Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107161
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOwTYAu5vCGMw4Dp0v90fGD9OGm6X0dc42iJV35bk1Df_yr_2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJW__o2zGs_s0NRznZiG5Wb5NSeRMDzitS5457hGg_xMJ3B0dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOwTYAuqas930BODamWEuMaH7T1N6H8y2fP1B+cjMkkVfi0rQw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHtznwccyuHyujAU+j+E15doFbvFPaGY+Vf1hbB5btZd=O7Ug@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHtznwccyuHyujAU+j+E15doFbvFPaGY+Vf1hbB5btZd=O7Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:18:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEPJdum7NjX6xkX81JD7oC0mCSvBjFcGxcErVjV-Gq=hvYA54g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008fd7b40592a8ec33"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group
From: kontakt@beberlei.de (Benjamin Eberlei)

--0000000000008fd7b40592a8ec33
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:14 AM Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net> wrote:

> This note isn't really for Joe, who will likely would not pay too much if
> any attention to whatever I or whomever else who disagrees with his
> position on the universal applicability of the Voting RFC in its current
> form has to say.
> This is for the many other folks following this and other threads.
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:33 AM Joe Watkins <krakjoe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd like it if we could stop saying the RFC process can't be used for one
> > thing or another, it's patently false.
> >
>
> Saying that something is patently false doesn't make it so.  Repeating it
> in multiple ways doesn't make it so either.  And indeed, the RFC process
> can be used for a wide range of use cases - and at the same time it isn't
> and never was a way to govern every aspect of the project.  The notion of
> 'one size fits all' is frankly ridiculous.
> This process was introduced in a certain context, and while it's true that
> it evolved to also cover some other elements it never ventured into
> radically different areas as it appears to be doing now.  Currently, it's
> mutating to cover an entirely new space - the space of radical breaks -
> it's time to put it back in perspective, and agree on how we're going to
> handle these things going forward.
>
> To say it's not suitable for these things is a total nonsense, we already
> >
> use it for these things.
> >
>
> Determining that a process that was devised for a certain purpose is
> suitable for every other purpose under the sun is, in my humble opinion,
> not very sensible.  Adding a feature and taking it away - let alone so
> after 20 years - have radically different effects.  The former doesn't
> immediately do anything (at least not negatively).  The latter - depending
> on the details - could have far reaching overnight effects.  It's not just
> that the RFC process wasn't meant to cover that.  It's that treating both
> cases as if they're the same thing doesn't make any sense at all.
>
> Yes, using the process itself to amend it was a bit questionable - but
> since it did not extend the scope and jurisdiction, it wasn't a big deal.
> It also passed nearly unanimously - so whatever bar we would have had, it
> would have likely cleared it.  It does not mean that the same process with
> the same bar can be used to extend its jurisdiction to additional areas.
>
> Specifically, areas where it cannot extend itself into are the areas such
> as radical changes to the project governance and radical shifts in the
> language.
>
> It's not that the process in itself is not suitable.  Much of it can be
> reused for these purposes.  However, if we are going to make radical
> changes - be them in the language or in how we work - there needs to be
> overwhelming support for it - similarly to the level of support we had for
> the RFC process itself and its amendments.  Also similarly to when we
> deprecated major features like like register_globals, safe_mode and
> magic_quotes - there was also near unanimous support for it, which was more
> along the lines of 10 to 1 than 2 to 1.  And arguably - all three were much
> 'smaller deals' than the radical deprecation that is currently on the table
> - register_globals and magic_quotes had simple one liner workarounds, and
> safe_mode had its scope limited to shared hosters only - and was (almost)
> unanimously agreed upon as a feature that was simply not working as
> advertised.
>
> If we want to extend the Voting RFC to cover things such as radical changes
> to the language, or introduce radical changes to the project governance
> (e.g. CoC) - it would have to clear a similar bar.  You need overwhelming
> support for changing the rules that bind everyone.  Yes, I realize people
> think that it is me who's changing the rules - but it isn't.  It's no
> coincidence that the applicability of the RFC process is coming into
> question now - it's being used - for the first time in a few short months -
> to do something it was very clearly not designed to do.  It simply never
> happened before.
>
> It's not that we can't apply large parts of the RFC process to these areas
> as well.  We can and should.  But we'd have to modify some elements and add
> some others.
> For areas like radical changes in project governance (i.e., not amending
> the Voting RFC within the same scope, but say, extending it;  Or
> introducing a CoC) - it would have to clear a much higher bar.  Whether
> it's 5 to 1 or 10 to 1, it can clearly not be 2 to 1.
> Similarly, for deprecations - we'd need a way to measure the expected
> impact, and determine the bar in correlation to that expected impact.
> Deprecations with minor impact could perhaps still use the 2/3 bar.
> Radical shifts that are going to affect hundreds of thousands of people or
> require auditing of billions of lines of code - would have to clear a much
> higher bar - and would have to include a much stronger analysis than 5
> sentence in a composite RFC.
>
> The 2/3 bar encourages contention, and worse - as we can see in recent
> months - enables tyranny of a majority - forcing change on the minority.
> Moreover, the specific recent example of what happened with short_tags
> illustrates just how unsuitable the RFC process in its current form is to
> handle radical deprecations.  The 2/3 bar was meant a reasonable bar to
> ensure that the support isn't some temporary "50%+1" - that would then
> commit us to perpetually supporting a feature that we weren't too confident
> about as a team.
>
> We are in control of a gigantic platform that is used by millions of
> people.  The RFC process gave folks access to influence the future
> direction of PHP in a way that has few if any parallels in Open Source
> programming languages.  Perhaps this confused people to think that we
> (internals) can do whatever we want with it using the same relatively
> achievable bar.  That is not the case.
>
> On a personal note, I'm well aware that many are perceiving this as if I'm
> trying to take control of the project, or driving people away, or generally
> being aggressive.
>
> Reality is slightly different.  The folks who are triggering these
> discussions are the ones who are trying to both bring change to PHP, and at
> the same time refuse to compromise or even explore win/win solutions.
> Sure, others have the option to just 'suck it up' and see the project we've
> worked on and/or have been using for years take a radical turn into being
> something different and push us away.  In recent months, I've repeatedly
> tried to come up with, bring up or accept constructive solutions - that
> would not disenfranchise one camp at the expense of the other, but rather
> give both camps what they want.  But it appears that the current majority
> insists that they don't only get what they want - but that they do it while
> taking away what the minority wants.  This cannot stand.  As I said
> repeatedly, we need to snap out of the zero sum game mentality and come up
> with solutions that work for mostly everyone - certainly not just 2/3 of
> internals (and probably a lot less of the PHP world at large).
>
> I'm not saying I can veto decisions, and going down the line of figuring
> out whether the PHP Group can do so is the wrong direction that's entirely
> non productive.  I'm not trying to "take back control" of the project.
> There's absolutely nothing personal at play here for me, I wish I didn't
> have to be involved in this.
>
> What I am saying that the RFC process in its current form is inapplicable
> to the discussions we're currently throwing at it.  I'm also suggesting
> that we need to move back to be a bit more consensus driven with decisions
> that affect everyone.  Concensus on such areas doesn't have to and will not
> mean paralysis.  PHP has evolved a lot in recent years, and will continue
> to do so - the 2/3 bar along with the composition of internals@ ensures
> that.  It's just that if we want to evolve it in a direction that would
> negatively affect a very large group of people (break their apps) - we need
> to do better than that.  There either needs to be an exceptionally good
> case for it which would result in overwhelming support - or we need to find
> a way to introduce it without breaking people's code.  That can absolutely
> be done - even in a variety of ways (Editions, strict mode, P++, other
> ideas) -  it's not even very complicated.  All it takes is some good will.
>

We heard you repeating the RFC process isn't applicable very often now, but
a productive way forward needs to take it into account to make any change
in governance.

For many of the current contributors RFC+Voting process is the only visible
process that was applied and has been used to make changes to the language
in the last 8 years.

Even if it was not originally envisoned by you or Pierre to be usable for
deprecations or to amend itself, that is what is has been used for the last
few years. In these votes not arbitrary people, but the contributors with
high influence, the current and recent release masters of PHP 5s and 7s
have all participated, and many core code contributors have
**overwhelmingly voted for the changes**. To me that makes the RFC process
"common law" of the project, and gives the process a very high legitimacy
across many current contributors, and outside by the community for all
changes to the language and project.

As such any move to change that process, without using the RFC+voting
process as the means to arrive such change, will lead to negative
reactions. All the implicit process that may have existed before was not
passed on to the current maintainers. That governance failure from 8 years
ago is something you cannot take back anymore without sparking the stark
reactions we see right now.

Would it be too much to ask accept the voting RFC as more than it was
thought to be and move forward with your ideas about deprecations as an
amendment to the RFC process? then we can finally productively discuss the
exact wording that you are looking for and have a vote about it.


> Zeev
>

--0000000000008fd7b40592a8ec33--