On Mar 18, 2015 4:01 PM, "Zeev Suraski" wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Florian Anderiasch [mailto:m...@anderiasch.de]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10:48 AM
> > To: Stanislav Malyshev; Stelian Mocanita
> > Cc: PHP Internals L
> -Original Message-
> From: Florian Anderiasch [mailto:m...@anderiasch.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10:48 AM
> To: Stanislav Malyshev; Stelian Mocanita
> Cc: PHP Internals List
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Vote process change proposal
>
> >> TL;DR: I&#
On 03/18/2015 12:17 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> people vote to appear/be active I don't see any way to avoid it - people
>> with a strong opinion might still try to win over, others might just go
>> this route if they think something really, really bad is happening -
>> we'll never kn
Hi!
> Repeatedly, explicitly, strongly asking to shut down a RFC or general
> proposal is what I consider as harassment. Even more if prominent
> figures do it.
As I suspected, your definition of harassment is very different from
mine. If someone would ask me to shutdown RFC without explanation,
On Mar 18, 2015 10:52 AM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > Private emails, pressure and what many, including myself, consider as
> > harassment is a big issue in many OSS projects, and for PHP too. I am
>
> What exactly you are calling "harassment"?
Repeatedly, explicitly, strongly askin
Hi!
> Private emails, pressure and what many, including myself, consider as
> harassment is a big issue in many OSS projects, and for PHP too. I am
What exactly you are calling "harassment"? I have a feeling we are
talking about different things, so it would be nice to explain what
exactly is har
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I think having clearer rules about what lobbying is permitted, and
>> introducing some rules on who can vote on what would be a better way
>> of limiting the effect of lobbying.
>
> And pretty soon we'll have 100-page law codex
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I think having clearer rules about what lobbying is permitted, and
> > introducing some rules on who can vote on what would be a better way
> > of limiting the effect of lobbying.
>
> And pretty soon we'll have 100-page law co
Hi!
> I think having clearer rules about what lobbying is permitted, and
> introducing some rules on who can vote on what would be a better way
> of limiting the effect of lobbying.
And pretty soon we'll have 100-page law codex about rules of campaigning
and campaign expenditures and what can be
Hi!
> people vote to appear/be active I don't see any way to avoid it - people
> with a strong opinion might still try to win over, others might just go
> this route if they think something really, really bad is happening -
> we'll never know unless they publicly post this call to action.
So, ess
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Stelian Mocanita <
stelian.mocan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why we want to block it? What's wrong in convincing people that your
> > idea is OK (or that it's not OK, for that matter)? Isn't it kind of the
> > whole point of discussing it?
>
>
> While I agree with di
On 17.03.2015 22:37, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> While I agree with discussing an ongoing vote, I do not find it ok for
>> people
>> to be able to see the current status of an ongoing vote. This might lead to
>> harassing people into voting just to change the outcome. Clear example:
>
> You frame
omplicated issues like that.
Zeev
> -Original Message-
> From: Stelian Mocanita [mailto:stelian.mocan...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:02 PM
> To: PHP Internals List
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] Vote process change proposal
>
> Hello internals,
>
> In the li
I dislike the lobbying, and think some of the allgeged abusive
back-channel communications are wildly out of order, but I would be
against this change.
There have been a couple of instances in the past few weeks where
someone has voted in a particular way.
When asked why they voted like that, the
Hi!
> While I agree with discussing an ongoing vote, I do not find it ok for
> people
> to be able to see the current status of an ongoing vote. This might lead to
> harassing people into voting just to change the outcome. Clear example:
You frame trying to change people's mind as something negat
> Why we want to block it? What's wrong in convincing people that your
> idea is OK (or that it's not OK, for that matter)? Isn't it kind of the
> whole point of discussing it?
While I agree with discussing an ongoing vote, I do not find it ok for
people
to be able to see the current status of an
Hi,
2015-03-17 21:35 GMT+01:00 Stanislav Malyshev :
> Or, even worse, given current tendencies, somebody submits a proposal,
> couple of people say "yeah good idea", then vote happens and somehow
> there's 30 "no" votes without any explanation - and without possibility
> to fix it since by the tim
I see absolutely no issues with the visibility of votes, or the act of
“lobbying” for someone’s vote.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>> This would block voting "lobbying" in various social channels based on
>> possible
>> outcomes, and would allow voting to run
Hi!
> This would block voting "lobbying" in various social channels based on
> possible
> outcomes, and would allow voting to run its course unaltered. The people
Why we want to block it? What's wrong in convincing people that your
idea is OK (or that it's not OK, for that matter)? Isn't it kind
Hello internals,
In the light of recent events, I would like to propose a change to the way
we vote.
The change would be switching from visible casted votes to private / hidden
votes
until the date/time the vote closes, at which time everything will be made
visible
once again.
This would block v
20 matches
Mail list logo
