Re: Re: Anonymous voting on wiki
| From: | Andreas Heigl | Date: | Sun, 10 Jan 2016 10:29:43 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Anonymous voting on wiki | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-90449@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi All.
Am 10.01.16 um 11:20 schrieb Lester Caine:
> On 10/01/16 03:41, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>>>>> Perhaps then show them once the vote is closed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's possible.
>>>>
>>>> I do not see how it helps except to... know who voted what. Indeed if
>>>> we only show who voted but not how, that's fine. If not, it makes the
>>>> whole thing useless.
>> The idea is that while vote is open, only totals are shown. When the
>> vote is closed, the total and the list of voters are shown, but the
>> individual votes still aren't.
>> I'm not sure whether it is better or not, since secret ballot also means
>> confidentiality about whether somebody voted or not, and in some cases
>> (e.g. unanimous voting or some votes disclosed) it may still be possible
>> to deduce individual votes given the list of participants.
>
> The debate on Anonymous voting has been voted on already?
>
> From my own point of view, I like to know who supports and who opposes a
> particular RFC simply because I can't vote myself. It helps me to decide
> if I need to look deeper into the RFC or if I can rely on those with
> voting rights that I trust to get it right. We should not have to hide
> our views so the idea that anonymity is a right is part of the problem
> in the modern world? Part of the reason for now needing a CoC?
Thank you Lester for expressing that view. I am not really sure about
anonymous voting myself. I can understand that anonymous voting is a
good idea *during the voting phase* but I am strongly against
withholding the names of the voters as well as their vote *after the
voting ends*.
In any case I'm sure that this is something that affects the whole
RFC-Process and should be put up in a separate RFC and not just be
implemented "en passant" in a few lines of code. And In my eyes, as it's
a change to the RFC-Process it shoud need a 2/3rd majority.
Just my 2 cent.
Cheers
Andreas
PS: If there's no one else I would try to set up the RFC but would be
very gratefull to have someone mentor me there.
>
--
,,,
(o o)
+---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+
| Andreas Heigl |
| mailto:andreas@heigl.org N
50°22'59.5" E 08°23'58" |
| http://andreas.heigl.org http://hei.gl/wiFKy7 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| http://hei.gl/root-ca
|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Attachment: [application/pkcs7-signature] S/MIME Cryptographic Signature smime.p7s
Attachment: [application/pkcs7-signature] S/MIME Cryptographic Signature smime.p7s