On 1/13/16 8:13 AM, François Laupretre wrote:
yeah, that(discussion only seems to happen after introducing the voting
phase) is frustrating for the rfc author, but that is the last phase
where
complaints can be voiced and most people have a tendency to defer stuff
until the last minute, that
Le 12/01/2016 20:29, Ferenc Kovacs a écrit :
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:00 PM, François Laupretre
wrote:
Le 12/01/2016 15:52, Dan Ackroyd a écrit :
François Laupretre wrote:
I would like the process to be amended to disable posting
opinions/discussions about an RFC while the vote is open,
c
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:00 PM, François Laupretre
wrote:
> Le 12/01/2016 15:52, Dan Ackroyd a écrit :
>
>> François Laupretre wrote:
>>
>> 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 tim
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Heigl [mailto:andr...@heigl.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 5:34 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski ; Eli
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki
>
> Am 12.01.16 um 15:53 schrieb Zeev Sur
Am 12.01.16 um 16:45 schrieb Sascha Schumann:
>> During the CoC-Discussion the idea came up to vote certain CoC-issues
>> (call them whatever you like) in a more secure way so that no one sould
>> be able to bully someone into an - for him or her - inappropriate
>> decission. One way to do so could
Le 12/01/2016 15:52, Dan Ackroyd a écrit :
François Laupretre wrote:
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.
This is not a good idea.
That won't
> During the CoC-Discussion the idea came up to vote certain CoC-issues
> (call them whatever you like) in a more secure way so that no one sould
> be able to bully someone into an - for him or her - inappropriate
> decission. One way to do so could be a somehow anonymised vote.
Is discussing thin
Am 12.01.16 um 15:53 schrieb Zeev Suraski:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Andreas Heigl [mailto:andr...@heigl.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 4:21 PM
>> To: Eli ; internals@lists.php.net
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wik
Peter Cowburn wrote:
> On 11 January 2016 at 12:14, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>> 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
Am 12.01.16 um 15:56 schrieb Peter Petermann:
>>
>> 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
> -Original Message-
> From: Eli [mailto:e...@eliw.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 5:07 PM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki
>
> On 1/12/16 9:53 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > I'm at least one o
On 1/12/16 9:53 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> 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
>
> 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
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Heigl [mailto:andr...@heigl.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 4:21 PM
> To: Eli ; 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 5:1
François Laupretre wrote:
> 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.
This is not a good idea.
That won't actually make people discuss a proposa
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.
>>
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 comparis
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Peter Petermann 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 th
>
>
> > 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
>
Hi Eli,
Am 11.01.2016 um 15:45 schrieb Eli:
On 1/10/16 8:15 AM, Dennis Birkholz wrote:
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 th
Hi all,
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Andreas Heigl wrote:
>> 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 r
Hi Eli,
Le 11/01/2016 15:45, Eli a écrit :
On 1/10/16 8:15 AM, Dennis Birkholz wrote:
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
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 a
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Eli wrote:
> 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
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 sta
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Eli 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
>
On 1/10/16 8:15 AM, Dennis Birkholz wrote:
> 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
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
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> > 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
> > > cr
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> 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 res
On 11 January 2016 at 12:14, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 12:00 AM
> > To: Andrea Faulds ; internals@lists.php.net
> > Subject: Re: [P
> -Original Message-
> From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 12:00 AM
> To: Andrea Faulds ; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki
>
> Hi!
>
> > This seems useful. I d
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis Birkholz [mailto:p...@dennis.birkholz.biz]
> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 3:16 PM
> To: Lester Caine ; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki
>
> Am 10.01.2016 um 11:20 schrieb Lester Cai
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 o
Hi All.
Am 10.01.16 um 11:20 schrieb Lester Caine:
> On 10/01/16 03:41, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Perhaps then show them once the vote is closed?
>>
>> 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
On 10/01/16 03:41, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Perhaps then show them once the vote is closed?
>>> >>
>>> >> 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 thi
Hi!
>>> Perhaps then show them once the vote is closed?
>>
>> 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.
The idea is that while vote is open, only totals
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Perhaps then show them once the vote is closed?
>
> 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 useles
Hi!
> Perhaps then show them once the vote is closed?
That's possible.
--
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@gmail.com
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Stas,
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:00 PM, 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?
>
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 wa
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
> read
42 matches
Mail list logo
