> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Heigl [mailto:andr...@heigl.org] > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 4:21 PM > To: Eli <e...@eliw.com>; internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki > > Am 12.01.16 um 15:06 schrieb Eli: > > On 1/12/16 5:16 AM, Dennis Birkholz wrote: > >> I don't think voting on an RFC is like electing your government. I > >> would compare it to how a House of Representatives works. And at least > >> here in Germany, they vote publicly except when electing people (e.g. > >> the Chancellor). > > > > That's a fine comparison. But there is a big difference in how a House > > vote is run, and a PHP RFC vote. And that's one of time. > > > > A vote in the House (at least in the US, and I assume it's similar in > > Germany). Happens at a moment. > > > > Discussions happen. Then a vote is called, everyone votes instantly. > > Yes, the votes do become public afterwards. However there is not the > > '2-3 week period' of voting that happens on a PHP RFC, wherein you vote, > > and then while the vote is still up, and while you are allowed to change > > your vote, everyone knows how you voted. > > > > Which then leads into the flurry of badgering for people to change their > > votes, beleaguering comments designed to help people change their vote, > > and so on. > > > > Moving to at the very least a 'anonymous votes, and anonymous results, > > until after the vote is finished'. Would make it much more like a > > 'House' vote. > > > > #2cents > > Eli > > > Can we please get clear on terms: > > 1. "Anonymous vote" in my eyes is a vote where no one is and will be > able to get information on who voted what. Never! Ever! The vote is and > will remain anonymous. > > 2. "Public vote" on the opposite is where everyone knows even during the > voting period who voted how. In Germany there's the so called > "Hammelsprung" where the members of the house vote by passing through > certain doors. One could influence them while queuing up for the door ;) > > 3. An "Anonymous vote during voting period" vote that is anonymous > during the voting period (so no one can be actively influenced to > changing their vote) but after the voting period is over the vote is > publicly available. So everyone knows who voted what.
Personally, I think we should stick with #2 except for (maybe) where there are extreme circumstances that require otherwise. Primarily along the lines of Peter's note, if people are afraid of the repercussions. And like Peter, I don't believe we're there at all. I'm at least one of the people who talked with Eli regarding the STH vote (the one for my RFC, not Eli's). It was a ~20 message DM exchange on Twitter, very respectful (Eli - if you think otherwise, please say so), and was truly aimed at understanding the reasons for why he voted against my RFC. Yes, during that short exchange I tried to illustrate why I thought he should change it - but especially in the context of the other RFC being pushed right now, this isn't harassment and not even beleaguering comments. Personally, I think that's completely valid. It would have been also completely valid had Eli told me 'Zeev, honestly, I prefer not to discuss it. Please respect it.' or equivalent, and I can assure everyone that's exactly what I would have done. In such a case, had I went on bugging him about it, then arguably, that would constitute harassment. The reason I think it's completely legitimate - as long as it's respectful and as long as people respect voters' requests to stop - is that in many (most?) cases, the first time you know someone is going to vote a certain way is only after they've done it. I had no idea that Eli was going to vote against my RFC, and was genuinely surprised he did, and wanted to know why - and ensure it wasn't because there was some misunderstanding on his part, or on mine. If we compare it to public votes in politics, typically (although not always), it's pretty clear what a given politician is going to vote, as it would usually be according to party lines. When there's a contentious vote, or when a parliament member intends to vote against his party lines, it's not uncommon for them to say ahead of time how they're going to vote (e.g., the Iran vote that just went through the US Congress). We need to separate between healthy, respectful discussion - even when there are strong disagreements - and arm twisting or harassment. Zeev
