On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> 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 about rules of campaigning > and campaign expenditures and what can be said to whom in which place in > whose presence. All of which of course would be completely unenforceable > but breed more and more allegations of violations and mistrust and > gamesmanship. And this is to limit the mythical "effect of lobbying" the > existence of which is absolutely without proof. I think this is a > solution is desperate search of a non-existing problem. Let's just > recognize "lobbying" in our case is called "discussion" and try to make > it productive instead of disabling it. > -- > Stas Malyshev > smalys...@gmail.com > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > I agree that the voting process needs various improvements, censoring who voted for what is not one of them. There's nothing wrong with lobbying and trying to sway voters. In fact, that's what you're *supposed* to do if you really care about the given topic. I wouldn't want to in any way discourage that. Transparency is a greater concern, in my view. If people are just voting based on how a certain person or people voted every time, or were actually selling their votes in some fashion, that would be a concern if it were sufficiently widespread, but I'm not aware of any evidence of that. But people voting because someone persuaded them to change their mind, that's not a problem. It's a sign that the system works as intended. This particular proposal seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. I suggest we instead focus on making improvements that would actually be beneficial. --Kris
