Zeev, I think you missed my point a bit. While I don't disagree with what you say, my point, if any, is a hope that once this is sorted we will end up with something that does provide a place for this kind of thing to go.
Bottom line. It's happened, it's now up to those in charge to decide what to do next whether that's removing or leaving it. If nothing else I feel it's shown a gap in the information provided on php.net that can be filled going forward if people are motivated to do so. We will see what happens :). Jonny. On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > Jonny, > > > > If anything, I think how we’re handling this on these lists is lax… > > > > Someone (I don’t even know who it is and it doesn’t really matter) put > facts on the ground and published an article on www.php.net that deviates > greatly from anything we ever publish there without getting anything > remotely close to an approval. Whomever those 3 people that gave him the > green light, it was wrong. We never publish anything remotely similar on > there, not even approved RFCs let alone unapproved ones. > > > > Honestly I’m not sure why we’re debating this so much. The fact-putting > needs to be undone as quickly as possible. The burden of proof as to why > it makes sense to keep it there should be on those who want to deviate from > how www.php.net has been running for the past 15 years, not the other way > around. > > > > Zeev > > > > > > *From:* Jonny Stirling [mailto:phoe...@jonstirling.co.uk] > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 28, 2014 5:22 PM > *To:* guilhermebla...@gmail.com > *Cc:* Zeev Suraski; Philip Sturgeon; Ferenc Kovacs; PHP Internals; > php-webmaster > *Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] about the latest frontpage entry > > > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com < > guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Can we please have an RFC around it, vote and then you guys can announce > wildly on php.net? > I feel really frustrated that a main article on php.net frontpage > proclaims > that next PHP will have something that haven't even been voted internally. > Otherwise, anyone with website karma can post a new feature support (even > though it was not yet voted) and we'll have to deal with the situation > later if it gets rejected. > > Thanks, > > > > > > First off, I don't see anywhere in the post that specifies this is going > to be in PHP.next or otherwise unlike other posts around the internet which > are filled with inaccuracies. Others have said it is opinionated, but I > would suspect that's Joe's way of trying to make the post seem up-beat. > > > > Was it the wrong place to post? Maybe. Was there a better alternative..... > possibly not. > > > > Saying that, the language used in the post was perhaps a little on the lax > side, but it was approved not by an individual, but by a group of what I > can only assume were the relevant people, so discussing it now and > retrospectively saying it's "unprofessional" is a bit late, but perhaps can > end up being useful. > > > > As for the idea of an RFC. This seems a completely over-the-top solution > for a relatively minor issue. In the long run, PHPNG and the work being > done in and around the place are arguably news worthy and as above, the > post was apparently reviewed. On top of that, there appear to have been > legitimate reasons for publishing the off-norm posting on php.net. > > > > Now, a possible solution to this. Simple. A separate blog (whatever the > URL may be). From what I can tell, Joe has already brought this up and > potentially volunteered to deal with it(?) and if so, great, I hope he's > still interested in going forward with it after this morning. > > > > Internals as it stands is not a public friendly place to try and keep up > with what's going on inside of PHP (see this thread), so this idea gives, > in particular, userland developers, the ability to keep up-to-date without > having to jump through hoops to get onto / read the mailing list and then > have to parse out an awful lot of noise to work out what's going on. While > this may not be an issue for internals developers, I'm sure people who > aren't would certainly be interested in reading this kind of information. > > > > Probably a little over my 2 cents worth of bikeshedding, but hopefully of > relevance. > > > > Jonny >
