Re: [PHP-DEV] Guidelines for RFC post feature-freeze

This is only part of a thread. view whole thread
August 30, 2021 15:43 (Dan Ackroyd)
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 19:11, Tobias Nyholm> wrote:
> Hey Dan. > > I see that you read what I wrote and intrepid it in the worst possible way.
This is also passive aggressive phrasing. You're trying to make me feel bad for pointing out how your phrasing is not conducive to a pleasant productive conversation.
> I called it an “obvious mistake” because it was clear to me that we missed something.
'We' didn't miss it. You might have, but multiple people have explained multiple times that it was a deliberate choice to limit the scope of work for one RFC. If you had written "I consider it a mistake" that leaves room for other people to have a different opinion. But you have kept writing things like "Just because it was intentional, does not make it less of a mistake." which is dismissive of other people's point of view.
> I think there are over 1000 people with “voting powers”. I assume > you trust a majority of them to have this “deep enough understanding of PHP core”.
Well. Most of the time people will only vote if they feel they understand the subject being discussed, and have enough confidence that voting a particular way is the right choice. That's quite different from trying to make someone _have_ to say yes or no. But there is at least one RFC that, in my opinion, there were a lot of people who voted who did not fully understand the technical details, or the implications for on-going maintenance:
> If you don’t trust the release managers to manage the release,
Ben is right, I didn't say that. I was responding to your sentence which was "what to include and not to include in a release.".
> then I suggest you should improve the way we select new release managers.
'Volunteering' other people to do work is also a passive aggressive way of phrasing things. You're the person who is apparently unhappy with the current process that has been used for over a decade. If you want it changed, you do the work to change it.
> This is the the extended power I would like the RMs (as a group) to have.
That is also volunteering other people for more work. IMO the position of RM is already stressful enough, to the extent that I will never volunteer to be one, as it would cause me to have a nervous breakdown. Making it so that they also have to be arbiters of which post feature freeze RFCs are 'valid' or not would be an extra, and stressful, burden for them to carry. Pierre Joye> wrote: Well, as the mailing rules have been linked, I might as well quote this bit: "Do not top post. Place your answer underneath anyone you wish to quote and remove any previous comment that is not relevant to your post." sincerely Dan Ack
August 30, 2021 18:56 (Tobias Nyholm)
Hey Dan. 

I do appriciate to hear your point of view. This thread is now very off-topic. With respect to Marco and other people that wants to discuss guidelines for the RFCs and the role of RMs, I will not answer you anymore. 

Feel free to reach out to me privately or in a new thread.

// Tobias