Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107338
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 10:26:51 +0200
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>
Cc: Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <e227140b-e1e1-451d-b864-4a966c9233a3@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHtznwme6YvEsHJpPvVKwZ42pkH87+xpk=OTQuJ=mUdCS-uzA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+kxMuSkkhtvaBk_89j+PM_TmHDhtOiJ=RxsoV-q5wLtwE_ZHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPKYkKyJDW4hys4-NdYy7MXsegGDx-GydrwWUOJma8e3UNRbBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuS5A7sxS6G-14U5F1abgJypX3LLeYOD0JGfVufNzcqtnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPKYkKwts9Lw8OYS8P6GJ9bjfNjz4hcjsnuS44MDh0v8N7MoQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJW__o08OTOwk3VVq8-KoYY+_q5HOXODxNyXiUFe_oaLok_mLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2145814f-dbf2-9555-138b-4ed51b96522f@gmail.com>
 <893cc688-c8a2-1da3-e72c-de952f3f774d@heigl.org>
 <CAJHtznzyS=Ut88A25qtgb=2A6_Vm+w3uPHgvZ3f2yvfjtTJopA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJHtznwme6YvEsHJpPvVKwZ42pkH87+xpk=OTQuJ=mUdCS-uzA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5d8dc7d0_419ac241_ef7b"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Prevent disruptions of conversations
From: brendt@stitcher.io (Brent)

--5d8dc7d0_419ac241_ef7b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Hello all

While my conclusions differ from Zeev's on this topic, this document addr=
esses many valid point as to why this R=46C in its current form shouldn't=
 be voted in. I believe it should be added in the original R=46C as a cou=
nterargument =E2=80=94 I think internals=40 recently agreed that adding c=
ounter arguments to R=46Cs was something that's allowed=3F

Zeev, while I agree with many of your points, you also don't offer a conc=
rete solution. You've been very vocal about the R=46C process being broke=
n, which caused the majority of what people consider =22disruptions=22 on=
 internals=40 lately. I think the community would benefit if internals=40=
 started to put things into practice. That means making a CoC and reevalu=
ating the R=46C process.

Maybe this can only be done if key core members came together IRL for a f=
ew days=3F I reckon money might be a problem here, but this could probabl=
y be solved via crowd funding. If 5 to 10 million people are using PHP, c=
hances are there a quite a few companies invested enough in its future to=
 actually contribute to it, financially.

I do think Dan's R=46C lacks in several areas, though he actually took th=
e time to try and improve the system. I hope core members like yourself w=
ill make the same effort in the near future, so that months of having the=
 same discussions can finally end.

Kind regards
Brent
On 27 Sep 2019, 08:00 +0200, Zeev Suraski <zeev=40php.net>, wrote:
> On =46ri, Sep 20, 2019 at 12:52 PM Zeev Suraski <zeev=40php.net> wrote:=

>
> >
> > Speaking of 'disruptive behavior' that the antithesis of promoting 'g=
ood
> > will' - this pseudo R=46C is a textbook example.
> >
>
> I wrote an analysis of this outlandish proposal that I hope some may fi=
nd
> useful:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/analysis/prevent=5Fdisruptions=5Fof=5Fconversa=
tions
>
> Zeev

--5d8dc7d0_419ac241_ef7b--