Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107147
To: Joe Watkins <krakjoe@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAOwTYAu5vCGMw4Dp0v90fGD9OGm6X0dc42iJV35bk1Df_yr_2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJW__o2zGs_s0NRznZiG5Wb5NSeRMDzitS5457hGg_xMJ3B0dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOwTYAuqas930BODamWEuMaH7T1N6H8y2fP1B+cjMkkVfi0rQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <792ae3da-b308-d8ac-e96a-b37906cc50c7@gmail.com>
 <CAOwTYAsfT1YPNB=Pp3ajS7taxVyx-Kv-LHLvLb=X65zjOh4qaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Autocrypt: addr=smalyshev@gmail.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 xsJuBE9mqaARCACFSqcGmNunkjQQu3X+yXnTmFeEkvM4JXZTOBdR8aEevNGmmFEfyvjaDjWi
 9hcwp4E/lYtC+P7VsVjM1OSX9eq0jC/lGL0ZyRXek+mNy0n5H1NSuTpf9Y18LMqhc4G+RU+L
 cNiZ9K0DJuOOvNLPxW7OHZguxb3wdKPXNVa2jyRfJAKm2uaJJMT1mTmFT9a0Q8SKr+mUrrJk
 uG0H2o6SzrKt8Wwoint1eh67zVsJaJtQFchnEZnlawIcqP2yC4nLGR3MkubowxoEBYCZet18
 aHVVRbvpG2Qtob8Lu5xrsGbmXymTkHTdpvkfcJFADa8MzOL90zOxXwbGfbIZOlh5En8jAQCX
 lfnx2eQL3BSW/6XANa51dbWiEp1d1BAkpGKtZvlk0Qf+M9WAi+9aXMe3xP5krxtgnRNUf2WN
 6Zdy2MxL1RRJCFbytLhl0ronC49BsGYVGshdEH8xhBbiIOJKuVZ/DTl9bEm7P9c7CC7iJyVC
 khUAhouH6xzZQNLR+RU+QebYzXypVfl99Qk7EdMmr/WAZCHLuvanyqepC5EBsa3VnAfQemSN
 oBeGBKWWLiOsPjvS72+y1z4RUMAfXHn4l/sFMt8zt7/74AmJPwZquV41p4mPO12V4+xPyc6R
 sB84sfsk2QVivU8w8AkvGQeYjXoz7Iwao95+fWteVzZ36KRQvUckP8pGjHlDXnHxJ0HI1I/k
 OBZSjwRwUf0dd73y6erPhbLk+gf+NdI3H9KGJBzG5/rVyWKwUeQ9d5ud4jTJRkQGvAP5pg76
 vEa9dogbpe4W5Z+0BfbiJSnQmQWSHiZddj/t33ptbup44Ck6ZTgdlmFYMLF1hR47PIZTDKER
 EuKYGci/vq8snZvEJP9YCw/TtiHcMdrMKcY/+Lp8lQO0GHLPB9glVhnC0db6l1Xpg1CMI8/R
 ozBMcij30EgATggC/y2zbiqAFoS9FN9nXPbe4phStqABEyeZ+nXudt7PUYTjVgcrqo8bHZCi
 sBobWC7OnKyUzxVxzUeuPkIfmZuzkLaMw2McQdvwwsNvQ0DzaLP30c1Xsm/7EIYJcOWpzlVJ
 5QrdmE0/Bc0yU3RhbmlzbGF2IE1hbHlzaGV2IChQSFAga2V5KSA8c21hbHlzaGV2QGdtYWls
 LmNvbT7CegQTEQgAIgUCT2aqtAIbAwYLCQgHAwIGFQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQL3lW
 vF2gS12XMwD9HuRIolSwIK77u8EY461y2u6sbX36n5/uo/LDQuxoi3sA/0MvpnvzOhv9Iufv
 vsZEj3E7i3h+iD5648YMwfTFCij+zsFNBE9mqaAQCADfZPMpjZkkGZj3BY/7ApoLq4mwqzbh
 +CpLXwNn20tFNvSXfb8RdeXvVEb7Scx+W9qYpiaun2iXJgCVH8fgpZpR856ulT1q6uCG++CX
 ubEvip/eJkZl93/84h04KQJwsgOrAh0Om3OePRn8Pr+++0LNS0EL8uX/YHeTOGOnnmTqYTey
 SBVFdov6L4mepddfjekicKQqhL7mZh/xuq29JijT0uNNX8v4vDWQDu5dlAcdd+uB3gcXMD/P
 ginD11zp+6wtrWCm/+yBqpvDwXQX5PGUnwvbRfl7Ay3MmwmoXiecZMg0dwTSc7e0lhB4HGRH
 ZdBMJB4rHUVGdzqujK/ctOvrAAMFB/0Utb76Qe6sCMlHxVAmeE/fbo7Pi05btZ/x01r67dHf
 aMSP0riCKJ7M0OW+jAXtu9+z/BVnYisW67WWfxl2cS5tZDgiHgJARXWUOO72+sScHP8KQmTl
 1z16gyKbwY3SmyBkwcpOL35nhUWNLy93syPoY6sZUTikr2bZYukHDQ33XBPs4e6MbWKfsa9q
 aVmnlOF3k5UqChjutfHaEa4Q7VP4wBIpphHBi9MI16oJIzzBPbGl2uoedjwiZ6QeQZnSuOVY
 ZxU2d3lRA8PrtfFN1VSlpEm/VcAvtieHUYWHN0wOu+cp3Slr5XJVNjTjJhl28SlinMME54mK
 AGf2Ldr/dRwXwmEEGBEIAAkFAk9mqaACGwwACgkQL3lWvF2gS126EQD/VVd3FgjLKglClRQP
 zdfU847tqDK4zJjbmRv5vLLwoE0A+wbrQs7jVGU3NrS0AIl5vUmewpp2BKzSkepy23nWmejw
Message-ID: <a0a84fd5-ebb4-8faa-a278-d666f631d55a@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 01:17:41 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOwTYAsfT1YPNB=Pp3ajS7taxVyx-Kv-LHLvLb=X65zjOh4qaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> Because it's a waste of everyone's time. The RFC process is the only one
> we have.

So? There was time where we had none. Processes are not some precious
jewels that we occasionally happen to find by chance but can't have any
more. We can create them.

> To clarify, I wasn't trying to impose anything new by changing the
> introduction, I was only trying to give a formal description of how the
> project actually does work, and what role the RFC process plays in that.

I don't think I agree that the project works that way, at least the way
I understood what you wrote. Maybe my understanding did not match your
intent, but then we need a formulation that would express that intent
more clearly, so that myself and others would understand it properly and
we could agree on it.

> Your suggestion implies that *if* there was no consensus about how the
> project is governed that it would be our only option to continue without
> a way to resolve that question.

No, it's not the only option. I am just saying that having an RFC vote
as defined in RFC process is not the only option, and it's not the
preferable option. We can seek others.

> In reality, there is a consensus about how the project is governed. Some
> contributors may be unhappy, and far too loud about expressing their
> opinions on this, but they are a small minority.

Your definition of "consensus" is very different from mine then. And how
do you know those who disagree with you are "small minority"? Small
compared to what? Minority compared to whom?

> The vast majority of contributors are quite happy to use the RFC process
> in all the ways we have been using it.

Vast majority of contributors also probably have very little interest in
project governance as long as it delivers the results - i.e. features
get implemented, patches get merged, bugs get fixes, code keeps running.
But when there's disagreement about the overall direction the project
should take, and how to solve it, I don't think anybody ever asked "vast
majority of contributors" about how to solve it and I doubt that vast
majority spent significant time on evaluating the merits of potential
solutions to that. In fact, I am not even convinced "vast majority of
contributors" are those who need to decide that - is it really right
that whoever contributed a docs fix or a test couple of times, or maybe
supported one extension, has the same voice on the project direction as
somebody who implemented large pieces of code and spent decades in the
project? That's one of the questions that needs to be considered. There
are likely more.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com