Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

This is only part of a thread. view whole thread
  107163
September 16, 2019 10:22 pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:18 PM Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de> wrote:

> We heard you repeating the RFC process isn't applicable very often now, but > a productive way forward needs to take it into account to make any change > in governance. > > For many of the current contributors RFC+Voting process is the only visible > process that was applied and has been used to make changes to the language > in the last 8 years. > > Even if it was not originally envisoned by you or Pierre to be usable for > deprecations or to amend itself, that is what is has been used for the last > few years.
I correct this. I did not mention anything alike. Only that legal (not a lawyer but been there done that), I only listed two things that can definitely not be done via RFCs, at least not until the license and the assignment of this license is as it is now. For the rest, I tend to fully agree with the general feeling, I am totally fine to use the RFC to change itself, the language or whatever. The only thing I dislike a lot is the general tone of these discussions, that should be different, that makes me sad and really not willing to participate in any way. Best, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
  107164
September 16, 2019 11:01 kenashkov@gmail.com (Vesselin Kenashkov)
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:23 PM Pierre Joye php@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > The only thing I dislike a lot is the general tone of these > discussions, that should be different, that makes me sad and really > not willing to participate in any way. > > Hi everyone, I just want to second that feeling of Pierre. Im a userland developer and
just wanted to express that as a person outside internals following the recent discussions, Im really sad for the reason of the tone used, the amount of human/brain energy used/wasted in these and as someone mentioned already it may happen certain developers to abandon the project due to all that. And this is the last thing I would say we all want (both internals and externals). In regards to the 2/3 majority - I would say that in case the minority opposition is very strong (like in the votes on short tags and warning levels) isnt it possible to reach a compromise? Like acknowledging the vote but postpone the implementation for another major version? I understand the majority rule and the rules of the democracy but again according these rules even when certain decision passes through and there is still very strong opposition compromises are sought after. With the above Im not trying to push my point over the specific RFCs - I fully understand the implications there and have an option on these but this is offtopic. At this point considering how much stress these have caused I would say I got to the point that Im fine with either of the votes/implementations as long as the PHP team doesnt suffer any harm in terms of loss of people or massive waste of brain effort. And I understand that this topic is about the governance of the project etc... just wanted to bring the attention of the group to the fact that even on 2/3 in certain cases compromises may be needed and this to be taken into account when deciding on the governance/voting process. Thank you all Vesko Kenashkov
September 16, 2019 13:35 chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 7:01 AM Vesselin Kenashkov <kenashkov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:23 PM Pierre Joye php@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > The only thing I dislike a lot is the general tone of these > > discussions, that should be different, that makes me sad and really > > not willing to participate in any way. > > > > Hi everyone, > I just want to second that feeling of Pierre. Im a userland developer and > just wanted to express that as a person outside internals following the > recent discussions, Im really sad for the reason of the tone used, the > amount of human/brain energy used/wasted in these and as someone mentioned > already it may happen certain developers to abandon the project due to all > that. And this is the last thing I would say we all want (both internals > and externals). > > In regards to the 2/3 majority - I would say that in case the minority > opposition is very strong (like in the votes on short tags and warning > levels) isnt it possible to reach a compromise? Like acknowledging the vote > but postpone the implementation for another major version? I understand the > majority rule and the rules of the democracy but again according these > rules even when certain decision passes through and there is still very > strong opposition compromises are sought after. > > In regards to error levels RFC, many of us that strongly felt we shouldn't do what was proposed at all, were at least willing to accept a compromise
where the changes became opt-in via ini settings or a declare. Both of these suggestions were strongly rejected by those in favor of the RFC.
> With the above Im not trying to push my point over the specific RFCs - I > fully understand the implications there and have an option on these but > this is offtopic. At this point considering how much stress these have > caused I would say I got to the point that Im fine with either of the > votes/implementations as long as the PHP team doesnt suffer any harm in > terms of loss of people or massive waste of brain effort. > > And I understand that this topic is about the governance of the project > etc... just wanted to bring the attention of the group to the fact that > even on 2/3 in certain cases compromises may be needed and this to be taken > into account when deciding on the governance/voting process. > > Thank you all > > Vesko Kenashkov >
-- Chase Peeler chasepeeler@gmail.com