On 17.03.2015 22:37, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> While I agree with discussing an ongoing vote, I do not find it ok for >> people >> to be able to see the current status of an ongoing vote. This might lead to >> harassing people into voting just to change the outcome. Clear example: > > You frame trying to change people's mind as something negative > (harassing), but that's exactly what we're doing during discussion > period. If not that, we wouldn't need it - just publish RFC and go > directly to vote, nobody "harasses" anybody with discussion. I hope you > don't think it is a good idea. I think we are all adult enough to be > able to handle discussion on the merits of the proposals, and if someone > has enough of it, it's ok too - nobody is forced to participate. But I > think openness is an important condition of participation.
Sadly you're ignoring inertia/laziness/"life is what happens while you're busy making other plans". Just compare the minimum number of votes/median number/(average if you must)/maximum number of votes (I bet STH got the crown now) - I don't think there was a real *need* to even alert someones friends and acquaintainces for 95% of votes. Yes, STH was exceptional now, but I bet (and maybe know?) a much smaller amount of lobbying is always in place, and still - unless you *make* people vote to appear/be active I don't see any way to avoid it - people with a strong opinion might still try to win over, others might just go this route if they think something really, really bad is happening - we'll never know unless they publicly post this call to action. TL;DR: I'd prefer no one actively trying to lobby anyone else to vote in their favor, but prodding people with a neutral "hey, check out this vote you might have missed" is fine, although sometimes even then you can gauge their vote, but the most active voters will probably not have overlooked it. ~Florian -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
