Hi!
As long as it is completely obvious what is being voted on and the
process is followed, the voting RFC rules are fine. It would be nice
though if we could iterate in order to get 2/3 approval on most
proposals. It is these 50/50 ones that are problematic and often boil
down to half the peopl
Pierre Joye wrote:
If that's not the case, and after a 2nd thought, it is actually not
the case, then we can just discard this whole thread and go back to
code and proposals. I only find very disturbing to have to explain and
argue so many times about that only because we have a edge case in a
pr
On 11/10/2011 01:17 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> If that's not the case, and after a 2nd thought, it is actually not
> the case, then we can just discard this whole thread and go back to
> code and proposals. I only find very disturbing to have to explain and
> argue so many times about that only beca
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf
> wrote:
> > On 11/10/2011 10:38 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> We are not talking about a specific RFC here. This discussion i
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 11/10/2011 10:38 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>
>>> We are not talking about a specific RFC here. This discussion is about
>>> changing the current way of voting.
>>
>> Yes, and that's
Hi!
Sure, but this is another great example. If you wrote an RFC that
basically said, "Let's rewrite the engine" I bet it would get a lot of
We already have such proposal. It's called unicode support. Everybody
talks about how great it would be to have one. If we had a vote, I bet
there woul
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> We are not talking about giving a voice to totally irrelevant people
> but well known PHP project leaders, who already contribute to PHP in
> one way or another. We are not either talking about them telling us
> what to implement, or
On 11/10/2011 10:38 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
>> We are not talking about a specific RFC here. This discussion is about
>> changing the current way of voting.
>
> Yes, and that's what I'm talking about too.
Ok, then I guess I don't underst
Ronald,
Very well said. Thanks for the clarification.
Anthony
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Ronald Chmara wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>> However, and it is what we approved, OSS project leads have a voice,
>>> today and here. And they are not random pe
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>> However, and it is what we approved, OSS project leads have a voice,
>> today and here. And they are not random people, they know sometimes
>> much better than us what should be added to the core (be language, or
>> functions in an extensi
Hi!
well even for proposals which got accepted. This is not about specific
proposals but about this exact discussion to go back to our old model.
I'm totally against it. That will kill any effort we have put to get
more contributors and feedback or help from our users.
Nobody talks about going
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> See the votes, there is a patch, created by people able to maintain
>> it. It is especially obvious in this case as this RFC is supported by
>> a large part of our users.
>
> Able != will. There are tons of people able to fix bugs in
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> We are not talking about a specific RFC here. This discussion is about
> changing the current way of voting.
Yes, and that's what I'm talking about too.
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Int
On 11/10/2011 09:44 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> That's another myth spread by the opponents of making our process
> open. All RFCs proposed has been proposed with patches, implemented by
> the proposers, with or without the help of other core developers.
> Nobody ever succeed (except the alternative a
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> If there is voting on an RFC related to php-doc stuff, then the
> meritocracy shifts to the main php-doc contributors. Same goes for
> testing-related issues. My vote on a doc issue carries considerable less
> weight than my vote on a src i
Hi!
See the votes, there is a patch, created by people able to maintain
it. It is especially obvious in this case as this RFC is supported by
a large part of our users.
Able != will. There are tons of people able to fix bugs in PHP, yet some
stay unfixed for years.
"Supported by users" doesn'
On 11/10/2011 05:53 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't think so. You have classified that php-src have more weight in
> voting because they do the biggest effort.
> That's great, but you're forgetting that php-doc, php-web and php-test
> do have a lot of effort too.
> The fact when it c
> However, and it is what we approved, OSS project leads have a voice,
> today and here. And they are not random people, they know sometimes
> much better than us what should be added to the core (be language, or
> functions in an extension like spl).
Well, I would like to make a point here. Righ
Hi Jonathan,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Jonathan Bond-Caron wrote:
> On Wed Nov 9 10:01 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Some would simply say "he only did that because he got 3 proposals
>> rejected". Others would say "he is pressuring A to be in PHP". But not.
>> I learned the
Hi Rasmus,
Comments inline.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 11/09/2011 07:01 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>> My short version of this entire email is very simple question. Is PHP
>> meritocracy based?
>
> It is.
I'd rather say "wort of, when interesting".
>
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> can keep dreaming about our famous "let make it easy to people to
>> contribute", it won't work as we are not willing to give them a voice.
> I don't think one implies the other. If one helps PHP project it's great,
> really, but
On Wed Nov 9 10:01 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Some would simply say "he only did that because he got 3 proposals
> rejected". Others would say "he is pressuring A to be in PHP". But not.
> I learned the hard way and multiple times to hear a big NO. But at the
> same time, I earn my
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:39, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>> On 11/10/2011 12:36 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>> The last example of such a case is the SplClassLoader, the gap between
>>> our communities and us is getting even larger. I think it is tim
Hi!
can keep dreaming about our famous "let make it easy to people to
contribute", it won't work as we are not willing to give them a voice.
I don't think one implies the other. If one helps PHP project it's
great, really, but that doesn't mean one can have his pet feature pushed
through ove
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 11/10/2011 12:36 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> The last example of such a case is the SplClassLoader, the gap between
>> our communities and us is getting even larger. I think it is time to
>> consider their views and voices, especially as w
On 11/10/2011 12:36 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> The last example of such a case is the SplClassLoader, the gap between
> our communities and us is getting even larger. I think it is time to
> consider their views and voices, especially as we get new contributors
> (you know, the people actually doing
hi Stas,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Nobody's "denying voice" to anybody. Anybody who's interested can feel free
> to come to the list and bring forward their arguments and defend them and
> convince people. However, if the situation comes out that a particular
> prop
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:01 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> I won't enter on this thread of "Who can vote", but I'll get around it
> during the exposure of my point of view. I may also point to
> individual RFCs that were either accepted/rejec
Hi!
tools' project leaders. By denying the voice of them is almost the
same as telling there's meritocracy only if you contribute with the
language internals.
Nobody's "denying voice" to anybody. Anybody who's interested can feel
free to come to the list and bring forward their arguments and
On 11/09/2011 07:01 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
> My short version of this entire email is very simple question. Is PHP
> meritocracy based?
It is.
> I want to highlight another RFC where I saw the before mentioned
> meritocracy fallen into the cracks.
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsynt
Hi internals,
I won't enter on this thread of "Who can vote", but I'll get around it
during the exposure of my point of view. I may also point to
individual RFCs that were either accepted/rejected or it's still
pending. It's a long email, so take a seat and read carefully. I have
no means to hurt
Hi!
What I should have said is that in my eyes - as outlined in my other replies -
I don't see any compelling reasons why one should distinguish between php-src
contributors and the others.
Because the premise here that PHP contributors understand PHP, it's
ideas, limitations, history, goals,
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> To summarize: The technical viability of a feature should always be
>> determined
>> through discussion before voting even starts.
> It doesn't matter too much when it happens, as the purpose of the vote is to
> see if the feature is needed/d
Hi!
To summarize: The technical viability of a feature should always be determined
through discussion before voting even starts.
It doesn't matter too much when it happens, as the purpose of the vote
is to see if the feature is needed/desired in the form that is proposed.
That doesn't mean i
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> - The core devs usually know the internal parts better than the others
> contributors, so they can weight the changes better on the technical parts
> (opening a can of worms...).
I think you are hitting another issue with voting here that is n
I think that this isn't a good idea. The main reason for a [php-src]
> vs. [php-doc et al.] distinction is that the php-src guys will be the
> ones maintaining the code. (At least from what I heard this is the
> main point.)
I have more argument than that, maybe there are others also:
- The core
I just want to comment on one of the points:
> Maybe we could define different type of votes (language syntax change, adding
> new feature/extensions, etc.) and define the who can vote for each of those.
> * This could be a good middle-ground between allowing qa/documentation/web
> people to vote
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> Hi.
>
> As it was brought up recently that who can vote, and how are the community
> representatives granted with voting rights, I created an RFC draft for
> defining that-
> Please feel free to discuss and extend it.
> https://wiki.php.net/r
Hi.
As it was brought up recently that who can vote, and how are the community
representatives granted with voting rights, I created an RFC draft for
defining that-
Please feel free to discuss and extend it.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting_who
ps: it is really just a draft put together in like 5
39 matches
Mail list logo
