Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106575
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJHtznw0eKbBNJo9TnDwZvvbMMFt5mCo=+SpKLw0zYzq9tKWZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <71581e93-e38a-47b2-9d89-e9ed5850511a@www.fastmail.com> <CAJvSBVO34EhTDGS1H3q31c0R2u0eiZzYYv_ev-BzisOmdMm=3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1a7f122c-b3be-dc65-ed41-0a223e8cba7e@gmail.com> <CAJvSBVOQ4kcM+aHbOfUh8odDQj5=OJCA5n=vd2as03mS=TawWQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJvSBVOQ4kcM+aHbOfUh8odDQj5=OJCA5n=vd2as03mS=TawWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 17:02:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPKYkKxZ5F1ffgPJwxQsC4mRr-mH8wKMs2RQ7HCi78Aghkd4LQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Bowyer <phpmailinglists@gmail.com>
Cc: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003375d5059005f594"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP direction and governance [was: Re: [PHP-DEV] P++: FAQ]
From: chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)

--0000000000003375d5059005f594
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 4:31 PM Peter Bowyer <phpmailinglists@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Stas,
>
> Thanks for replying!
>
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 at 04:26, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The risk here however is for the document to be seen as a means to
> > "argue less" by way of excluding certain points of view from discussion.
> > That would not be a good thing. This is the main concern for codifying
> > such things - as soon as you have written The Rules, next thing that
> > happens is rule lawyering and instead of considering arguments on their
> > merits, people start arguing whether raising this or that proposal
> > violated the Rules and whether their opponents should be silent because
> > The Rules say so. This is tempting because arguing rules is usually
> > easier than arguing merits (The Rules are always the same and the merits
> > are always new), but winning on the rules is never satisfactory and
> > rarely healthy, because the other side always feels they have not been
> > properly heard.
> >
>
> I understand and agree this is a danger with rules, particularly
> over-lawyering. Where I disagree is that this is worse than the current
> situation, but I'm OK with that as we seem to have different philosophical
> outlooks. I suggest there is an issue of balance, to be too far towards
> either outlook is not a good situation.
>
> I disagree that (as I take away from your last sentence) the current
> approach is better because it means people feel they have been properly
> heard. I can think of recent messages on the list from people saying that
> they don't feel heard.
>
> There are times where I feel I haven't been heard - but it has nothing to
do with a lack of mission, direction, governance, or rules. When it
happens, I feel that it's just a matter of people not reading or
understanding what I've posted. For example, in the comments I made in
regards to short tags, I stated multiple times that the issue wasn't BC
breaks in general, it was that specific BC break. Yet today someone posted
yet again about how not removing short tags was just another example of how
people are holding back the language because they don't want any BC breaks.

Like most things of this nature, I think more harm is usually done than
good. The people that will respect the mission statement (or whatever it
is) aren't the ones that seem to cause or have issues. The ones that do are
likely to ignore anything laid out in the document anyway.


> Perhaps we can have more consensus around the questions "Are things going
> well on this list / with the PHP project in general?". If we do think the
> discussions here have not been ideal and some direction (which in an
> individualistic meritocracy is not easy) would help, then the follow-on
> question of "How can the situation be improved?" is of greater shared
>
>
> > But do we really want to pre-commit one being always more important than
> > the other in any case, no matter what? Do we want to pre-commit never
> > considering specific case on its merits and always be satisfied with
> > "The Rules say A more important than B, therefore function has to be
> > removed and you can't argue it's important because The Rules are
> > supreme, kneel before The Rules!" I certainly wouldn't feel satisfied
> > with such outcome. We can reflect certain philosophy and premises we
> > consider preferred, but we shouldn't pre-commit to it excluding
> discussion.
> >
>
> I feel you're interpreting things in a more black and white way than I did
> by changing the terminology to 'Rules'. I didn't use this word, and neither
> did I claim they were absolutes. Your last sentence is what my email said
> to my reading.
>
> The problem I see is that if we don't commit to anything, then we stand for
> everything and nothing.
>
>
> Any thoughts on governance and the lack of consensus over who should/should
> not have a say in what happens?
>
> Peter
>


-- 
Chase Peeler
chasepeeler@gmail.com

--0000000000003375d5059005f594--