Hello internals,
In the light of recent events, I would like to propose a change to the way
we vote.
The change would be switching from visible casted votes to private / hidden
votes
until the date/time the vote closes, at which time everything will be made
visible
once again.
This would block voting "lobbying" in various social channels based on
possible
outcomes, and would allow voting to run its course unaltered. The people
that do
want to share their vote option, can still do that in the mailing list
where some already
justify their votes.
Looking forward for your thoughts on this,
Stelian
Hello Stelian,
just FYI: it was proposed in the past and even implemenented 1, but
then reverted 2. However, I don't remember reasoning back then.
Regards,
Maciej.
W dniu 2015-03-17 o 21:02, Stelian Mocanita pisze:
Hello internals,
In the light of recent events, I would like to propose a change to the way
we vote.The change would be switching from visible casted votes to private / hidden
votes
until the date/time the vote closes, at which time everything will be made
visible
once again.This would block voting "lobbying" in various social channels based on
possible
outcomes, and would allow voting to run its course unaltered. The people
that do
want to share their vote option, can still do that in the mailing list
where some already
justify their votes.Looking forward for your thoughts on this,
Stelian
Hi!
This would block voting "lobbying" in various social channels based on
possible
outcomes, and would allow voting to run its course unaltered. The people
Why we want to block it? What's wrong in convincing people that your
idea is OK (or that it's not OK, for that matter)? Isn't it kind of the
whole point of discussing it?
want to share their vote option, can still do that in the mailing list
where some already
justify their votes.
So now parallel to voting we get threads announcing everybody's votes.
Yay, more noise!
Or, even worse, given current tendencies, somebody submits a proposal,
couple of people say "yeah good idea", then vote happens and somehow
there's 30 "no" votes without any explanation - and without possibility
to fix it since by the time the proposer knows it the proposal is
already declined. It wouldn't be very encouraging to submit RFCs with
such process.
--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
Hi,
2015-03-17 21:35 GMT+01:00 Stanislav Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com:
Or, even worse, given current tendencies, somebody submits a proposal,
couple of people say "yeah good idea", then vote happens and somehow
there's 30 "no" votes without any explanation - and without possibility
to fix it since by the time the proposer knows it the proposal is
already declined. It wouldn't be very encouraging to submit RFCs with
such process.
Unrelated to the suggestion of hiding votes:
How about adding an optional field next to the vote, where a voter
can link to his reasoning (a link to a mail to the list preferably).
This might make picking up older rfcs (,that were declined for earlier
versions easier if the general idea of the rfc isn't flawed) and
collects reasons for the outcome of an rfc without searching through
months of discussions. This change might also make it easier for the
author to chase down, why a vote failed, even if the prior discussion
didn't point into that direction.
I dislike the lobbying, and think some of the allgeged abusive
back-channel communications are wildly out of order, but I would be
against this change.
There have been a couple of instances in the past few weeks where
someone has voted in a particular way.
When asked why they voted like that, they've explained themselves
which has lead to other people realising the actual implications of an
RFC, and for those people to either vote no, or switch their vote from
yes to no.
Aka allowing people to see votes has prevented some RFCs being
approved that would have otherwise been approved.
I think having clearer rules about what lobbying is permitted, and
introducing some rules on who can vote on what would be a better way
of limiting the effect of lobbying.
cheers
Dan
Hi!
I think having clearer rules about what lobbying is permitted, and
introducing some rules on who can vote on what would be a better way
of limiting the effect of lobbying.
And pretty soon we'll have 100-page law codex about rules of campaigning
and campaign expenditures and what can be said to whom in which place in
whose presence. All of which of course would be completely unenforceable
but breed more and more allegations of violations and mistrust and
gamesmanship. And this is to limit the mythical "effect of lobbying" the
existence of which is absolutely without proof. I think this is a
solution is desperate search of a non-existing problem. Let's just
recognize "lobbying" in our case is called "discussion" and try to make
it productive instead of disabling it.
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Stanislav Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi!
I think having clearer rules about what lobbying is permitted, and
introducing some rules on who can vote on what would be a better way
of limiting the effect of lobbying.And pretty soon we'll have 100-page law codex about rules of campaigning
and campaign expenditures and what can be said to whom in which place in
whose presence. All of which of course would be completely unenforceable
but breed more and more allegations of violations and mistrust and
gamesmanship. And this is to limit the mythical "effect of lobbying" the
existence of which is absolutely without proof. I think this is a
solution is desperate search of a non-existing problem. Let's just
recognize "lobbying" in our case is called "discussion" and try to make
it productive instead of disabling it.Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com--
I agree that the voting process needs various improvements, censoring who
voted for what is not one of them. There's nothing wrong with lobbying and
trying to sway voters. In fact, that's what you're supposed to do if you
really care about the given topic. I wouldn't want to in any way
discourage that. Transparency is a greater concern, in my view.
If people are just voting based on how a certain person or people voted
every time, or were actually selling their votes in some fashion, that
would be a concern if it were sufficiently widespread, but I'm not aware of
any evidence of that. But people voting because someone persuaded them to
change their mind, that's not a problem. It's a sign that the system works
as intended.
This particular proposal seems to me to be a solution in search of a
problem. I suggest we instead focus on making improvements that would
actually be beneficial.
--Kris
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Stanislav Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
I think having clearer rules about what lobbying is permitted, and
introducing some rules on who can vote on what would be a better way
of limiting the effect of lobbying.And pretty soon we'll have 100-page law codex about rules of campaigning
and campaign expenditures and what can be said to whom in which place in
whose presence. All of which of course would be completely unenforceable
but breed more and more allegations of violations and mistrust and
gamesmanship. And this is to limit the mythical "effect of lobbying" the
existence of which is absolutely without proof. I think this is a
solution is desperate search of a non-existing problem. Let's just
recognize "lobbying" in our case is called "discussion" and try to make
it productive instead of disabling it.
Private emails, pressure and what many, including myself, consider as
harassment is a big issue in many OSS projects, and for PHP too. I am
not sure what can be done to solve that but private discussions should
be avoided at any price to avoid such bad things to happen. And this
is the very first basic step to ensure a open, clear and fair
discussion about RFC.
Now, I do agree as well that discussions can be affiliated to
lobbying. But the key difference is that a discussion on the list is
open and should be backed with technical argument (or principles when
it comes to design). Lobbying, and you know that perfectly, is totally
different story. Let be straight about what is happening and do not
hide our head in the sand for the sake of ignoring a growing and
devastating problem. We cannot afford to loose more new contributors,
no matter the reason.
Hi!
Private emails, pressure and what many, including myself, consider as
harassment is a big issue in many OSS projects, and for PHP too. I am
What exactly you are calling "harassment"? I have a feeling we are
talking about different things, so it would be nice to explain what
exactly is harassment ans some specific examples of when that happened
in PHP would be nice. E.g., if I email you and explain you my POV on
certain topic, is it harassment? What is I ask your opinion on certain
topic? What if I ask you to vote on certain RFC? What if I ask you for
explanation of your vote?
not sure what can be done to solve that but private discussions should
be avoided at any price to avoid such bad things to happen. And this
Sorry, but I completely disagree. Not only you have absolutely no right
and no business to tell me who I choose to talk in private (and, of
course, to anybody else as well), but there's absolutely no reason to
avoid it. I've had hours of very productive private discussions about
various technical topics, both in PHP and outside, and there's
absolutely nothing wrong with it. I'm not sure which "such bad things"
you mean but I'd like to see some "bad things" that actually happened
because of it.
Of course, that doesn't mean people should not discuss important things
in public, especially if they are of public (understood either as PHP
devs or PHP users or wider) concern. Both modes have their uses. And of
course it doesn't mean people should not follow the RFC process and
provide the necessary explanations and support for their opinions and
proposals. But I don't think we lack that, in most cases. There are
outliers and bad RFCs from time to time, but we can deal with them when
they come.
Now, I do agree as well that discussions can be affiliated to
lobbying. But the key difference is that a discussion on the list is
open and should be backed with technical argument (or principles when
it comes to design). Lobbying, and you know that perfectly, is totally
different story. Let be straight about what is happening and do not
hide our head in the sand for the sake of ignoring a growing and
devastating problem.
OK, let us be super-straight. What is, on your opinion, happening?
While you call us to be straight and claim there is a devastating
problem, you seemingly forgot to straightly say what is actually
happening and which devastating problem it is? Please do so.
We cannot afford to loose more new contributors,
no matter the reason.
Sorry, but we will lose contributors, no matter what. People change,
circumstances change, availability changes, people burn out, people get
busy, people lose interest, people lose patience with other people
disagreeing with them... Tons of reasons why people move on. So giving
out such blanket statements "no matter what" doesn't seem very useful to
me. I agree the community here is not ideal, and could benefit from more
kindness and supportiveness, and the processes could be improved. I
don't think anybody is against putting forward specific thoughts on how
to do it (though not all thoughts would be good ideas, naturally). But
however hard we try, for some people it would prove not to be to their
taste, and we can not say we can not let that happen "no matter the
reason".
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
Hi!
Private emails, pressure and what many, including myself, consider as
harassment is a big issue in many OSS projects, and for PHP too. I amWhat exactly you are calling "harassment"?
Repeatedly, explicitly, strongly asking to shut down a RFC or general
proposal is what I consider as harassment. Even more if prominent figures
do it.
I have a feeling we are
talking about different things, so it would be nice to explain what
exactly is harassment ans some specific examples of when that happened
in PHP would be nice. E.g., if I email you and explain you my POV on
certain topic, is it harassment? What is I ask your opinion on certain
topic? What if I ask you to vote on certain RFC? What if I ask you for
explanation of your vote?not sure what can be done to solve that but private discussions should
be avoided at any price to avoid such bad things to happen. And thisSorry, but I completely disagree. Not only you have absolutely no right
and no business to tell me who I choose to talk in private (and, of
course, to anybody else as well), but there's absolutely no reason to
avoid it.
You are totally right. I have no right to tell you what to do, or to
anybody else for what matters.
But I have the damn right to say that most of the times private, extensive,
and long discussions to finalize damage OSS projects. And recent events
here tell me that I am right to think so.
Now, you can convince me by actually me explaining cases where private,
extensive long discussions are actually good and I will proudly change my
mind.
I've had hours of very productive private discussions about
various technical topics, both in PHP and outside, and there's
absolutely nothing wrong with it. I'm not sure which "such bad things"
you mean but I'd like to see some "bad things" that actually happened
because of it.
Of course, that doesn't mean people should not discuss important things
in public, especially if they are of public (understood either as PHP
devs or PHP users or wider) concern. Both modes have their uses. And of
course it doesn't mean people should not follow the RFC process and
provide the necessary explanations and support for their opinions and
proposals. But I don't think we lack that, in most cases. There are
outliers and bad RFCs from time to time, but we can deal with them when
they come.Now, I do agree as well that discussions can be affiliated to
lobbying. But the key difference is that a discussion on the list is
open and should be backed with technical argument (or principles when
it comes to design). Lobbying, and you know that perfectly, is totally
different story. Let be straight about what is happening and do not
hide our head in the sand for the sake of ignoring a growing and
devastating problem.OK, let us be super-straight. What is, on your opinion, happening?
While you call us to be straight and claim there is a devastating
problem, you seemingly forgot to straightly say what is actually
happening and which devastating problem it is? Please do so.We cannot afford to loose more new contributors,
no matter the reason.Sorry, but we will lose contributors, no matter what. People change,
circumstances change, availability changes, people burn out, people get
busy, people lose interest, people lose patience with other people
disagreeing with them... Tons of reasons why people move on. So giving
out such blanket statements "no matter what" doesn't seem very useful to
me. I agree the community here is not ideal, and could benefit from more
kindness and supportiveness, and the processes could be improved. I
don't think anybody is against putting forward specific thoughts on how
to do it (though not all thoughts would be good ideas, naturally). But
however hard we try, for some people it would prove not to be to their
taste, and we can not say we can not let that happen "no matter the
reason".Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
Hi!
Repeatedly, explicitly, strongly asking to shut down a RFC or general
proposal is what I consider as harassment. Even more if prominent
figures do it.
As I suspected, your definition of harassment is very different from
mine. If someone would ask me to shutdown RFC without explanation, I'd
just ignore it, with explanation - I may discuss it, but I don't see how
it qualifies as "harassment".
But I have the damn right to say that most of the times private,
extensive, and long discussions to finalize damage OSS projects. And
recent events here tell me that I am right to think so.
You have full right to say it, but if you expect this to be believed,
you'd need some proof. I must note despite my pleas, no substantiation
of ominous but vague statements about "what is happening" and
"devastating problem" has been provided.
Now, you can convince me by actually me explaining cases where private,
extensive long discussions are actually good and I will proudly change
my mind.
I can only base on my own experience, but in PHP world when I
participated in namespaces work, I've held both public and private
discussions with a lot of people. Both kinds were very useful.
When we started 5.4, I remember private discussion with one very active
and prominent project participant, who I'm sure you know too. I am not
sure if you consider that one "good" or not, and probably doesn't
qualify as "extensive long", but on my side I think it helped to move
the project further.
I'm sure I could remember more examples, but given the lack of proof so
far that there is any damage from occasional private discussion, I think
that's enough for now.
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
All,
I wholeheartedly recommend that we don't discuss any proposals to change the
voting process at this point in time.
There are definitely flaws in the voting RFC and its implementation, and I
think we should address them - but not right now. With the exception of
the few RFCs still up for a vote - we should move our focus exclusively on
getting PHP 7 out the door on time. We have at least a few months before
this becomes relevant again if not more. We've also just went through a
very intense vote, and we need to take some time for things to settle down
dealing with complicated issues like that.
Zeev
-----Original Message-----
From: Stelian Mocanita [mailto:stelian.mocanita@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:02 PM
To: PHP Internals List
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Vote process change proposalHello internals,
In the light of recent events, I would like to propose a change to the way
we
vote.The change would be switching from visible casted votes to private /
hidden
votes until the date/time the vote closes, at which time everything will
be
made visible once again.This would block voting "lobbying" in various social channels based on
possible outcomes, and would allow voting to run its course unaltered. The
people that do want to share their vote option, can still do that in the
mailing
list where some already justify their votes.Looking forward for your thoughts on this, Stelian