> On 13 Jan 2016, at 16:15, Ryan Pallas wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Rouven Weßling
>> wrote:
>>
>> TL;DR: If you find yourself replying more than once an hour to a thread,
>> something is wrong.
>
> Yup, this is explicitly part of "mailing list rules"
>
> Do not post when yo
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Rouven Weßling
wrote:
>
> > On 13 Jan 2016, at 14:57, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> > I don't see it that way. I think I provided very relevant feedback -
> that yes, called for a very substantial revision of the proposal and a
> removal of a substantial part of it -
> On 13 Jan 2016, at 14:57, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> I don't see it that way. I think I provided very relevant feedback - that
> yes, called for a very substantial revision of the proposal and a removal of
> a substantial part of it - but I still marked the concept of having a CoC as
> a good
> -Original Message-
> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 12:59 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: John Bafford ; PHP internals
>
> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines
> (WAS: Adopt Code of
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I think that no matter what we do, CoC, guidelines or teams we have in
> place - as long as there'll be divisive RFCs, there are going to be
> heated, toxic discussions.
I think the main issue is the whole concept of "divisive RFCs" as a
term. An RFC
On 13/01/16 05:33, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> It's the divisive RFCs that are the key source of the contention on
> internals, and any solution that won't strongly discourage them is not going
> to solve the problem. There needs to be something built into the system that
> makes RFC authors not only
> -Original Message-
> From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:11 AM
> To: Zeev Suraski ; John Bafford
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines
> (WAS: Adopt Cod
Hi!
> I have one idea. I made an awful mistake while drafting the Voting
> RFC, requiring a 2/3 majority for language changes. It should have
> been 85-90%. When you have a 85-90% majority - it's likely to imply
> several things:
I have a feeling that wouldn't help. Instead of "it's toxic beca
On 1/12/16 5:27 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
4. As soon as authors notice substantial opposition, they'll quickly realize
they're dealing with an RFC that's very unlikely to pass, and probably eiter
abandon it or go back to the drawing board - and eliminate any contention
that may have otherwise surr
> 4. As soon as authors notice substantial opposition, they'll quickly realize
> they're dealing with an RFC that's very unlikely to pass, and probably eiter
> abandon it or go back to the drawing board - and eliminate any contention
> that may have otherwise surrounded it.
One other thing I forg
John,
Thanks for taking the time to write that lengthy email.
There are a lot of things in there I agree with, and a lot I disagree with, but
that's beside the point for now.
One part in particular in your message got me thinking:
> I understand that we’re a passionate people, and that sometim
>
>
> We’ve got a giant steaming pile of crap here. As awesome as U+1F4A9 is,
> the fix is to stop trying to polish the turd and actually clean up our act.
> You want php-internals to lose its toxic reputation? Here’s how: *STOP
> BEING TOXIC*. How? I dunno. I’m open to ideas. I’m happy to help. Wa
Can we please move on past this and get back to actual code. Because if
not, perhaps PHP Internals has outgrown the email format and should migrate
to a forum type format.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2016 11:17 PM, "Sascha Schumann" <
> sascha.schum...@myra
Sascha,
> On Jan 12, 2016, at 11:17, Sascha Schumann
> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>> And it is *not* acceptable.
>
> May I ask who put you in charge to determine whether something is "acceptable"
> or "reprehensible”?
*I* avoid internals because *I* believe the conduct here is reprehensible, and
On Jan 12, 2016 11:17 PM, "Sascha Schumann" <
sascha.schum...@myrasecurity.com> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> > And it is *not* acceptable.
>
> May I ask who put you in charge to determine whether something is
"acceptable"
> or "reprehensible"?
(for him) and other.
Everyone speaks for himself or a smal
Hi John,
> And it is *not* acceptable.
May I ask who put you in charge to determine whether something is "acceptable"
or "reprehensible"?
Sascha
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 12 January 2016 at 15:27, Chase Peeler wrote:
> I personally offered at least two emails with constructive feedback and
> alternative solutions. I never saw any reply or feedback to either one.
It's not possible for every email to be replied to in a conversation.
If they were, then the convers
> My take away from Anthony's last email is basically: "We're going to have a
> CoC whether you like it or not. You are welcome to offer feedback to make
> the CoC better after we propose it, but any feedback that says a CoC is bad
> will be viewed as non-constructive and ignored."
That would be f
I personally offered at least two emails with constructive feedback and
alternative solutions. I never saw any reply or feedback to either one. I
also had some emails in which I was somewhat argumentative (the ones
related to the definition of harassment). I still stand by those emails as
they were
On 12/01/16 04:24, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> This is getting a bit ranty. But internals deserves it. You all may
>> > be great programmers, but in terms of making people *want* to work on
>> > php-src, you're shitty salespeople.
> Maybe. For myself, I'm pretty much surely a shitty salesperson. H
20 matches
Mail list logo
