Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107440
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5d976928.1c69fb81.db3a8.78daSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAF+90c9uXdqJsTizLCca-AswenZDv9-6yw=ranATp3XoutHyxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR06MB285747B847DE2D7320758C05DE9A0@DM5PR06MB2857.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <e69fb3de-df5f-f77e-ad4e-61ea30185c5c@lsces.uk> <CAG9XoMR9DhKDwS1moH_9pjDNyZQ70ER5_stNs_GxQFucZ+ar7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <413d377a-4ce1-a521-0cb4-5bb37e84c257@gmail.com> <6DFA91F7-0005-453E-A314-A5DFE1A4D3D3@newclarity.net>
 <CANS-=pedhmAnmBSsshD8FYD2WqA-0mtWxXmXK5oqzaN8-o07Sw@mail.gmail.com> <B82725B4-6544-4CEE-AE11-297F08EBC4C9@newclarity.net>
In-Reply-To: <B82725B4-6544-4CEE-AE11-297F08EBC4C9@newclarity.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 14:25:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHN63oN=F5KxA=MPyBd7vuWs+K8TTrMbnoT5NAhMJEe5kbGYMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net>
Cc: Lynn <kjarli@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000023da7d05946cce85"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecate Backtick Operator (V2)
From: mo.mu.wss@gmail.com ("M. W. Moe")

--00000000000023da7d05946cce85
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hello,

what you write and advocate for can't be heard by a vast majority of people
here; because they are just not North-American; somehow
that's a very interesting trait; most of people despise `kind` moralism.


On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:14 PM Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net> wrote:

> > On Oct 8, 2019, at 4:29 PM, Lynn <kjarli@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My middle ground is a vote, regardless of outcome.
>
> If a vote is the middle ground then why the need to participate in any
> discussion?
>
> Also, how is a vote a middle ground? A vote ensures that one sides wins
> and the other side looses.  IOW, a zero-sum game.
>
> Why does it not make better sense to actively look for ways to optimize
> outcomes so that the most people can win?  For example...
>
> > This RFC is pretty simple, a deprecation + removal in a later patch,
> there's not much to compromise on the implementation.
>
> A compromise might be "NO agreement to remove in a later patch."
>
> Why does it not make sense to offer that up as a consolation to the one
> asking for deprecation?  If they accepted and changed the RFC, then more
> people could get a "win."
>
> > If people think a deprecation should not be done or if it's not worth
> it, a vote is the way to show that opinion.
> > If there are enough reasons to not deprecate them, the voting process
> will show this and the RFC will be rejected.
>
> I have noticed on this list much discussion of the "minority vs. the
> majority."  But that is a red-herring. There are a small number of people
> who have a vote (~200?) whereas there are over 5 million PHP developers and
> even more PHP stakeholders who have no vote.
>
> In other words, when internals@ votes unanimously on an RFC they still
> only represent ~0.004% of PHP stakeholders.  Basically an aristocracy.
>
> So while a vote is a way to share an opinion, it is not representative of
> the opinions of those it may affect.  It is a shame that the PHP voting
> process has no objective way to incorporate userland concerns except when
> some act as their proxy. Which is not the same as userland having explicit
> representatives with a vote.
>
> > PS. We need a CoC.
>
> 100% agree.
>
> -Mike
>
> P.S. I also think PHP needs an agreed statement of principles (Mission,
> Vision and Values.) With said statement RFCs could be evaluated to
> determine if they align with PHP's previously-agreed principles. Such a
> statement could be revised from time to time, but having one would resolve
> a lot of contentious debates before they happen.
>
>
>

--00000000000023da7d05946cce85--