While you can easily question the value or motives of Anthony's post
about voting irregularities, some simple improvements can be made
which are uncontroversial. I consider this a low hanging fruit, like
restricting the sale of firearms to people who are clearly drunk.
I mentioned on that other thread that the FIG has a rule saying you
cannot cast a vote in any vote that was initiated before your
membership was activated. That annoyed me a little as I missed out on
my vote for PSR-1 and PSR-2, but it's a great way to keep some
potential foul play out of things.
This may not have ever happened.
This will not fix every imagined issue with voting.
If it was happening, it would be bad, right?
Let's just shove that rule in the wiki and call it done.
Hi all,
Am 16.03.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Philip Sturgeon:
I mentioned on that other thread that the FIG has a rule saying you
cannot cast a vote in any vote that was initiated before your
membership was activated.
Let's just shove that rule in the wiki and call it done.
when we are fixing the low hanging fruits, please directly put in the
wiki that the closing time of a vote has to be announced as a UTC time
so there is no confusion when a day ends.
Greets
Dennis
Hi!
when we are fixing the low hanging fruits, please directly put in the
wiki that the closing time of a vote has to be announced as a UTC time
so there is no confusion when a day ends.
Good point. I'd still allow other times besides UTC if it's convenient
to the RFC author, but UTC one should be always present.
--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
Hi!
when we are fixing the low hanging fruits, please directly put in the
wiki that the closing time of a vote has to be announced as a UTC time
so there is no confusion when a day ends.Good point. I'd still allow other times besides UTC if it's convenient
to the RFC author, but UTC one should be always present.--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com--
Is this done yet?
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Philip Sturgeon pjsturgeon@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Stanislav Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com
wrote:Hi!
when we are fixing the low hanging fruits, please directly put in the
wiki that the closing time of a vote has to be announced as a UTC time
so there is no confusion when a day ends.Good point. I'd still allow other times besides UTC if it's convenient
to the RFC author, but UTC one should be always present.--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com--
Is this done yet?
I did not have the time to look into this, did anybody else sent a patch
that I missed?
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Philip Sturgeon pjsturgeon@gmail.com
wrote:On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi!
when we are fixing the low hanging fruits, please directly put in the
wiki that the closing time of a vote has to be announced as a UTC time
so there is no confusion when a day ends.Good point. I'd still allow other times besides UTC if it's convenient
to the RFC author, but UTC one should be always present.--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com--
Is this done yet?
I did not have the time to look into this, did anybody else sent a patch
that I missed?--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
While I don't want to do anything to impede this fix, I feel compelled to
point out that any proposed changes to the voting RFC have to be voted upon
before they can go into effect. I think not setting a bad precedent is
worth the inconvenience of doing this by the book.
That said, my vote would be yes. But we shouldn't be doing an end-run
around the voting process simply because the change is relatively minor;
not when the change is to the voting process itself, at least.
--Kris
hi,
While you can easily question the value or motives of Anthony's post
about voting irregularities, some simple improvements can be made
which are uncontroversial. I consider this a low hanging fruit, like
restricting the sale of firearms to people who are clearly drunk.I mentioned on that other thread that the FIG has a rule saying you
cannot cast a vote in any vote that was initiated before your
membership was activated. That annoyed me a little as I missed out on
my vote for PSR-1 and PSR-2, but it's a great way to keep some
potential foul play out of things.This may not have ever happened.
This will not fix every imagined issue with voting.
If it was happening, it would be bad, right?
Let's just shove that rule in the wiki and call it done.
To be honest I do not think there are much issues related to this specific case.
However i worry much more about:
- minimal discussion time before voting
- actual announces on internals, for discussions phase, voting phase
and approval - avoid changes in a RFC during and after the voting phases but typos
these are the technical measures I want to implement in the wiki to
avoid such things to ever happen again. The tricky parts being the
edition of a RFC during and after voting. While typos could be fine, I
tend to think that it should not be allowed. One possible way is to
have the wiki post on internals any changes happening in a RFC during
or after the votes, so a peer review can happen.
The time periods limitations are easy to deal with and will ensure a
clear rule for everyone.
The announces should be automatic, sent by the wiki, in a way that one
cannot move from one phase to another and forget to send the announces
mails.
On the same note, I would like to get some tech writers involved in
the RFC process. We have seen some very low quality RFC (the RFC
itself not necessary the idea behind it). Having tech writers,
native-like speakers, involved would make the wording and correctness
of a RFC much less open to interpretations and clear. A side effect,
it will also the lazy among us to actually use the RFC in a better way
without being stopped due to some writing issues :)
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
hi,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Philip Sturgeon pjsturgeon@gmail.com
wrote:While you can easily question the value or motives of Anthony's post
about voting irregularities, some simple improvements can be made
which are uncontroversial. I consider this a low hanging fruit, like
restricting the sale of firearms to people who are clearly drunk.I mentioned on that other thread that the FIG has a rule saying you
cannot cast a vote in any vote that was initiated before your
membership was activated. That annoyed me a little as I missed out on
my vote for PSR-1 and PSR-2, but it's a great way to keep some
potential foul play out of things.This may not have ever happened.
This will not fix every imagined issue with voting.
If it was happening, it would be bad, right?
Let's just shove that rule in the wiki and call it done.
To be honest I do not think there are much issues related to this specific
case.However i worry much more about:
- minimal discussion time before voting
- actual announces on internals, for discussions phase, voting phase
and approval- avoid changes in a RFC during and after the voting phases but typos
these are the technical measures I want to implement in the wiki to
avoid such things to ever happen again. The tricky parts being the
edition of a RFC during and after voting. While typos could be fine, I
tend to think that it should not be allowed. One possible way is to
have the wiki post on internals any changes happening in a RFC during
or after the votes, so a peer review can happen.The time periods limitations are easy to deal with and will ensure a
clear rule for everyone.The announces should be automatic, sent by the wiki, in a way that one
cannot move from one phase to another and forget to send the announces
mails.On the same note, I would like to get some tech writers involved in
the RFC process. We have seen some very low quality RFC (the RFC
itself not necessary the idea behind it). Having tech writers,
native-like speakers, involved would make the wording and correctness
of a RFC much less open to interpretations and clear. A side effect,
it will also the lazy among us to actually use the RFC in a better way
without being stopped due to some writing issues :)Thoughts?
Cheers,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
--
I'd be happy to lend a hand with that.
--Kris