# Anonymous voting on wiki

- Thread: https://externals.io/message/90412
- Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/90412
- Started by Stanislav Malyshev on 2016-01-09T07:55:18+00:00
- Messages: 46
- Page 1 of 2: messages 1 to 25 (25 per page, add `?page=N` to the URL)
- Next page: https://externals.io/message/90412.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

---

## #90412 — Stanislav Malyshev — 2016-01-09T07:55:18+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90412

Hi!

Since in CoC discussion it was mentioned we may need anonymous voting,
I've created a patch that allows anonymous polls to be created:

https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/7

The results still recorded per user, but everybody can see just their
own vote (for logged in users) and total summary. People with shell
access to the server will be able to see the votes, unfortunately I
don't see how to avoid that without serious rewrite.
Also, once the poll is created as anonymous it can't be turned into
non-anonymous without resetting the results or manual admin action.

Please review/comment. Is it's good, I propose to deploy it on wiki.php.net.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com

---

## #90413 — Pierre Joye — 2016-01-09T07:58:53+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90413 · In reply to: #90412

>
> Hi!
>
> Since in CoC discussion it was mentioned we may need anonymous voting,
> I've created a patch that allows anonymous polls to be created:
>
> https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/7
>
> The results still recorded per user, but everybody can see just their
> own vote (for logged in users) and total summary. People with shell
> access to the server will be able to see the votes, unfortunately I
> don't see how to avoid that without serious rewrite.
> Also, once the poll is created as anonymous it can't be turned into
> non-anonymous without resetting the results or manual admin action.
>
> Please review/comment. Is it's good, I propose to deploy it on
wiki.php.net.
> --
> Stas Malyshev
> smalyshev@gmail.com

Thanks :)

Quick and good work!

About admins able to read the results, I trust us not to do so. Also I lost
track about who has access to the wiki. Last time only one or two persons
had access.

---

## #90414 — francois@php.net — 2016-01-09T15:04:06+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90414 · In reply to: #90412

Le 09/01/2016 08:55, Stanislav Malyshev a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> Since in CoC discussion it was mentioned we may need anonymous voting,
> I've created a patch that allows anonymous polls to be created:
>
> https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/7
>
> The results still recorded per user, but everybody can see just their
> own vote (for logged in users) and total summary. People with shell
> access to the server will be able to see the votes, unfortunately I
> don't see how to avoid that without serious rewrite.
> Also, once the poll is created as anonymous it can't be turned into
> non-anonymous without resetting the results or manual admin action.
>
> Please review/comment. Is it's good, I propose to deploy it on wiki.php.net.
>

Thanks Stas. That's exactly what I have wished for a long time.

Some could argue against seeing the total count evolve before the vote 
is over but I think it's acceptable to allow the RFC author check how 
things are going. Anyway, the most important, IMHO, is to hide 
individual votes and voter names.

Regards

François

---

## #90423 — Andrea Faulds — 2016-01-09T20:11:25+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90423 · In reply to: #90412

Hi Stas,

Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Since in CoC discussion it was mentioned we may need anonymous voting,
> I've created a patch that allows anonymous polls to be created:
>
> https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/7
>
> The results still recorded per user, but everybody can see just their
> own vote (for logged in users) and total summary. People with shell
> access to the server will be able to see the votes, unfortunately I
> don't see how to avoid that without serious rewrite.
> Also, once the poll is created as anonymous it can't be turned into
> non-anonymous without resetting the results or manual admin action.
>
> Please review/comment. Is it's good, I propose to deploy it on wiki.php.net.
>

This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for 
RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing who 
voted which way means you can ask them what their objections were. 
Though, anonymous voting would mean no potential for harassing people 
for the way they voted (though they're not necessarily free of 
harassment for their opinion - many people make theirs public anyway).

One concern I have with the patch is that it doesn't appear (by my 
reading of the code) to show who voted. I think it's important to know 
who participated in the vote, even if we don't know which way they 
voted. Consider that real-world elections have electoral registers, at 
least in my country. Perhaps we could implement this by showing the same 
table of votes as the normal one, but covering up the Yes/No columns 
with a colspan saying something like "concealed".

Anyway, that's just my thoughts.

Thanks for writing a patch!
-- 
Andrea Faulds
https://ajf.me/

---

## #90424 — Stanislav Malyshev — 2016-01-09T22:00:29+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90424 · In reply to: #90423

Hi!

> This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for
> RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing who

I think we talked about it, and decided not to do it. Anything changed?

> One concern I have with the patch is that it doesn't appear (by my
> reading of the code) to show who voted. I think it's important to know

This is intentional. Otherwise by taking snapshots of the page at
regular periods and seeing who voted and how the totals changed, one can
deduce each personal vote.


-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com

---

## #90425 — Andrea Faulds — 2016-01-09T22:03:54+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90425 · In reply to: #90424

Hi Stas,

Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > […]
>
> I think we talked about it, and decided not to do it. Anything changed?

Actually, I don't think so. My fear was probably unfounded.

> > […]
>
> This is intentional. Otherwise by taking snapshots of the page at
> regular periods and seeing who voted and how the totals changed, one can
> deduce each personal vote.

A fair point. Do you think it'd be alright to show names once the vote 
has ended, though?

Thanks!
-- 
Andrea Faulds
https://ajf.me/

---

## #90426 — Anthony Ferrara — 2016-01-09T22:04:14+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90426 · In reply to: #90424

Stas,


> Hi!
>
> > […]
>
> I think we talked about it, and decided not to do it. Anything changed?
>
> > […]
>
> This is intentional. Otherwise by taking snapshots of the page at
> regular periods and seeing who voted and how the totals changed, one can
> deduce each personal vote.

Perhaps then show them once the vote is closed?

Anthony

---

## #90427 — Stanislav Malyshev — 2016-01-09T22:06:16+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90427 · In reply to: #90426

Hi!

> Perhaps then show them once the vote is closed?

That's possible.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com

---

## #90428 — Pierre Joye — 2016-01-10T01:34:22+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90428 · In reply to: #90427

> Hi!
>
> > […]
>
> That's possible.

I do not see how it helps except to... know who voted what. Indeed if
we only show who voted but not how, that's fine. If not, it makes the
whole thing useless.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org

---

## #90438 — Stanislav Malyshev — 2016-01-10T03:41:30+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90438 · In reply to: #90428

Hi!

> > […]
> 
> I do not see how it helps except to... know who voted what. Indeed if
> we only show who voted but not how, that's fine. If not, it makes the
> whole thing useless.

The idea is that while vote is open, only totals are shown. When the
vote is closed, the total and the list of voters are shown, but the
individual votes still aren't.
I'm not sure whether it is better or not, since secret ballot also means
confidentiality about whether somebody voted or not, and in some cases
(e.g. unanimous voting or some votes disclosed) it may still be possible
to deduce individual votes given the list of participants.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com

---

## #90448 — Lester Caine — 2016-01-10T10:20:45+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90448 · In reply to: #90438

> > […]
> The idea is that while vote is open, only totals are shown. When the
> vote is closed, the total and the list of voters are shown, but the
> individual votes still aren't.
> I'm not sure whether it is better or not, since secret ballot also means
> confidentiality about whether somebody voted or not, and in some cases
> (e.g. unanimous voting or some votes disclosed) it may still be possible
> to deduce individual votes given the list of participants.

The debate on Anonymous voting has been voted on already?

From my own point of view, I like to know who supports and who opposes a
particular RFC simply because I can't vote myself. It helps me to decide
if I need to look deeper into the RFC or if I can rely on those with
voting rights that I trust to get it right. We should not have to hide
our views so the idea that anonymity is a right is part of the problem
in the modern world? Part of the reason for now needing a CoC?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

---

## #90449 — Andreas Heigl — 2016-01-10T10:29:43+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90449 · In reply to: #90448

Hi All.

Am 10.01.16 um 11:20 schrieb Lester Caine:
> 
> > […]
> 
> The debate on Anonymous voting has been voted on already?
> 
> From my own point of view, I like to know who supports and who opposes a
> particular RFC simply because I can't vote myself. It helps me to decide
> if I need to look deeper into the RFC or if I can rely on those with
> voting rights that I trust to get it right. We should not have to hide
> our views so the idea that anonymity is a right is part of the problem
> in the modern world? Part of the reason for now needing a CoC?

Thank you Lester for expressing that view. I am not really sure about
anonymous voting myself. I can understand that anonymous voting is a
good idea *during the voting phase* but I am strongly against
withholding the names of the voters as well as their vote *after the
voting ends*.

In any case I'm sure that this is something that affects the whole
RFC-Process and should be put up in a separate RFC and not just be
implemented "en passant" in a few lines of code. And In my eyes, as it's
a change to the RFC-Process it shoud need a 2/3rd majority.

Just my 2 cent.

Cheers

Andreas

PS: If there's no one else I would try to set up the RFC but would be
very gratefull to have someone mentor me there.


> 


-- 
                                                              ,,,
                                                             (o o)
+---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+
| Andreas Heigl                                                       |
| mailto:andreas@heigl.org                  N 50°22'59.5" E 08°23'58" |
| http://andreas.heigl.org                       http://hei.gl/wiFKy7 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| http://hei.gl/root-ca                                               |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

---

## #90452 — Dennis Birkholz — 2016-01-10T13:15:35+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90452 · In reply to: #90448

Am 10.01.2016 um 11:20 schrieb Lester Caine:
> The debate on Anonymous voting has been voted on already?
> 
> From my own point of view, I like to know who supports and who opposes a
> particular RFC simply because I can't vote myself. It helps me to decide
> if I need to look deeper into the RFC or if I can rely on those with
> voting rights that I trust to get it right. We should not have to hide
> our views so the idea that anonymity is a right is part of the problem
> in the modern world? Part of the reason for now needing a CoC?

I would really like to understand the rational behind anonymous voting
in the PHP internals context. Votes for RFCs should be purely based on
technical reasons and whether the language change would benefit the
language in the long run or not. I see no reason why such a vote should
be confidential. If a person does not stand behind his/her opinion for a
technical change, I am not sure if that person should be allowed to
decide the future of the language. These votes are not about religious
believes, the politic attitude or something else personal. But it may be
preferable to hide the Person<->Vote table until the vote is over. That
would provide protection against harassment to win someone over and
change his/her vote.

I can understand that if an RFC came to pass to ban someone, this is no
longer a technical vote and here anonymity would be preferable IMHO.

Greets,
Dennis

---

## #90453 — Zeev Suraski — 2016-01-10T14:13:25+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90453 · In reply to: #90452

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis Birkholz [mailto:php@dennis.birkholz.biz]
> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 3:16 PM
> To: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki
> 
> Am 10.01.2016 um 11:20 schrieb Lester Caine:
> > […]
> 
> I would really like to understand the rational behind anonymous voting in the
> PHP internals context. Votes for RFCs should be purely based on technical
> reasons and whether the language change would benefit the language in the
> long run or not. I see no reason why such a vote should be confidential. If a
> person does not stand behind his/her opinion for a technical change, I am
> not sure if that person should be allowed to decide the future of the
> language. These votes are not about religious believes, the politic attitude or
> something else personal. But it may be preferable to hide the Person<-
> > […]
> harassment to win someone over and change his/her vote.

Much like I did not experience (what I consider) threats before, I've yet to experience harassment based on voting choices thus far (not just personally, but also never saw anybody else being harassed for their vote).

I was certainly harassed for championing certain things - but never for voting one way or the other.  And I certainly didn't harass anybody myself.  I certainly lobbied in some cases, but always politely and never against a person's wishes.  I think that's absolutely fine.  I'm pointing that out because someone reading the list in the last few days may come to think that PHP is all about threats, personal attacks and harassments, which it is not.  I don't personally mind an anonymous vote on this topic.

Zeev

---

## #90481 — Zeev Suraski — 2016-01-11T12:14:10+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90481 · In reply to: #90424

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:smalyshev@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 12:00 AM
> To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki
> 
> Hi!
> 
> > […]
> 
> I think we talked about it, and decided not to do it. Anything changed?
> 
> > […]
> 
> This is intentional. Otherwise by taking snapshots of the page at regular
> periods and seeing who voted and how the totals changed, one can deduce
> each personal vote.

I have no idea if it's related, but is there any chance the patch caused some older votes to be broken - at least in how they're displayed?
Case in point:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting/vote

Zeev

---

## #90482 — Peter Cowburn — 2016-01-11T12:24:40+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90482 · In reply to: #90481

>
>
> > […]
>
> I have no idea if it's related, but is there any chance the patch caused
> some older votes to be broken - at least in how they're displayed?
> Case in point:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting/vote


The patch for this PR has not been merged, so no.

The linked page has been like that since April '14 and likely for some time
before then:
http://web.archive.org/web/20140411014209/https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting/vote


>
>
> Zeev

---

## #90486 — Derick Rethans — 2016-01-11T13:44:41+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90486 · In reply to: #90423

> Hi Stas,
> 
> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>
> > […]
> 
> This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for 
> RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing 
> who voted which way means you can ask them what their objections were. 

I have gotten these question in the past, and I think it's important to 
be able to be asked why you made a specific choice.

> Though, anonymous voting would mean no potential for harassing people 
> for the way they voted (though they're not necessarily free of 
> harassment for their opinion - many people make theirs public anyway).

I do think that for normal RFCs, voting should not be anonymous.

However, if we go that way, I find it important that once voting is 
closed, the votes are always shown (for normal RFCs) - even if chose to 
make normal RFC voting anonymous.

> One concern I have with the patch is that it doesn't appear (by my 
> reading of the code) to show who voted. I think it's important to know 
> who participated in the vote, even if we don't know which way they 
> voted.

I disagree, I think it is important to know who voted for what in the 
end. Some accountability is good. 

cheers,
Derick

-- 
http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine

---

## #90491 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2016-01-11T14:05:05+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90491 · In reply to: #90486

> 
>
> > […]
>
> I have gotten these question in the past, and I think it's important to
> be able to be asked why you made a specific choice.
>
> > […]
>
> I do think that for normal RFCs, voting should not be anonymous.
>
> However, if we go that way, I find it important that once voting is
> closed, the votes are always shown (for normal RFCs) - even if chose to
> make normal RFC voting anonymous.
>
> > […]
>
> I disagree, I think it is important to know who voted for what in the
> end. Some accountability is good.
>

agree, otherwise it will be very hard/impossible to notice if/when somebody
borks/manipulates the votes.

-- 
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

---

## #90493 — eli@eliw.com — 2016-01-11T14:25:07+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90493 · In reply to: #90425

> Hi Stas,
>
> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > […]
>
> Actually, I don't think so. My fear was probably unfounded.

Has this discussion happened since the STH votes happened?  I know it's
been discussed before, but it seems that the STH vote kinda brought this
out of the woodwork a bit.  And honestly I haven't seen a serious
discussion about 'by default anonymous' since that time.  (But perhaps I
missed it)

Eli

-- 
|   Eli White   |   http://eliw.com/   |   Twitter: EliW   |

---

## #90495 — eli@eliw.com — 2016-01-11T14:45:59+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90495 · In reply to: #90452

> I would really like to understand the rational behind anonymous voting
> in the PHP internals context. Votes for RFCs should be purely based on
> technical reasons and whether the language change would benefit the
> language in the long run or not. I see no reason why such a vote
> should be confidential.

I will chime in my quick thoughts here Dennis, as to a reason I could
see for doing so ...  (Not going to argue if 'this reason is good
enough' or not.  But it is a valid reason)

> If a person does not stand behind his/her opinion for a technical
> change, I am not sure if that person should be allowed to decide the
> future of the language. 

So the reason is not because someone isn't willing to 'stand behind
their opinion'.  It's purely about being harassed (perhaps beleaguered
is a better terminology to not confuse this with 'illegal harassment')
for having said opinion.  I was one of the people who, due to my vote on
STH, immediately started being beleaguered for holding my views and for
voting as much.  My inbox/twitter/IRC/etc filled with how I was ruining
PHP and ruining people's lives.  Old friendships were threatened to be
ended.  And my entire week ended up becoming full of responding to these.

Instead of getting to be an informed voter, go in and cast my vote, and
await for the results to be displayed ... I become embroiled into the
arguments, back-n-forth, defense, and dealing with the beleaguering
comments.

Yes, I stood behind my opinion.   But it has made me gun shy about
voting in the future on any contentious topic, because I know I need to
set aside the time to 'deal with that'.  Yet those contentious topics,
are the ones where we should be encouraging as many people as possible
to vote, to make sure that we have a broad spectrum of views and that it
is the 'will of the community' as it were.   And (at least in the US) is
against the idea in general of voter confidence.  Where you are free to
hold your belief without needing to be slammed for it publicly.

So anyway, that's one reason.  Whether it's a good reason or not is up
to others to decide.

> ... But it may be preferable to hide the Person<->Vote table until the
> vote is over. That would provide protection against harassment to win
> someone over and change his/her vote. 

Unfortunately that won't stop the above situation.  While it would stop
the idea of campaigning someone to change their vote (which is perhaps
another reason to do it).  It just means all the above issues would be
taking place post-vote, instead of during-vote.

Eli

-- 
|   Eli White   |   http://eliw.com/   |   Twitter: EliW   |

---

## #90496 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2016-01-11T14:51:52+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90496 · In reply to: #90493

> 
> > […]
>
> Has this discussion happened since the STH votes happened?  I know it's
> been discussed before, but it seems that the STH vote kinda brought this
> out of the woodwork a bit.  And honestly I haven't seen a serious
> discussion about 'by default anonymous' since that time.  (But perhaps I
> missed it)
>
> Eli
>

Not sure which discussion you are referring(probably where were the
anonymous voting brought up again since the STH votes), but this pull
request was created because in the Code of Conduct thread somebody
mentioned that having anonymous votes can be useful when dealing with code
of conduct sanctions:
https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg82537.html
where it was mentioned that previously we had hidden votes for a short
while but people complained and we reverted it:
https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg82549.html
so Stas replied that he will be looking into porting the old patch:
https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg82651.html
and here we are now, afaik the current PR from Stas introduces the
anonymous votes as an optional vote type which is less
intrusive/controversial than the last one, so we could merge it without
having any visible effects.
personally I wouldn't merge until we decided if we need/want the anon
votes, be that for regular RFCs (in which case I would only support the
inclusion if closing the vote makes visible who voted what) or for some
other new type of voting.

-- 
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

---

## #90499 — eli@eliw.com — 2016-01-11T15:16:09+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90499 · In reply to: #90496

Thanks for all the backstory Ferenc, but I knew about the reasons for
this pull request.   It's relation to the current CoC discussion, as
well as the past cases of having anonymous votes and it's rollback.

But my statement was in the context of the thread between Stas &
Andrea.   Wherein Stas stated that we'd talked about having anonymous
voting and we all decided not to do it, and asked if anything had
changed.   Andrea stated that no, things probably hadn't.

My point was:  Given that, as far as I can remember, all those
discussions of anonymous voting happened before the STH votes.  We do
have 'new information' and things that have changed.  Because various
issues were exposed during that voting process, wherein hidden votes
could have helped some people from being beleaguered by people who
disagreed with them, and it would have stopped the ability for people to
be influenced/petitioned/pressed by others to change their vote.

Hence:  I think that there has been something that changed, a new data
point, and therefore a discussion may be merited.

Eli



> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Eli <eli@eliw.com
> <mailto:eli@eliw.com>> wrote:
>
>     
> > […]
>     default for
> > […]
>     knowing
> > […]
>     changed?
> > […]
>
>     Has this discussion happened since the STH votes happened?  I know
>     it's
>     been discussed before, but it seems that the STH vote kinda
>     brought this
>     out of the woodwork a bit.  And honestly I haven't seen a serious
>     discussion about 'by default anonymous' since that time.  (But
>     perhaps I
>     missed it)
>
>     Eli 
>
>
> Not sure which discussion you are referring(probably where were the
> anonymous voting brought up again since the STH votes), but this pull
> request was created because in the Code of Conduct thread somebody
> mentioned that having anonymous votes can be useful when dealing with
> code of conduct sanctions:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg82537.html
> where it was mentioned that previously we had hidden votes for a short
> while but people complained and we reverted it:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg82549.html
> so Stas replied that he will be looking into porting the old patch:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg82651.html
> and here we are now, afaik the current PR from Stas introduces the
> anonymous votes as an optional vote type which is less
> intrusive/controversial than the last one, so we could merge it
> without having any visible effects.
> personally I wouldn't merge until we decided if we need/want the anon
> votes, be that for regular RFCs (in which case I would only support
> the inclusion if closing the vote makes visible who voted what) or for
> some other new type of voting.
>
> -- 
> Ferenc Kovács
> @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

-- 
|   Eli White   |   http://eliw.com/   |   Twitter: EliW   |

---

## #90501 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2016-01-11T15:42:36+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90501 · In reply to: #90499

> Thanks for all the backstory Ferenc, but I knew about the reasons for this
> pull request.   It's relation to the current CoC discussion, as well as the
> past cases of having anonymous votes and it's rollback.
>
> But my statement was in the context of the thread between Stas & Andrea.
> Wherein Stas stated that we'd talked about having anonymous voting and we
> all decided not to do it, and asked if anything had changed.   Andrea
> stated that no, things probably hadn't.
>
> My point was:  Given that, as far as I can remember, all those discussions
> of anonymous voting happened before the STH votes.  We do have 'new
> information' and things that have changed.  Because various issues were
> exposed during that voting process, wherein hidden votes could have helped
> some people from being beleaguered by people who disagreed with them, and
> it would have stopped the ability for people to be
> influenced/petitioned/pressed by others to change their vote.
>
> Hence:  I think that there has been something that changed, a new data
> point, and therefore a discussion may be merited.
>
> Eli
>
>
ok, I wasn't sure about if they were referring to the old discussion where
the anonymous voting was reverted almost instantly, or about the recent CoC
discussion which was back and forth between having the voters/reporters
privacy, shielding them from potential backlash or having more transparency
for the voting results, so I'm curious about what Stas meant as well.

-- 
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

---

## #90506 — Stanislav Malyshev — 2016-01-11T16:14:56+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90506 · In reply to: #90501

Hi!

> the anonymous voting was reverted almost instantly, or about the recent CoC
> discussion which was back and forth between having the voters/reporters
> privacy, shielding them from potential backlash or having more transparency
> for the voting results, so I'm curious about what Stas meant as well.

I refer to the time when we had a patch that introduced anonymous votes.

My personal opinion is that *if* we were to get to the point when
substantial number of people are being attacked personally merely for
voting this way or that way, that makes them fearful, it would be
horrible. And we'd have to think really hard how to fix that - starting
maybe for them to find out a trusted individual in the community which
would assemble this information and try to figure out where it is coming
from and how to counter that.

If however it is just some people not wishing to invest in supporting
one side or another, out of concern that it takes too much time and
effort to sustain discussion - this is completely normal. We do want
more contributors, but when it comes to voting, I think we want the
contributors to commit to being serious about their position. There's no
obligation to vote if you prefer not to. But if you do, standing by your
vote is part of it.

This was the idea why we decided to have open vote, as I understand it.
So far I don't think it changed - unless, of course, there would be new
data that changes the picture.

When voting on behavioral matters, however, it is different, since the
pattern of bad conduct is at least alleged by the very nature of the
matter in question. So there the benefits of anonymous vote outweigh the
issues, I think.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com

---

## #90524 — francois@php.net — 2016-01-11T23:26:49+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/90412#90524 · In reply to: #90495

Hi Eli,

Le 11/01/2016 15:45, Eli a écrit :
> 
> > […]
>
> I will chime in my quick thoughts here Dennis, as to a reason I could
> see for doing so ...  (Not going to argue if 'this reason is good
> enough' or not.  But it is a valid reason)
>
> > […]
>
> So the reason is not because someone isn't willing to 'stand behind
> their opinion'.  It's purely about being harassed (perhaps beleaguered
> is a better terminology to not confuse this with 'illegal harassment')
> for having said opinion.  I was one of the people who, due to my vote on
> STH, immediately started being beleaguered for holding my views and for
> voting as much.  My inbox/twitter/IRC/etc filled with how I was ruining
> PHP and ruining people's lives.  Old friendships were threatened to be
> ended.  And my entire week ended up becoming full of responding to these.
>
> Instead of getting to be an informed voter, go in and cast my vote, and
> await for the results to be displayed ... I become embroiled into the
> arguments, back-n-forth, defense, and dealing with the beleaguering
> comments.
>
> Yes, I stood behind my opinion.   But it has made me gun shy about
> voting in the future on any contentious topic, because I know I need to
> set aside the time to 'deal with that'.  Yet those contentious topics,
> are the ones where we should be encouraging as many people as possible
> to vote, to make sure that we have a broad spectrum of views and that it
> is the 'will of the community' as it were.   And (at least in the US) is
> against the idea in general of voter confidence.  Where you are free to
> hold your belief without needing to be slammed for it publicly.
>
> So anyway, that's one reason.  Whether it's a good reason or not is up
> to others to decide.
>
> > […]
>
> Unfortunately that won't stop the above situation.  While it would stop
> the idea of campaigning someone to change their vote (which is perhaps
> another reason to do it).  It just means all the above issues would be
> taking place post-vote, instead of during-vote.
>
> Eli
>

That's the reason why I suggested anonymous votes once again.

On few occasions, it happened that I didn't vote on an RFC because I 
didn't want the RFC author to see how I voted. That may look strange but 
one may have lots of reasons not to want his vote to go public.

Sure, in an ideal world, we should stand by our decision and be ready to 
defend it with pure technical arguments, whatever relationship we have 
with the RFC author. Unfortunately, that's not always the case and the 
STH saga proved that, at least in this case, a lot of people, like Eli, 
  would have felt more comfortable if votes had been anonymous. Anyway, 
the course of the vote would have been very different.

I must say I don't understand why people want individual votes to be 
public, even after the vote is over. The mailing list is here for 
eveyone to expose arguments. IMO, the vote is a place for privacy. I 
definitely *don't* want an RFC author to ask me why I voted against his 
proposal, and I will certainly *never* do that on one of my RFCs. If I 
have something to say, I will say it on the list. My vote is my private 
decision and I don't have to justify it against anybody.

Actually, that's nothing else than the rules already applied in every 
elections in democratic states. Would you approve everyone to know who 
you voted for after a presidential election ? Someone said that 
registers are used to keep a track of who voted. That's right but the 
information is here to avoid mutiple votes and is not publicly 
available. So, even the voters' names are not disclosed. I just suggest 
we do the same, ensuring votes cannot be biased by non-technical 
considerations.

A case that could be prevented by public votes is the RFC being 
massively rejected while almost no objections were done on the ML. In 
this case, we could argue that the RFC author could use the vote 
information to get more information from voters. Unfortunately, that 
case already happened with Stas' (great :) RFC about default class 
constructor, which demonstrated that public votes are not an efficient 
protection against this. IMHO, the solution to such case is not a 
question of public/private vote. It is more due to the fact that many 
list members don't read the RFCs before vote starts. So, the discussion 
phase is almost empty and, as soon as you start the vote, everybody 
wakes up and asks you to stop or change everything. It happened to me 
several times and is, IMO, a real issue in our RFC process. That's 
another subject but I would like the process to be amended to disable 
posting opinions/discussions about an RFC while the vote is open, 
considering there was enough time for that during the discussion phase.

Regards

François

---

Next page: https://externals.io/message/90412.md?page=2