Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104190
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 17:00:01 +0100
Message-ID: <13960596.Ck2lAAPNok@mcmic-probook>
Organization: OpenSides
User-Agent: KMail/5.2.3 (Linux/4.9.0-8-amd64; KDE/5.28.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <1762f0cd-d7fb-0f85-3edf-387ee954d22e@gmail.com>
References: <03f401d4b96b$18b9dc60$4a2d9520$@php.net> <2734749.8VgiAcunSb@mcmic-probook> <1762f0cd-d7fb-0f85-3edf-387ee954d22e@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: RFC Workflow & Voting (2019 update)
From: come@opensides.be (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?C=F4me?= Chilliet)

Le mardi 5 f=C3=A9vrier 2019, 02:38:50 CET Stanislav Malyshev a =C3=A9crit :
> Hi!

Hi!

> Do you imagine Linus
> asking a vote of all Linux users about how to implement a kernel driver
> and implementing it only in a way that majority of Linux users approves?

Not sure that would be so bad.=20
At least until it blocks everything and becomes a problem, but what I do no=
t understand is that changing the RFC voters pool idea do not seem come fro=
m a problem with it, just some =C2=ABThese people are not writing C code, t=
hey should not vote=C2=BB thinking.

> Because whoever makes the thing defines how the thing is made (of
> course, it takes more to make PHP than pure C coding, so I am bundling
> all contributors to the project - however widely defined - together). If
> you are to build a house, I am not going to tell you how to do it. It's
> your house, you build it however you want it - even if you might later
> invite me to visit. If I think the house is badly built, I may refuse to
> come, and criticize you, but I won't claim the power to tell you how to
> do it.

This is where we disagree, PHP devs are not building a house for themselves=
, they are building it for other people.

> Have a say, as in providing feedback and advice - sure, and they do.
> Having decisive voice, overriding the voice of people who actually
> implement it, in their own free time, and then give it away for free - no.

If I use my free time to make the language worse, that is not a good thing =
just because I did some work for free.

> > You make it like it=E2=80=99s a gift for people to be able to vote on P=
HP
> > RFCs while I feel like it=E2=80=99s good for PHP to have people voting =
its
> > RFCs.
>=20
> There's no abstract "PHP" that it'd be good for beyond people who
> actually develop it. And I don't see how it'd be good for people who
> develop it to give control over how to develop it to people that don't.

I disagree here, PHP is supposed to be good to its community, not only its =
core developers.

> > One last point: Having non-core developers voting puts a higher bar
> > on RFC redacting quality: The author needs to explain his feature
> > well enough so that people without deep internal knowledge get it.
>=20
> I don't see how the voting process prevents people that didn't get it
> from voting (either way). In a democracy, people do it all the time ;)
> So this is really not a solid argument for your point.

You may always have some random or misinformed vote but I do think you will=
 get more vote if you successfully explains how your feature improve the si=
tuation.
When I do not understand at all what it=E2=80=99s about I usually don=E2=80=
=99t vote (for PHP RFCs I mean).

C=C3=B4me