On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Eli <e...@eliw.com> wrote: > On 1/9/16 5:03 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > Hi Stas, > > > > Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > >> 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? > > > > 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 >
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
