Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107205
Message-ID: <AEED4C1B-852A-462C-A52A-1D9AD1956881@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_8F7E226C-E8A2-4727-A52A-272300ADAE83"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:43:35 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c_pivhDhWbFs-qwbvSEGKU41xX6F5r3idTOwh_2f6R+0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
References: <CACXBjuh_-Q6fMxQN8ddYcQQOjTU6RAZPNp9uMfg01LjvZt80ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c_pivhDhWbFs-qwbvSEGKU41xX6F5r3idTOwh_2f6R+0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Evolving PHP
From: claude.pache@gmail.com (Claude Pache)

--Apple-Mail=_8F7E226C-E8A2-4727-A52A-272300ADAE83
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8



> Le 16 sept. 2019 =C3=A0 21:32, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> a =
=C3=A9crit :
>=20
> * Discussion threads on this mailing list have been very unpleasant
> recently. I am unwilling to actively participate in them in this form. =
This
> is bad for everyone, but particularly for opponents of proposals. It =
means
> that we cannot establish the necessary discourse to explore =
improvements or
> alternatives. The recent propensity to suppress certain discussion =
topics
> entirely, as well as the use of overwhelming quantity to =
disproportionately
> push a position, contribute to the unproductive discussion =
environment.
>=20


The discussion would have been less unpleasant if everyone sought =
consensus, that is, tried to find a solution that is appropriate for =
everyone, instead of trying to convince others that their opinion is the =
right one.

There is a qualitative difference between consensus and unanimity. =
Unanimity means that a solution is preferred by everyone =E2=80=94 which =
is reasonably not possible. Consensus means that a solution is =
acceptable to everyone, even when it is not the best one for everyone. =
This is mostly possible, but only if everyone tries to satisfy not only =
themself, but also the others. But consensus cannot be measured by vote.

For example, throwing a TypeError for uninitialised variables cannot =
reach consensus, because it is not appropriate for those that rely on =
implicitly initialised variables. Triggering an E_WARNING is nearer to a =
*possible* consensus.

I am not optimistic that there would be a mindset change in the =
direction of seeking consensus for every participating party of the =
discussion. However, I am suggesting that if a RFC try to seek a =
solution that is *at least* acceptable to everyone, there will be less =
frustration and less irritation from the minority.

=E2=80=94Claude=

--Apple-Mail=_8F7E226C-E8A2-4727-A52A-272300ADAE83--