Re: voting without vcs accounts

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:34:06 +0200, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote:

I have a problem that we don't have understanding of what is the goal of this whole vote setup. What is it for? What we will be doing with it? And please don't say "it says so in RFC" - it is not a goal.

Let me clarify that and try to do not go backwards while we have finally moved forward. The goal is to have community leader participating in our design discussions and decisions. It has happened already for a couple of RFCs (accepted and rejected) and went very well. The FUDs about core devs, legacy developers and the like loosing control about the direction PHP takes has been killed, it did not happen and it is very unlikely that it will happen. How do the community leaders come in? They are usually very well known and already participate to php in one way or another (bugs report, testing, etc.) and are part of a known OSS project (we have drupal, zf, symfony already for example). Having a couple of devs to second their addition is also requested. This has been said many times already in the past and it is said in the RFC as well. We do not need over killed process as an attempt to make php more closed to our communities.

I think the issue is not who, in general terms, can vote, but how a determination that someone is covered by those terms is made. What is a "known" OSS project? For instance, which of these would qualify: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks#PHP ? Of course, it's impossible to set a clear line on what is a "known" project. Which leads to arbitrariness. Which leads to the second question -- who approves those voting rights? It's been said in this thread that any wiki admin can approve an account without saying anything. Is this case? Who was approved, by whom, and who "seconded the addition" of these accounts? Personally, I don't know. These are, in my opinion, legitimate concerns that should not be dismissed (and "has been said in the past" and allusions to obviousness or lack of problems so far are not appropriate responses). -- Gustavo Lopes