On Jul 11, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Hannes Magnusson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 00:34, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com> wrote: >> Hi! >> >> On 7/11/11 3:20 PM, Hannes Magnusson wrote: >>> >>> The idea Stas proposed of leaving the votes untouched and just hide >>> those specific votes during rendering of the vote results is very >>> silly to me. >>> Manually summerizing the votes like has been done in the past on many >>> RFCs into "with karma" and "without" results would make much more >>> sense to me, especially since there are so many registered votes >>> already. >> >> Well, yes, maybe that'd be even better. If anybody with shell access could >> get me the raw data files at the end of the vote (should be in data/meta >> directory with .doodle extension) I could easily write a script that >> summarizes it. > > That won't be a problem. > Matching against SVNROOT/global_avail shouldn't be a problem either to > apply whatever SVN restriction rules needed.
The patch fixed a bug where the voting mechanism was not in sync with the passed voting RFC. It's closer now to most peoples interpretation of said RFC. Changing this would, I'm afraid, require changing the RFC which I suppose means an amendment [with a new vote] of some sort. I don't know how bureaucracies work but imagine that'd be what is needed here. Regards, Philip -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
