> On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:51, Ryan Pallas <derokor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would prefer to see the team picked for the next occurence immediately > after one happens.
(/me ponders) That leads to an interesting hypothetical situation: if you know in advance that there's a particular team in place, you can (if a malfeasor) send bogus reports until a team you like is in place, then send your intended report. > Or maybe something like 1 month duty at a time, but team membership may last > beyond a month, if no conflicts were had during that month. IE, you get put > on the team, you may "serve" for a year if no conflicts arise. Or you may > only server for a month, if a conflict does arrive (I think an upper bounds > when no conflicts may not be required, but should be considered if this > suggestion is taken to heart at all). (/me nods) I think it leads to a similar situation: if you know the team that's in place, and you are a malfeasor, you can time your false-accusation to a team that is friendly. Granted, I am paying attention to ways to game the system, but since we can be sure it will be gamed, I think it's prudent to do so. Overall, I still assert that a reporter should not know in advance who will handle their report, other than "5 randomly chosen voting members" (similar to a jury pool). -- Paul M. Jones pmjone...@gmail.com http://paul-m-jones.com Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP https://leanpub.com/mlaphp Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP https://leanpub.com/sn1php -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
