On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:25 PM M. W. Moe <mo.mu....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, > > what you write and advocate for can't be heard by a vast majority of people > here; because they are just not North-American; somehow > that's a very interesting trait; most of people despise `kind` moralism. > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:14 PM Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net> wrote: > > > > On Oct 8, 2019, at 4:29 PM, Lynn <kja...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > My middle ground is a vote, regardless of outcome. > > > > If a vote is the middle ground then why the need to participate in any > > discussion? > > > > Also, how is a vote a middle ground? A vote ensures that one sides wins > > and the other side looses. IOW, a zero-sum game. > > > > Why does it not make better sense to actively look for ways to optimize > > outcomes so that the most people can win? For example... > > > > > This RFC is pretty simple, a deprecation + removal in a later patch, > > there's not much to compromise on the implementation. > > > > A compromise might be "NO agreement to remove in a later patch." > > > > Why does it not make sense to offer that up as a consolation to the one > > asking for deprecation? If they accepted and changed the RFC, then more > > people could get a "win." > > > > > If people think a deprecation should not be done or if it's not worth > > it, a vote is the way to show that opinion. > > > If there are enough reasons to not deprecate them, the voting process > > will show this and the RFC will be rejected. > > > > I have noticed on this list much discussion of the "minority vs. the > > majority." But that is a red-herring. There are a small number of people > > who have a vote (~200?) whereas there are over 5 million PHP developers > and > > even more PHP stakeholders who have no vote. > > > > In other words, when internals@ votes unanimously on an RFC they still > > only represent ~0.004% of PHP stakeholders. Basically an aristocracy. > > > > So while a vote is a way to share an opinion, it is not representative of > > the opinions of those it may affect. It is a shame that the PHP voting > > process has no objective way to incorporate userland concerns except when > > some act as their proxy. Which is not the same as userland having > explicit > > representatives with a vote. > > > > > PS. We need a CoC. > > > > 100% agree. > > > > -Mike > > > > P.S. I also think PHP needs an agreed statement of principles (Mission, > > Vision and Values.) With said statement RFCs could be evaluated to > > determine if they align with PHP's previously-agreed principles. Such a > > statement could be revised from time to time, but having one would > resolve > > a lot of contentious debates before they happen. > > > > > > > The original proposal reads like: I don't understand it, I've talked to other that don't understand it. Not understand something makes learning the language harder, so we should get rid of the feature. How is this not Mark Twain's plan for the Improvement of Spelling in the English language? A Plan for the Improvement of Spelling in the English Language By Mark Twain For example, in Year 1 that useless letter “c” would be dropped to be replased either by “k” or “s”, and likewise “x” would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which “c” would be retained would be the “ch” formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform “w” spelling, so that “which” and “one” would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish “y” replasing it with “i” and iear 4 might fiks the “g/j” anomali wonse and for all. Generally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeiniing voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez “c”, “y” and “x”—bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez —tu riplais “ch”, “sh”, and “th” rispektivili. Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld. Walter -- The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
