Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107459
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_D456AFE4-D979-4DD1-B29B-35B3719D9253"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Message-ID: <7F0ECC54-118A-4605-9231-9F15DA56A20F@newclarity.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 16:45:46 -0400
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>
Subject: Alternatives to the current dysfunction?
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

--Apple-Mail=_D456AFE4-D979-4DD1-B29B-35B3719D9253
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

> On Oct 9, 2019, at 3:50 AM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 0:38 Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net =
<mailto:mike@newclarity.net>> wrote:
> ...it seems you have identified at least one way to seek compromise.  =
Why not move forward with this, in general?
> I did - quite a while ago - and I see no reason not to, except that =
the pro-strict/pro-let=E2=80=99s-break-things camp either ignores that =
proposal entirely, or calls it a fork (it=E2=80=99s a fork in precisely =
the same way that PHP is a spoon).
> Note that I don=E2=80=99t really view it as a compromise, which is why =
I wrote my reply to you the way that I did.  Instead, I see it as a =
complete win/win for both camps.

Well, maybe it was not the right compromise.  Or better, not the right =
win/win. Maybe another win/win is what we need instead?

But then again, it is not all on you. Or on any one individual. It will =
take a "quorum" of people who are actively willing to collaborate to =
create positive change on this list.  Something that might not actually =
be possible given how entrenched everyone appears to be, but since I'm =
relatively new to participating on the list and have yet to be beaten =
down by it, maybe I am still just idealistic enough to think with effort =
it is possible?

> I don=E2=80=99t know.  The last time I tried to do it, someone pulled =
an overnight pseudo-RFC to stop the discussion, radically =
mischaracterizing the proposal, abusing a vote to shutdown discussion, =
and creating the fundamentally wrong impression that this is about the =
technical feasibility of achieving this - and not about whether we want =
to go down that route or not.  I=E2=80=99m all for discussing it (the =
principle, not necessarily in the P++ form).

Yes, that is quite unfortunate.=20

But I think going off on one's own to produce a solution and then =
presenting it back to the group =E2=80=94 and forgive me if that is not =
what happened =E2=80=94is most likely to fail given the current nature =
of the list. =20

Instead what might work better is to create ad-hoc working groups of =
numerous people to work on a solution, and then as a group present the =
proposed solution back to the list? Having all the working group members =
in support from the get-go would mean there would at least be a minimum =
number of people who support the solution once proposed.


> As I wrote a couple of weeks back, before we agree on the principle - =
that these contentious, breaking-for-no-new-reason proposals can=E2=80=99t=
 be forced on everyone but we need to make it opt-in, I don=E2=80=99t =
think formalizing it into an RFC would help.  I could be wrong, but I =
think we=E2=80=99re currently lacking in good will on the other camp, =
which appears to feel a lot more comfortable to just go on producing =
contentious proposals day in and day out, and live with whatever sticks.

I agree that there seems to be a lacking of good will on the part of =
many on this list.  I wonder why that is and why it is so extreme in the =
PHP community vs. other communities that argue but do not become as =
toxic, and ponder how to resolve the current maliase.

Maybe instead of just a mailing list, what if we also started having a =
weekly Zoom call where contentious subjects could be discussed instead =
of allowing them to fester on the mailing list? The calls could also be =
recorded and made available via the list for all to see.

-Mike


--Apple-Mail=_D456AFE4-D979-4DD1-B29B-35B3719D9253--