Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:103991
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2019 10:30:41 -0600
Message-ID: <140828236.S28X2sxyUy@vulcan>
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSxS2cqwwoEivPaxhVWuy_Z7FX4NZmPUkXXCz+xZ9jqY2A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <03f401d4b96b$18b9dc60$4a2d9520$@php.net> <1fcbbaac-8edc-ad7c-92aa-2d21f6d0487b@gmail.com> <CAKOpQSxS2cqwwoEivPaxhVWuy_Z7FX4NZmPUkXXCz+xZ9jqY2A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart16142361.249MeCmfTU"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)
From: larry@garfieldtech.com (Larry Garfield)

--nextPart16142361.249MeCmfTU
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Friday, February 1, 2019 2:34:12 AM CST Kris Craig wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:57 PM Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
> 
> wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > I haven't fully read the RFC yet, so I'll come back with more formed
> > opinion about it probably, but wanted to comment about a couple of
> > 
> > points here:
> > > Reasoning: If somebody is out of the project for 10 years they probably
> > > lost track on how the language and needs evolved and just voting since
> > > an old friend needed a deciding vote is bad.
> > 
> > I agree, though "out of project" can differ... But I think if the person
> > had made no contribution for a decade, then probably he wouldn't be very
> > well informed voter. Easier way would be to make the list of such people
> > and let them ask on the list that their vote will be kept if they want
> > to, with explanation on how they plan to continue contribute (we don't
> > have to require actual contribution, just people promising to do so - we
> > are all volunteers here anyway). People that have long moved on would
> > just ignore that, and people who want to come back will do so.
> > 
> > > For groups like FIG I am uncertain. I think it is a good thing if we
> > > push more things out of PHP itself into the userspace (JIT, FFI, ...
> > > allow more and more stuff to be done in userspace) and thus
> > > coordinating with userspace developers and setting standards and
> > > interoperability there is good. However it are the maintainers who
> > > (often voluntarily) have to maintain these things and overruling actual
> > > maintainers is bad as they lose interest.
> > 
> > Yeah I'm feeling a bit uneasy about the FIG part too. I mean, having
> > input from major userspace groups is great. But having input and having
> > deciding voice is a different thing. Discussion and vote are different
> > processes, both important but with different results. So I wonder if we
> > can't find some venue to collect this feedback without having people who
> > aren't core developers decide for core developers what should they do.
> > This sounds like something that won't be healthy.
> > --
> > Stas Malyshev
> > smalyshev@gmail.com
> > 
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> 
> The more I think about this, the less I like it.  According to the page
> linked to from the RFC, there are 51 current FIG members who would gain a
> vote.  So this RFC would strip most contributers of their voting rights
> (including me), while simultaneously adding 51 new voters, all from the
> same external organization (one that has been aggressively gunning for
> "official" recognition since its inception).  In other words, this RFC, in
> its current form, would have effectively handed control over the entire PHP
> project to FIG.  Though I'm sure it was never the intent, TBH, this does
> feel like a bit of a slap in the face to past contributors who still have
> good ideas to offer now and then and should still have a voice.
> Furthermore, it seems strange to me that a provision with such massive and
> far-reaching implications would be quietly buried at the bottom of an RFC
> filled with otherwise popular, non-controversial ideas.

Two points here:

1) Please see my earlier message.  The way FIG is structured, one could extend 
voting rights to project representatives, the core committee, both, or 
neither.  The core committee is 12 people.  Project reps are ~36 currently.  
Adding 12 people to the voting pool would not "effectively hand control over 
the entire PHP project to FIG".  That's complete hyperbole.  Even if it were 
all 50 people, that's still less than a third the number of people that would 
currently pass Zeev's proposed filter for direct contributors.  It may be too 
large an external constituency, but it's a long, long way from a controlling 
majority.

2) To say that FIG "has been aggressively gunning for "official" recognition 
since its inception" is false.  The "PHP Standards Group" that originally 
self-formed in 2009, yes, presumed a lot more official status than it was due, 
and was (rightly) thrown off of the php.net infrastructure as a result.  That 
was a decade ago and FIG today is a very different organization.  It does not 
claim any authority or official-ness beyond "a lot of people listen to our 
recommendations", which is objectively true.

Using FIG as a proxy for community voters may or may not make sense in the 
long run, but please do not misrepresent either FIG or Zeev's proposal.

--Larry Garfield
--nextPart16142361.249MeCmfTU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEE/ph/GXfY8v0YwFBp4MMKwDFxYXcFAlxUdDEACgkQ4MMKwDFx
YXd7TAf+Own4W1GJcEZd4lT8zGC46CLbqktOvwGvC2s3cDAB9kcb8hAPFdRpBEWV
tzBEC+t249bNcj/yAxKrJ2FTFX25Gmsg4R9UzQBVd4NaU3v6r0Day2jvlPO965sm
ldeQegOxQiNrWWFHFC9tdpmOVMrMlP2syXjx41xmndwyF7TsQTLjKxpHaH77aK5X
K4MYxjJZtFlDNQQCxzAVozOdK1hKac7fz4XAHW8uriSSwun/7MIbFc7AqxmcL4pc
jOwK2GqWlh5AU+j77FCcmAVh22qTzOpW2qlk4f3Fptx7Ttn6pBvsT3kcZBWRej4s
OJsO7OU6F++JxY49vmOBqEnPS0WcJA==
=Lvo+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart16142361.249MeCmfTU--