > > dom - no > eliw - no > kguest - yes > kk - no > nohn - no > oliver - yes > richsage - yes > sammywg - no > spriebsch - no > srain - no > theseer - no > zimt - no > > Some of these names I recognize from list (sammywg and eliw), but many I do > not. > > The interesting thing happens when you look at the voting direction. > > Currently, the RFC is slightly losing 70:37 (65.4%). > > If we look at percentages, 4.2% of yes voters have never voted in a > prior RFC. But a whopping 24.3% of no voters have never voted before. > > If we adjust the votes to remove these "never voted" accounts, it > stands at 67:28. Which is 70.5%. Which is basically where the vote was > prior to the competing RFC opening. > > I'm not saying that all of these are bad votes. Nor that they > shouldn't be counted. I think it does raise a significant question > around the voting practices. > > Something that I think we need to discuss as a group. > > So consider that discussion open. > > > Jeez, that is becoming ridiculous. So, if you’re that good in counting, how > many did not vote before STHv0.3? > > > Is there a way to check when someone got a php.net account/karma? > > > http://people.php.net > I am aware of this, but unless I just missed it that site doesn't show *when* they got an account. --- ## #84843 — Michael Wallner — 2015-03-15T15:59:52+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84843 · In reply to: #84842 > > […] > > I am aware of this, but unless I just missed it that site doesn't show > *when* they got an account. Oh, sorry! I thought it reads something like “Account opened: Y-m-d” but that’s on the PECL site. --- ## #84846 — Zeev Suraski — 2015-03-15T16:26:50+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84846 · In reply to: #84842 > I am aware of this, but unless I just missed it that site doesn't show > *when* they got an account. None of these accounts are recent as far as I can tell from my email archive. For the record, with the exception of Eli - with whom I discussed the reasons he voted against the Coercive RFC - I haven’t spoken with any of them and doubt anybody else did (not that it would have been forbidden if I or someone else did). Florian (IMHO obvious) explanation is the correct one. Take spriebsch for example - a very prominent figure in the PHP community, hardly a newcomer - and I guess it's the first time he finds something that's sufficiently important for him to vote on. We should really stop with the ridiculous & offensive conspiracy theories. Zeev --- ## #84847 — Maciej Sobaczewski — 2015-03-15T16:30:20+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84847 · In reply to: #84842 > > I am aware of this, but unless I just missed it that site doesn't show > *when* they got an account. > As you already said, there's no acceptation date on that site, but it seems that new accounts are appended to the end of the list - http://people.php.net/?page=33 Probably better than nothing... --- ## #84848 — Philip Sturgeon — 2015-03-15T16:31:13+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84848 · In reply to: #84846 > > […] > > None of these accounts are recent as far as I can tell from my email > archive. For the record, with the exception of Eli - with whom I discussed > the reasons he voted against the Coercive RFC - I haven’t spoken with any of > them and doubt anybody else did (not that it would have been forbidden if I > or someone else did). > Florian (IMHO obvious) explanation is the correct one. Take spriebsch for > example - a very prominent figure in the PHP community, hardly a newcomer - > and I guess it's the first time he finds something that's sufficiently > important for him to vote on. We should really stop with the ridiculous & > offensive conspiracy theories. > > Zeev > > -- > > > Literally nothing Anthony said was ridiculous or a conspiracy theory. --- ## #84849 — eli@eliw.com — 2015-03-15T16:43:54+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84849 · In reply to: #84828 > [...] > The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up: > [...] > eliw - no > [...] > Some of these names I recognize from list (sammywg and eliw), but many I do not. > [...] > I'm not saying that all of these are bad votes. Nor that they > shouldn't be counted. I think it does raise a significant question > around the voting practices. Hello Anthony ... given I was 'called out' here I figured I should respond. My vote (and the situation around it) is exactly what people have assumed. That is: 1. I've long been a member (prominent by some people's definitions) of the PHP Community 2. I've long been a member of Internals, and read everything, and at times join the discussion when I feel I have something to contribute. (If I don't, then I don't clutter the list - there's enough clutter and enough amazingly smart people on this list, like both you and Zeev, that I'm content to read the excellent discussions) 3. I was long (long) ago offered an acct to have a vote, and actually declined because I didn't feel it warranted. 4. A while ago, I ended up getting an acct anyway, because I started helping out with the documentation/webmaster/calendar stuff which noone else was doing 5. I still never used my vote, on any issues, even the PHP 7 one which I was one of the main instigators of. Because I, like Padraig, kinda was in that mentality that I shouldn't use it. And that I would wait, until there was a proposal that I felt very strongly about, and where my vote/my voice could make a difference. To cast my vote. And so in this case, my first case. I did cast a vote. And unfortunately I have received no end of private (and some public) flak about said vote. And while I know that you are just looking at numbers and being open about 'Hey this is interesting lets chat about this'. Others have not been so kind. FWIW - I would always assume the best of people - And I would assume that others on that voting list in fact were in similar situations. Where they hadn't voted before simply because they didn't feel they felt strongly enough about something. Also this is the first 'on the edge' hyper-contentious vote in quite a while, which means that lurkers are much more likely to have it come to their attention that this vote is happening, and therefore that they should familiarize themselves with it and cast a vote. As to why so many of those 1st time voters, who have decided their vote is worthwhile, happen to be voting no more often than not. Well I have other theories on that (which do not include any negative consequences or foul play, but simple cases of human mentality and 'community' vs 'community' discussions) In service to PHP, Eli -- | Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: EliW | --- ## #84850 — Zeev Suraski — 2015-03-15T16:45:06+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84850 · In reply to: #84848 > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturgeon@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 6:31 PM > To: Zeev Suraski > Cc: Levi Morrison; Michael Wallner; internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities > > Literally nothing Anthony said was ridiculous or a conspiracy theory. Phil, I disagree. 'New' voters voting sharply in favor of No strongly implies some sort of foul play. Why break it down otherwise? "I'm not saying that all of these votes are bad" is equivalent to saying "I am saying that some of these votes are bad". It's further strengthened by providing numbers of where this RFC would be at if these votes were discounted, as if it's on the table (that, I would argue, is the ridiculous part). Also, it really doesn't matter what you or I think about it. What matters is what everyone thinks about it. We already have one person understanding this email as a reason to look into when these accounts were created, and judging from the Twitter messages, he's not alone in suspecting some sort of foul play. I absolutely do think we should revisit our voting practices, but absolutely not in the context of a specific RFC, and not mid-flight. The quiet period after PHP 7's RFCs close could be an appropriate time for that. Zeev --- ## #84855 — Arne Blankerts — 2015-03-15T17:47:58+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84855 · In reply to: #84828 Hi all, since my handle was included in the list compiled by Anthony, I figured I'd reply to internals list as well. > I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right > now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. You may not recognize my account but I sure hope you recall speaking to me in person before. You even attended one of my talks at Confoo last year.. > So I > decided to pull some stats. > > The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up: I cannot speak for anyone else, but I indeed didn't actively vote before. I honestly though don't recall if me voting on this RFC was my first vote or not. I also voted on other RFCs though. > If we adjust the votes to remove these "never voted" accounts, it > stands at 67:28. Which is 70.5%. Which is basically where the vote was > prior to the competing RFC opening. Since sounds awfully like 2nd class voting. And, would you ask for the same if the situation would be reversed? > I'm not saying that all of these are bad votes. Nor that they > shouldn't be counted. Why would you calculate the "alternative" result then? > I think it does raise a significant question > around the voting practices. > > Something that I think we need to discuss as a group. Again, I can't speak for others but only myself. I decided to vote on this RFC as well as some others since I believe my experience and expertise might qualify. I didn't (and don't) vote on anything where I feel I don't fully oversee the consequences or can judge the impact. And because I think the RFCs I voted on are important. Quite often before, I discussed things with others - for instance with Sebastian Bergmann -, who then posted the results of our thoughts on internals or talked to others on IRC to get more feedback. Last that happened with the idea of providing the "throwable" interface as an addition to the engine exceptions and in favor of the "base exception" class. Either way, I mostly only passively read on internals. I prefer talking to people in person, or if there is no timely alternative on chat. For what it's worth: I do have a php.net account since 2001, mostly working on the German translation of the docs. If that and my general "visibility" in the community entitles me to add my vote here is something others have to judge. I honestly can't say. But having my vote ignored (or at least considered questionable) because it tends to sway the RFC results "in the wrong direction" feels really odd. Regards, Arne -- Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly (Henry Spencer,1987) --- ## #84860 — Rowan Collins — 2015-03-15T17:59:17+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84860 · In reply to: #84828 > All, > > I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right > now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I > decided to pull some stats. > > The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up: > > dom - no > eliw - no > kguest - yes > kk - no > nohn - no > oliver - yes > richsage - yes > sammywg - no > spriebsch - no > srain - no > theseer - no > zimt - no > > Some of these names I recognize from list (sammywg and eliw), but many I do not. > > The interesting thing happens when you look at the voting direction. > > Currently, the RFC is slightly losing 70:37 (65.4%). > > If we look at percentages, 4.2% of yes voters have never voted in a > prior RFC. But a whopping 24.3% of no voters have never voted before. I think calling this an "irregularity" is going a bit far. It's an interesting observation, but since this is such a contentious issue, the question I would be asking is what these people have in common that makes them likely to vote no - are they from a particular part of the community whose voice is less often heard, for instance? As I've just said on Twitter before seeing this thread, these are really small sample sizes, and the way you've framed the statistics there makes it sound more significant than it is. Wolfram Alpha tells me that if 12 people chose their vote by tossing a coin, there's a probability of 0.073 that 9 of them would vote the same way, which is higher than the threshold of 0.05 traditionally set for significance. I don't know if that's a valid statistic, but it's at least as scientific as your "whopping 24.3%". If you look at those users as a proportion of the complete "turnout", you get 11.11% (1 in 9) votes coming from first-time voters. The net impact is 6 votes out of 108, which is about 5.5%; that happens to be enough to stop this vote crossing the line right now, but only because the vote is so close anyway. > If we adjust the votes to remove these "never voted" accounts, it > stands at 67:28. Which is 70.5%. Which is basically where the vote was > prior to the competing RFC opening. If you exclude an arbitrary subset of votes in a close ballot like this, it's easy to edge it past the finishing post, but that's really an abuse of statistics. For instance, you could say that if the vote was closed on date X, the result would have been Y, but you can't know that there weren't people who'd already decided which way they were voting, but hadn't got round to logging in, because they knew the vote wasn't due to close yet. With more research, you could come up with other interesting subsets, like people who've voted less than X times, or not voted in the last X months. But if you're going to play with statistics, you should be rigourous in defining your hypothesis, and how you'll measure the significance of your result. Alternatively, leave the statistics out of it, and say that you're interested to know why these first-time voters voted how they did. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP] --- ## #84865 — Arvids Godjuks — 2015-03-15T18:23:21+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84865 · In reply to: #84860 C'mon guys, vote didn't pass, it's time to do something about it and not start conspiracy theories (or I will loose hope for humanity completely). I happened to have a job-free next week, i've been saying for a long time now that this has to be tackled differently and even layed down some thoughts on this. I do not think this can be done in single RFC, too much things to handle, too much things are left out, many things are ignored by the RFC people. What we need, is a MANAGER! To manage the Type Hint development. And one that is not doing real development on PHP core, but someone with understanding. I can offer myself at this point. I do not really care if thouse would be strict or coercive type hints as long as it's not the dual mode stuff. --- ## #84867 — Peter Petermann — 2015-03-15T18:44:37+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84867 · In reply to: #84828 Hi Anthony, I am zimt. And yes, you are correct, i haven't voted before, infact, I've kept myself out of all discussions for a long time - for my own reasons, however after reading into your proposal, the discussion around it, I made the decision to cast a vote against your RFC. You can't just throw votes away because "that person never voted before", that would be exclude everyone who has never voted before. If that practise was applied to all RFC, well you'd end up with only those people to vote who voted between the introduction of voting and now. If you start picking where to apply which vote, then you start fixing the votes to your likings, and thats not how it is supposed to work. If you think it raises a question about voting practises, then please state the question, because saying one thing and then saying "i'm not saying" doesn't lead anywhere. And if this is really about the voting practise, why is the numbers on what it would do with your RFC to ignore the oldtimers relevant? regards, Peter Petermann 2015-03-15 15:19 GMT+01:00 Anthony Ferrara : > All, > > I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right > now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I > decided to pull some stats. > > The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up: > > dom - no > eliw - no > kguest - yes > kk - no > nohn - no > oliver - yes > richsage - yes > sammywg - no > spriebsch - no > srain - no > theseer - no > zimt - no > > Some of these names I recognize from list (sammywg and eliw), but many I > do not. > > The interesting thing happens when you look at the voting direction. > > Currently, the RFC is slightly losing 70:37 (65.4%). > > If we look at percentages, 4.2% of yes voters have never voted in a > prior RFC. But a whopping 24.3% of no voters have never voted before. > > If we adjust the votes to remove these "never voted" accounts, it > stands at 67:28. Which is 70.5%. Which is basically where the vote was > prior to the competing RFC opening. > > I'm not saying that all of these are bad votes. Nor that they > shouldn't be counted. I think it does raise a significant question > around the voting practices. > > Something that I think we need to discuss as a group. > > So consider that discussion open. > > Anthony > > -- > > > > -- Peter Petermann Email: ppetermann80@gmail.com - get my public PGP key from SKS Keyservers PGP Key: http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x0E6DBD675836A5C7 --- ## #84870 — Levi Morrison — 2015-03-15T18:55:44+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84870 · In reply to: #84865 > What we need, is a MANAGER! To manage the Type Hint development. And one > that is not doing real development on PHP core, but someone with > understanding. You are basically saying we should hand development of a critical language feature over to someone not doing real development on the language. I don't see how that could possibly end well. --- ## #84874 — Derick Rethans — 2015-03-15T19:07:25+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84874 · In reply to: #84860 Rowan Collins schreef op 15 maart 2015 17:59:17 GMT+00:00: > > > […] >many I do not. > > […] > >I think calling this an "irregularity" is going a bit far. I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue writing this: https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/ijoDNH2M8mB Which post says that we're turning PHP into Java. And to this misguided FUD post, that actively asks people to vote no, I can quite easily attribute a few more no votes of people that had never voted before... Too late to tighten up the rules for this one, but something is definitely not right with the current process. Cheers, Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org twitter: @derickr and @xdebug --- ## #84877 — Arvids Godjuks — 2015-03-15T19:15:14+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84877 · In reply to: #84870 2015-03-15 20:55 GMT+02:00 Levi Morrison : > > […] > > You are basically saying we should hand development of a critical > language feature over to someone not doing real development on the > language. I don't see how that could possibly end well. > I'm saying you need a manager to orginize the process, and as I see it, make it a multi-version effort, like the OOP has evolved. Well, I probably over-generalized. It has to be atleast a userland developer with good amount of PHP development experiense under his/her belt to understand, he needs to have patiense, and above all, he needs to discipline himself on amount of writing and replying, otherwise it will get messy again. It can be a core dev too, it's just from what I have seen, people push their own agenda too much when they are the developer behind the RFC. It's good over all, but I think this paticular case is an exception. And based on how long the type hints are taking to get anywhere, I say it needs some special handling. Type hints mutated over time from a simple proposal into something big, over-engeneered and over-agressive. I have never seen a feature so complex being done in a single go into PHP since i'm folowing internals list, and that's since late days of PHP4... So, long story short: I suggest we restructure the effort and have someone impartial at the helm mediating the work being done, draw some lines and execute a plan people can agreee on. --- ## #84884 — Zeev Suraski — 2015-03-15T19:30:11+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84884 · In reply to: #84874 > I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue writing > this: > > https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/ijoDNH2M8mB Derick, Do you know who Kristian is and how instrumental he was in the proliferation of PHP? How can you bring yourself to say he has no clue? It's fine that you disagree with him, but saying he has no clue is offensive. Let's also not pretend there hasn't been countless calls by the RFC supporters to vote Yes, including ones that pretend there's no problem here and it's good for everyone. If Kristian's position is FUD, so is that. Zeev --- ## #84888 — Matthew Leverton — 2015-03-15T19:46:12+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84888 · In reply to: #84828 > All, > > I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right > now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I > decided to pull some stats. > ... > > Something that I think we need to discuss as a group. > > So consider that discussion open. > I think this is likely because the votes are made public during voting phase. To me, that is a bad thing. It makes for an ugly voting period. That sort of politics should happen during the discussion phase. So I don't think there's anything wrong with "first time voters" voting No en masse here. I just think there's a major problem in having a real-time count of votes during the voting period. If votes weren't made public during the voting, then more people would vote on more issues... avoiding this situation where people come from "nowhere" to cast a vote as word gets out on blogs that something terrible is about to happen. In short, I think the real-time public vote results causes a few problems: 1) Bandwagon voting, or "vote for the winner" mindset. The early wave of voters can impact the results by discouraging people from voting. (Look at Zeev's RFC vote count vs Anthony's.) 2) The losing side feverishly drumming up votes, often with scare tactics - i.e., vocal minority. (It's much easier for the "No" side of any vote to appeal to this.) 3) In rare cases, Gaming the system - closing the vote at the exact time that benefits the owner of the RFC. So I don't think there's anything sinister here. It's just the natural result of the voting rules. -- Matthew Leverton --- ## #84889 — Thomas Bley — 2015-03-15T19:56:20+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84889 · In reply to: #84874 > Which post says that we're turning PHP into Java I think there are people who want to switch from Java to PHP, maybe they feel easier with declare(strict...). Also in the past, some companies switched from PHP to Java because they wanted more strictness in their backend code. I don't like declare(strict...), but we should give it a chance in practice and then every userland developer can decide on his own if his programming style fits to it, or not. For me personally, I must admit that I am not using namespaces, traits and goto, but almost all other features of PHP :) Regards Thomas Derick Rethans wrote on 15.03.2015 20:07: > Rowan Collins schreef op 15 maart 2015 17:59:17 > GMT+00:00: > > […] > I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue writing this: > > https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/ijoDNH2M8mB > > Which post says that we're turning PHP into Java. And to this misguided FUD > post, that actively asks people to vote no, I can quite easily attribute a few > more no votes of people that had never voted before... > > Too late to tighten up the rules for this one, but something is definitely not > right with the current process. > > Cheers, > Derick > -- > http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org > twitter: @derickr and @xdebug --- ## #84907 — Stelian Mocanita — 2015-03-15T20:39:45+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84907 · In reply to: #84889 Can we please stop with this? It's damaging to the language and the community. I am a strong believer of STH, no surprise there, but I do not think this thread should have been created. Is the php voting process uncontrolled and chaotic with no real count of voting members? Hell yes. This does not mean by far that this is the right time to discuss this. Let the RFCs go their way and once feature freeze is in and no more RFCs popping up for a while, the process can be discussed and optimised, if the case may be. All in all STH has turned into this big charade, and no matter which way it goes someone, there are going to be a lot of future friction and "told you so's". In terms of managers, we do have a release manager, stick to that for the 7.0 release, re-evaluate after. My 2 cents, Stelian > > […] > > I think there are people who want to switch from Java to PHP, maybe they > feel easier with declare(strict...). > Also in the past, some companies switched from PHP to Java because they > wanted more strictness in their backend code. > > I don't like declare(strict...), but we should give it a chance in > practice and then every userland developer can decide on his own if his > programming style fits to it, or not. > For me personally, I must admit that I am not using namespaces, traits and > goto, but almost all other features of PHP :) > > Regards > Thomas > > > Derick Rethans wrote on 15.03.2015 20:07: > > > […] > 17:59:17 > > […] > this: > > […] > FUD > > […] > a few > > […] > definitely not > > […] --- ## #84911 — Robert Stoll — 2015-03-15T20:53:22+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/84828#84911 · In reply to: #84888 > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Matthew Leverton [mailto:leverton@gmail.com] > Gesendet: Sonntag, 15. März 2015 20:46 > An: Anthony Ferrara > Cc: internals@lists.php.net > Betreff: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities > > > > […] > ... > > […] > I think this is likely because the votes are made public during voting phase. To me, that is a bad thing. It makes for an ugly > voting period. > That sort of politics should happen during the discussion phase. > > So I don't think there's anything wrong with "first time voters" > voting No en masse here. I just think there's a major problem in having a real-time count of votes during the voting period. > > If votes weren't made public during the voting, then more people would vote on more issues... avoiding this situation > where people come from "nowhere" to cast a vote as word gets out on blogs that something terrible is about to happen. > > In short, I think the real-time public vote results causes a few problems: > > 1) Bandwagon voting, or "vote for the winner" mindset. The early wave of voters can impact the results by discouraging > people from voting. > (Look at Zeev's RFC vote count vs Anthony's.) > 2) The losing side feverishly drumming up votes, often with scare tactics - i.e., vocal minority. (It's much easier for the "No" > side of any vote to appeal to this.) > 3) In rare cases, Gaming the system - closing the vote at the exact time that benefits the owner of the RFC. > > So I don't think there's anything sinister here. It's just the natural result of the voting rules. > > -- > Matthew Leverton > > -- > I agree with Matthew here, the voting process should be revised and votes should not be public -- for anyone -- until closed. I mean, every sane democratic country is using the secret ballot method, why shouldn't PHP use it? But I am not a voter, so just my 2 cents Cheers, Robert --- Next page: https://externals.io/message/84828.md?page=2