On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 10:39:01 AM UTC+1, Erik Bray wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Erik Bray <erik....@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Vincent Delecroix >> > <20100.d...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 05/07/16 12:51, leif wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Vincent Delecroix wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> On 05/07/16 09:53, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> As an experiment, we would like to >> >>>>> install https://trac-hacks.org/wiki/VotePlugin >> >>>>> on trac.sagemath.org. This would allow voting on tickets (w.r.t. >> >>>>> their >> >>>>> popularity, etc), >> >>>>> and probably more. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Voting would be restricted to people with a trac account. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Any substantial objections to this? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Yes. What is the point of voting for tickets? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Fun. >> >> >> >> >> >> Except that: >> >> >> >> - It would be one more thing to maintain >> > >> > Not a problem. >> > >> >> - It would introduce a bias in ticket order (maybe good, maybe bad) >> > >> > Could go either way. I don't think it's binding. >> > >> >> - In the current proposal, it is not at all clear how these vote will >> >> be >> >> used >> > >> > That's why I suggested Dima bring it up here. It shouldn't be enabled >> > without some discussion as to how it is used. >> > >> >> Anyway, if it is only for fun it is a -1 from me. >> > >> > Definitely not only for fun. +1 for me with the provision that we >> > decide how best to use it (and with the further qualification that it >> > may not be clear how best to use it until we go ahead and try it, and >> > adjust the strategy as reflected by real world use). >> >> Also I'd be in favor of enabling it for anonymous users at first. I >> think limiting it to people who already have Trac accounts limits its >> usefulness. Yes, there's possibility for abuse, but if one person >> really spams votes for a ticket, they either: > > > Well, is it possible to require some kind of voter authentication, e.g. via > an OpenID? > One vote per OpenID seems to be reasonable. > This would also prevent accidental multiple clicks.
This might be good to have in general if it would make it easier for people to submit tickets. Does anyone have any data on whether or not using OpenID cuts down on spam? Or does it only make it worse? In principle users who are only authenticated with OpenID could be allowed only to vote and nothing else too. >> a) Must have a really good reason if they're that determined, so >> maybe it's still worth looking at, ad >> b) It will probably be obvious where there's been abuse >> >> I don't think we need to institute a policy that a ticket that has >> high votes *must* be given priority. But it would be helpful to have >> the metric (in principle). >> >> Anyways, if we enable it and it turns out to be a disaster it's about >> 1 minute of my time to disable it and no harm is done. >> >> It is still worth discussing how best to use it though. On what >> resources do we want to enable voting? Tickets, obviously. But others >> are possible too. How do want to use the votes? Do we want to add >> some reports that take number of votes into account? Etc., etc. I >> don't know the answers to these questions. Dima might be best to put >> out an initial proposal since it's in part to help his research. > > > I don't mind if votes are anonymised (this would hopefully take away all > sorts of > ethical issues arising potentially). > Do you know if this plugin allows this? I'm looking at the implementation, and currently anonymous voting is disabled by default anyways, and is actually mostly useless the way it's currently implemented (that could be changed by at least allowing votes to be associated with session tokens). Currently the votes are recorded with username. This is used primarily so that the same user can see if and how they already voted on some issue. However, in the newer version there are two wiki macros, LastVoted and VoteList, which do display the voters as well. We could modify/disable that if preferred. I don't see it as necessarily needing secrecy but don't have strong feelings for or against. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
