Everything
php
Learn Community Releases The PHP Project
Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » Anonymous voting on wiki »

Anonymous voting on wiki

php.internals

Stas Malyshev

10 years ago
Hi! Since in CoC discussion it was mentioned we may need anonymous voting, I've created a patch that allows anonymous polls to be created: https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/7 The results still recorded per user, but everybody can see just their own vote (for logged in users) and total summary. People with shell access to the server will be able to see the votes, unfortunately I don't see how to avoid that without serious rewrite. Also, once the poll is created as anonymous it can't be turned into non-anonymous without resetting the results or manual admin action. Please review/comment. Is it's good, I propose to deploy it on wiki.php.net.
-- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com

Pierre Joye

10 years ago
On Jan 9, 2016 2:55 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi! > > Since in CoC discussion it was mentioned we may need anonymous voting, > I've created a patch that allows anonymous polls to be created: > > https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/7 > > The results still recorded per user, but everybody can see just their > own vote (for logged in users) and total summary. People with shell > access to the server will be able to see the votes, unfortunately I > don't see how to avoid that without serious rewrite. > Also, once the poll is created as anonymous it can't be turned into > non-anonymous without resetting the results or manual admin action. > > Please review/comment. Is it's good, I propose to deploy it on
wiki.php.net.
> -- > Stas Malyshev > smalyshev@gmail.com
Thanks :) Quick and good work! About admins able to read the results, I trust us not to do so. Also I lost track about who has access to the wiki. Last time only one or two persons had access.

François Laupretre

10 years ago
Le 09/01/2016 08:55, Stanislav Malyshev a écrit :
> Hi! > > Since in CoC discussion it was mentioned we may need anonymous voting, > I've created a patch that allows anonymous polls to be created: > > https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/7 > > The results still recorded per user, but everybody can see just their > own vote (for logged in users) and total summary. People with shell > access to the server will be able to see the votes, unfortunately I > don't see how to avoid that without serious rewrite. > Also, once the poll is created as anonymous it can't be turned into > non-anonymous without resetting the results or manual admin action. > > Please review/comment. Is it's good, I propose to deploy it on wiki.php.net. >
Thanks Stas. That's exactly what I have wished for a long time. Some could argue against seeing the total count evolve before the vote is over but I think it's acceptable to allow the RFC author check how things are going. Anyway, the most important, IMHO, is to hide individual votes and voter names. Regards François

Andrew Faulds

10 years ago
Hi Stas, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Since in CoC discussion it was mentioned we may need anonymous voting, > I've created a patch that allows anonymous polls to be created: > > https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/7 > > The results still recorded per user, but everybody can see just their > own vote (for logged in users) and total summary. People with shell > access to the server will be able to see the votes, unfortunately I > don't see how to avoid that without serious rewrite. > Also, once the poll is created as anonymous it can't be turned into > non-anonymous without resetting the results or manual admin action. > > Please review/comment. Is it's good, I propose to deploy it on wiki.php.net. >
This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing who voted which way means you can ask them what their objections were. Though, anonymous voting would mean no potential for harassing people for the way they voted (though they're not necessarily free of harassment for their opinion - many people make theirs public anyway). One concern I have with the patch is that it doesn't appear (by my reading of the code) to show who voted. I think it's important to know who participated in the vote, even if we don't know which way they voted. Consider that real-world elections have electoral registers, at least in my country. Perhaps we could implement this by showing the same table of votes as the normal one, but covering up the Yes/No columns with a colspan saying something like "concealed". Anyway, that's just my thoughts. Thanks for writing a patch!
-- Andrea Faulds https://ajf.me/

Stas Malyshev

10 years ago
Hi!
> This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for > RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing who
I think we talked about it, and decided not to do it. Anything changed?
> One concern I have with the patch is that it doesn't appear (by my > reading of the code) to show who voted. I think it's important to know
This is intentional. Otherwise by taking snapshots of the page at regular periods and seeing who voted and how the totals changed, one can deduce each personal vote.
-- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com

Andrew Faulds

10 years ago
Hi Stas, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi! > >> This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for >> RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing who > > I think we talked about it, and decided not to do it. Anything changed?
Actually, I don't think so. My fear was probably unfounded.
>> One concern I have with the patch is that it doesn't appear (by my >> reading of the code) to show who voted. I think it's important to know > > This is intentional. Otherwise by taking snapshots of the page at > regular periods and seeing who voted and how the totals changed, one can > deduce each personal vote.
A fair point. Do you think it'd be alright to show names once the vote has ended, though? Thanks!
-- Andrea Faulds https://ajf.me/

Eli

10 years ago
On 1/9/16 5:03 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Stas, > > Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> Hi! >> >>> This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for >>> RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing >>> who >> >> I think we talked about it, and decided not to do it. Anything changed? > > Actually, I don't think so. My fear was probably unfounded.
Has this discussion happened since the STH votes happened? I know it's been discussed before, but it seems that the STH vote kinda brought this out of the woodwork a bit. And honestly I haven't seen a serious discussion about 'by default anonymous' since that time. (But perhaps I missed it) Eli
-- | Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: EliW |

Ferenc Kovacs

10 years ago
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Eli <eli@eliw.com> wrote:
> On 1/9/16 5:03 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > Hi Stas, > > > > Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > >> Hi! > >> > >>> This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for > >>> RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing > >>> who > >> > >> I think we talked about it, and decided not to do it. Anything changed? > > > > Actually, I don't think so. My fear was probably unfounded. > > Has this discussion happened since the STH votes happened? I know it's > been discussed before, but it seems that the STH vote kinda brought this > out of the woodwork a bit. And honestly I haven't seen a serious > discussion about 'by default anonymous' since that time. (But perhaps I > missed it) > > Eli >
Not sure which discussion you are referring(probably where were the anonymous voting brought up again since the STH votes), but this pull request was created because in the Code of Conduct thread somebody mentioned that having anonymous votes can be useful when dealing with code of conduct sanctions: https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg82537.html where it was mentioned that previously we had hidden votes for a short while but people complained and we reverted it: https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg82549.html so Stas replied that he will be looking into porting the old patch: https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg82651.html and here we are now, afaik the current PR from Stas introduces the anonymous votes as an optional vote type which is less intrusive/controversial than the last one, so we could merge it without having any visible effects. personally I wouldn't merge until we decided if we need/want the anon votes, be that for regular RFCs (in which case I would only support the inclusion if closing the vote makes visible who voted what) or for some other new type of voting.
-- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

Eli

10 years ago
Thanks for all the backstory Ferenc, but I knew about the reasons for this pull request. It's relation to the current CoC discussion, as well as the past cases of having anonymous votes and it's rollback. But my statement was in the context of the thread between Stas & Andrea. Wherein Stas stated that we'd talked about having anonymous voting and we all decided not to do it, and asked if anything had changed. Andrea stated that no, things probably hadn't. My point was: Given that, as far as I can remember, all those discussions of anonymous voting happened before the STH votes. We do have 'new information' and things that have changed. Because various issues were exposed during that voting process, wherein hidden votes could have helped some people from being beleaguered by people who disagreed with them, and it would have stopped the ability for people to be influenced/petitioned/pressed by others to change their vote. Hence: I think that there has been something that changed, a new data point, and therefore a discussion may be merited. Eli On 1/11/16 9:51 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Eli <eli@eliw.com > <mailto:eli@eliw.com>> wrote: > > On 1/9/16 5:03 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > Hi Stas, > > > > Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > >> Hi! > >> > >>> This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by > default for > >>> RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and > knowing > >>> who > >> > >> I think we talked about it, and decided not to do it. Anything > changed? > > > > Actually, I don't think so. My fear was probably unfounded. > > Has this discussion happened since the STH votes happened? I know > it's > been discussed before, but it seems that the STH vote kinda > brought this > out of the woodwork a bit. And honestly I haven't seen a serious > discussion about 'by default anonymous' since that time. (But > perhaps I > missed it) > > Eli > > > Not sure which discussion you are referring(probably where were the > anonymous voting brought up again since the STH votes), but this pull > request was created because in the Code of Conduct thread somebody > mentioned that having anonymous votes can be useful when dealing with > code of conduct sanctions: > https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg82537.html > where it was mentioned that previously we had hidden votes for a short > while but people complained and we reverted it: > https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg82549.html > so Stas replied that he will be looking into porting the old patch: > https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg82651.html > and here we are now, afaik the current PR from Stas introduces the > anonymous votes as an optional vote type which is less > intrusive/controversial than the last one, so we could merge it > without having any visible effects. > personally I wouldn't merge until we decided if we need/want the anon > votes, be that for regular RFCs (in which case I would only support > the inclusion if closing the vote makes visible who voted what) or for > some other new type of voting. > > -- > Ferenc Kovács > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
-- | Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: EliW |

Ferenc Kovacs

10 years ago
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Eli <eli@eliw.com> wrote:
> Thanks for all the backstory Ferenc, but I knew about the reasons for this > pull request. It's relation to the current CoC discussion, as well as the > past cases of having anonymous votes and it's rollback. > > But my statement was in the context of the thread between Stas & Andrea. > Wherein Stas stated that we'd talked about having anonymous voting and we > all decided not to do it, and asked if anything had changed. Andrea > stated that no, things probably hadn't. > > My point was: Given that, as far as I can remember, all those discussions > of anonymous voting happened before the STH votes. We do have 'new > information' and things that have changed. Because various issues were > exposed during that voting process, wherein hidden votes could have helped > some people from being beleaguered by people who disagreed with them, and > it would have stopped the ability for people to be > influenced/petitioned/pressed by others to change their vote. > > Hence: I think that there has been something that changed, a new data > point, and therefore a discussion may be merited. > > Eli > >
ok, I wasn't sure about if they were referring to the old discussion where the anonymous voting was reverted almost instantly, or about the recent CoC discussion which was back and forth between having the voters/reporters privacy, shielding them from potential backlash or having more transparency for the voting results, so I'm curious about what Stas meant as well.
-- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

Stas Malyshev

10 years ago
Hi!
> the anonymous voting was reverted almost instantly, or about the recent CoC > discussion which was back and forth between having the voters/reporters > privacy, shielding them from potential backlash or having more transparency > for the voting results, so I'm curious about what Stas meant as well.
I refer to the time when we had a patch that introduced anonymous votes. My personal opinion is that *if* we were to get to the point when substantial number of people are being attacked personally merely for voting this way or that way, that makes them fearful, it would be horrible. And we'd have to think really hard how to fix that - starting maybe for them to find out a trusted individual in the community which would assemble this information and try to figure out where it is coming from and how to counter that. If however it is just some people not wishing to invest in supporting one side or another, out of concern that it takes too much time and effort to sustain discussion - this is completely normal. We do want more contributors, but when it comes to voting, I think we want the contributors to commit to being serious about their position. There's no obligation to vote if you prefer not to. But if you do, standing by your vote is part of it. This was the idea why we decided to have open vote, as I understand it. So far I don't think it changed - unless, of course, there would be new data that changes the picture. When voting on behavioral matters, however, it is different, since the pattern of bad conduct is at least alleged by the very nature of the matter in question. So there the benefits of anonymous vote outweigh the issues, I think.
-- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com

Anthony Ferrara

10 years ago
Stas, On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! > >> This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for >> RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing who > > I think we talked about it, and decided not to do it. Anything changed? > >> One concern I have with the patch is that it doesn't appear (by my >> reading of the code) to show who voted. I think it's important to know > > This is intentional. Otherwise by taking snapshots of the page at > regular periods and seeing who voted and how the totals changed, one can > deduce each personal vote.
Perhaps then show them once the vote is closed? Anthony

Stas Malyshev

10 years ago
Hi!
> Perhaps then show them once the vote is closed?
That's possible.
-- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com

Pierre Joye

10 years ago
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! > >> 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. Cheers,
-- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org

Stas Malyshev

10 years ago
Hi!
>>> 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.
-- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com

Lester Caine

10 years ago
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?
-- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

Andreas Heigl

10 years ago
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 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

Yasuo Ohgaki

10 years ago
Hi all, On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Andreas Heigl <andreas@heigl.org> wrote:
>> 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*.
I support this idea. It should be public after voting ends at least. Regards,
-- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net

Dennis Birkholz

10 years ago
Am 10.01.2016 um 11:20 schrieb Lester Caine:
> 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?
I would really like to understand the rational behind anonymous voting in the PHP internals context. Votes for RFCs should be purely based on technical reasons and whether the language change would benefit the language in the long run or not. I see no reason why such a vote should be confidential. If a person does not stand behind his/her opinion for a technical change, I am not sure if that person should be allowed to decide the future of the language. These votes are not about religious believes, the politic attitude or something else personal. But it may be preferable to hide the Person<->Vote table until the vote is over. That would provide protection against harassment to win someone over and change his/her vote. I can understand that if an RFC came to pass to ban someone, this is no longer a technical vote and here anonymity would be preferable IMHO. Greets, Dennis

Zeev Suraski

10 years ago
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis Birkholz [mailto:php@dennis.birkholz.biz] > Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 3:16 PM > To: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>; internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki > > Am 10.01.2016 um 11:20 schrieb Lester Caine: > > 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? > > I would really like to understand the rational behind anonymous voting in the > PHP internals context. Votes for RFCs should be purely based on technical > reasons and whether the language change would benefit the language in the > long run or not. I see no reason why such a vote should be confidential. If a > person does not stand behind his/her opinion for a technical change, I am > not sure if that person should be allowed to decide the future of the > language. These votes are not about religious believes, the politic attitude or > something else personal. But it may be preferable to hide the Person<- > >Vote table until the vote is over. That would provide protection against > harassment to win someone over and change his/her vote.
Much like I did not experience (what I consider) threats before, I've yet to experience harassment based on voting choices thus far (not just personally, but also never saw anybody else being harassed for their vote). I was certainly harassed for championing certain things - but never for voting one way or the other. And I certainly didn't harass anybody myself. I certainly lobbied in some cases, but always politely and never against a person's wishes. I think that's absolutely fine. I'm pointing that out because someone reading the list in the last few days may come to think that PHP is all about threats, personal attacks and harassments, which it is not. I don't personally mind an anonymous vote on this topic. Zeev

Eli

10 years ago
On 1/10/16 8:15 AM, Dennis Birkholz wrote:
> I would really like to understand the rational behind anonymous voting > in the PHP internals context. Votes for RFCs should be purely based on > technical reasons and whether the language change would benefit the > language in the long run or not. I see no reason why such a vote > should be confidential.
I will chime in my quick thoughts here Dennis, as to a reason I could see for doing so ... (Not going to argue if 'this reason is good enough' or not. But it is a valid reason)
> If a person does not stand behind his/her opinion for a technical > change, I am not sure if that person should be allowed to decide the > future of the language.
So the reason is not because someone isn't willing to 'stand behind their opinion'. It's purely about being harassed (perhaps beleaguered is a better terminology to not confuse this with 'illegal harassment') for having said opinion. I was one of the people who, due to my vote on STH, immediately started being beleaguered for holding my views and for voting as much. My inbox/twitter/IRC/etc filled with how I was ruining PHP and ruining people's lives. Old friendships were threatened to be ended. And my entire week ended up becoming full of responding to these. Instead of getting to be an informed voter, go in and cast my vote, and await for the results to be displayed ... I become embroiled into the arguments, back-n-forth, defense, and dealing with the beleaguering comments. Yes, I stood behind my opinion. But it has made me gun shy about voting in the future on any contentious topic, because I know I need to set aside the time to 'deal with that'. Yet those contentious topics, are the ones where we should be encouraging as many people as possible to vote, to make sure that we have a broad spectrum of views and that it is the 'will of the community' as it were. And (at least in the US) is against the idea in general of voter confidence. Where you are free to hold your belief without needing to be slammed for it publicly. So anyway, that's one reason. Whether it's a good reason or not is up to others to decide.
> ... But it may be preferable to hide the Person<->Vote table until the > vote is over. That would provide protection against harassment to win > someone over and change his/her vote.
Unfortunately that won't stop the above situation. While it would stop the idea of campaigning someone to change their vote (which is perhaps another reason to do it). It just means all the above issues would be taking place post-vote, instead of during-vote. Eli
-- | Eli White | http://eliw.com/ | Twitter: EliW |

Zeev Suraski

10 years ago
> -----Original Message----- > From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:smalyshev@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 12:00 AM > To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>; internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki > > Hi! > > > This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for > > RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing > > who > > I think we talked about it, and decided not to do it. Anything changed? > > > One concern I have with the patch is that it doesn't appear (by my > > reading of the code) to show who voted. I think it's important to know > > This is intentional. Otherwise by taking snapshots of the page at regular > periods and seeing who voted and how the totals changed, one can deduce > each personal vote.
I have no idea if it's related, but is there any chance the patch caused some older votes to be broken - at least in how they're displayed? Case in point: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting/vote Zeev

Peter Cowburn

10 years ago
On 11 January 2016 at 12:14, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:smalyshev@gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 12:00 AM > > To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>; internals@lists.php.net > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki > > > > Hi! > > > > > This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for > > > RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing > > > who > > > > I think we talked about it, and decided not to do it. Anything changed? > > > > > One concern I have with the patch is that it doesn't appear (by my > > > reading of the code) to show who voted. I think it's important to know > > > > This is intentional. Otherwise by taking snapshots of the page at regular > > periods and seeing who voted and how the totals changed, one can deduce > > each personal vote. > > I have no idea if it's related, but is there any chance the patch caused > some older votes to be broken - at least in how they're displayed? > Case in point: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting/vote
The patch for this PR has not been merged, so no. The linked page has been like that since April '14 and likely for some time before then: http://web.archive.org/web/20140411014209/https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting/vote

Christoph Becker

10 years ago
Peter Cowburn wrote:
> On 11 January 2016 at 12:14, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote: > >> I have no idea if it's related, but is there any chance the patch caused >> some older votes to be broken - at least in how they're displayed? >> Case in point: >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting/vote > > The patch for this PR has not been merged, so no. > > The linked page has been like that since April '14 and likely for some time > before then: > http://web.archive.org/web/20140411014209/https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting/vote
Hannes had made available a copy of the Wiki data in March 2015, and in this copy the respective file (dokuwiki/data/meta/rfc/voting.doodle) contains only the info that is displayed. So apparently, this is a data, not a display issue. Are there old backups available, so the file could be restored?
-- Christoph M. Becker

Derick Rethans

10 years ago
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Stas, > > Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > > > Since in CoC discussion it was mentioned we may need anonymous > > voting, I've created a patch that allows anonymous polls to be > > created: > > > > https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/7 > > > > The results still recorded per user, but everybody can see just > > their own vote (for logged in users) and total summary. People with > > shell access to the server will be able to see the votes, > > unfortunately I don't see how to avoid that without serious rewrite. > > Also, once the poll is created as anonymous it can't be turned into > > non-anonymous without resetting the results or manual admin action. > > > > Please review/comment. Is it's good, I propose to deploy it on > > wiki.php.net. > > > > This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for > RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing > who voted which way means you can ask them what their objections were.
I have gotten these question in the past, and I think it's important to be able to be asked why you made a specific choice.
> Though, anonymous voting would mean no potential for harassing people > for the way they voted (though they're not necessarily free of > harassment for their opinion - many people make theirs public anyway).
I do think that for normal RFCs, voting should not be anonymous. However, if we go that way, I find it important that once voting is closed, the votes are always shown (for normal RFCs) - even if chose to make normal RFC voting anonymous.
> One concern I have with the patch is that it doesn't appear (by my > reading of the code) to show who voted. I think it's important to know > who participated in the vote, even if we don't know which way they > voted.
I disagree, I think it is important to know who voted for what in the end. Some accountability is good. cheers, Derick
-- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine

Ferenc Kovacs

10 years ago
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > > Hi Stas, > > > > Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > > > > > Since in CoC discussion it was mentioned we may need anonymous > > > voting, I've created a patch that allows anonymous polls to be > > > created: > > > > > > https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/7 > > > > > > The results still recorded per user, but everybody can see just > > > their own vote (for logged in users) and total summary. People with > > > shell access to the server will be able to see the votes, > > > unfortunately I don't see how to avoid that without serious rewrite. > > > Also, once the poll is created as anonymous it can't be turned into > > > non-anonymous without resetting the results or manual admin action. > > > > > > Please review/comment. Is it's good, I propose to deploy it on > > > wiki.php.net. > > > > > > > This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for > > RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing > > who voted which way means you can ask them what their objections were. > > I have gotten these question in the past, and I think it's important to > be able to be asked why you made a specific choice. > > > Though, anonymous voting would mean no potential for harassing people > > for the way they voted (though they're not necessarily free of > > harassment for their opinion - many people make theirs public anyway). > > I do think that for normal RFCs, voting should not be anonymous. > > However, if we go that way, I find it important that once voting is > closed, the votes are always shown (for normal RFCs) - even if chose to > make normal RFC voting anonymous. > > > One concern I have with the patch is that it doesn't appear (by my > > reading of the code) to show who voted. I think it's important to know > > who participated in the vote, even if we don't know which way they > > voted. > > I disagree, I think it is important to know who voted for what in the > end. Some accountability is good. >
agree, otherwise it will be very hard/impossible to notice if/when somebody borks/manipulates the votes.
-- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

Peter Petermann

10 years ago
> > > > This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for > > RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing > > who voted which way means you can ask them what their objections were. > I have gotten these question in the past, and I think it's important to > be able to be asked why you made a specific choice. > > This. If someone votes he/she should be willing to stand for their vote -
and should be approachable to talk about it. secret voting is only necessary if there needs to be fear of repercussion, and i refuse to believe that we are at that point.
> I disagree, I think it is important to know who voted for what in the > end. Some accountability is good. > > That. times two.
regards, PP
-- Peter Petermann ProtonMail: ppetermann@protonmail.com (encrypted / based in .ch) Email: ppetermann80@gmail.com - get my public PGP key from SKS Keyservers PGP Key: http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x0E6DBD675836A5C7

Sascha Schumann

10 years ago
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Peter Petermann wrote:
> > > > > > > This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for > > > RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing > > > who voted which way means you can ask them what their objections were. > > I have gotten these question in the past, and I think it's important to > > be able to be asked why you made a specific choice. > > > > This. If someone votes he/she should be willing to stand for their vote - > and should be approachable to talk about it. > > secret voting is only necessary if there needs to be fear of repercussion, > and i refuse to believe that we are at that point.
Agreed. Who/what are people really afraid of? Sascha