On Mar 18, 2015 4:01 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com 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 List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Vote process
-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'd prefer no one actively trying to lobby
On Mar 18, 2015 10:52 AM, Stanislav Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com 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,
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
Hi,
2015-03-17 21:35 GMT+01:00 Stanislav Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com:
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
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 negative
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
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:24 AM, 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
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
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 trying
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
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 light of recent events, I would like to propose
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,
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,
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 discussing
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
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 of
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 smalys...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi!
This would block voting lobbying in various social channels based on
possible
outcomes, and would allow
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,
19 matches
Mail list logo
