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 1/11/16 9:51 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Eli <e...@eliw.com > <mailto: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 -- | Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: EliW |
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
