# Vote process change proposal - Thread: https://externals.io/message/85133 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/85133 - Started by Stelian Mocanita on 2015-03-17T20:02:07+00:00 - Messages: 12 - 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 --- ## #85133 — Stelian Mocanita — 2015-03-17T20:02:07+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85133#85133 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 --- ## #85134 — Maciej Sobaczewski — 2015-03-17T20:24:39+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85133#85134 · In reply to: #85133 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. [1]: https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/1 [2]: https://github.com/php/web-wiki/commit/19ca75aa1e06b3c5ad9a61204bbc34189368f02b 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 --- ## #85135 — Stanislav Malyshev — 2015-03-17T20:35:20+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85133#85135 · In reply to: #85133 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 --- ## #85137 — Sebastian B.-Hagensen — 2015-03-17T20:58:46+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85133#85137 · In reply to: #85135 Hi, 2015-03-17 21:35 GMT+01:00 Stanislav Malyshev : > 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. --- ## #85149 — Dan Ackroyd — 2015-03-17T22:41:22+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85133#85149 · In reply to: #85133 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 --- ## #85150 — Zeev Suraski — 2015-03-17T22:53:37+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85133#85150 · In reply to: #85133 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 proposal > > 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 --- ## #85156 — Stanislav Malyshev — 2015-03-17T23:24:42+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85133#85156 · In reply to: #85149 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 --- ## #85159 — Kris Craig — 2015-03-18T02:07:00+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85133#85159 · In reply to: #85156 On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > […] > > 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 --- ## #85161 — Pierre Joye — 2015-03-18T02:21:18+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85133#85161 · In reply to: #85156 On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > […] > > 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. --- ## #85162 — Stanislav Malyshev — 2015-03-18T03:52:09+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85133#85162 · In reply to: #85161 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 --- ## #85166 — Pierre Joye — 2015-03-18T04:50:08+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85133#85166 · In reply to: #85162 > > Hi! > > > […] > > What 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? > > > […] > > 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. 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. > > > […] > > 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. > > > […] > > 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 --- ## #85167 — Stanislav Malyshev — 2015-03-18T05:27:08+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/85133#85167 · In reply to: #85166 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