Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123629
Feedback-ID: id5114917:Fastmail
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 11:19:25 +0100
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Static class
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <ed873e8a-51a6-4aed-9236-9e3db8a35090@app.fastmail.com>
References: <4a298266-d29c-44e8-abea-849fd3e23721@rwec.co.uk> <10F3E8CB-8569-4F22-9ACD-C4196CF5AB57@gmail.com> <3595ABDE-3A86-42B5-91AB-98DA4639F08A@rwec.co.uk> <ed873e8a-51a6-4aed-9236-9e3db8a35090@app.fastmail.com>
Message-ID: <5115CAB9-CEA1-44E0-9348-BF4F5AEECAFD@rwec.co.uk>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: imsop.php@rwec.co.uk ("Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]")



On 16 June 2024 10:27:27 BST, Rob Landers <rob@bottled=2Ecodes> wrote:
>I don=E2=80=99t understand why we are comparing this to a jury and/or cou=
rt case=2E In many countries, juries don=E2=80=99t even exist (such as the =
one I currently reside in) so the only context is US TV shows for what that=
 even means=2E

Apologies, I'm from the UK, and forgot that systems vary so much=2E I thin=
k it roughly works to replace "jury" with "judge" or "magistrate", or whoev=
er decides legal cases in your jurisdiction=2E

The analogy I was trying to draw is that we should be aiming to make a dec=
ision based on the merit of the case, not our personal biases; and we shoul=
d give previous voters the respect of assuming that they did so as well=2E


> Secondly, RFC=E2=80=99s are not =E2=80=9Con trial=E2=80=9D and can be pr=
esented over and over again without much change=2E

That's exactly what I'm saying should *not* happen=2E



> To say =E2=80=9Cgo read the history=E2=80=9D is a cop out=2E

Saying "I can't be bothered to read the history" is *also* a cop out=2E It=
 places all the burden on long-term contributors to repeat the same argumen=
ts every time someone joins the list and revives an old topic=2E=20

Why is it up to long-term contributors to defend the previous decision, ra=
ther than up to someone new to defend reopening it?



> Even if it is the hundredth time, those people deserve our respect to at=
 least copy and paste our previous emails instead of sending them on a wild=
 goose chase=2E

I completely reject the characterisation of sending anyone on a wild goose=
 chase=2E I searched the archive, and found the specific threads, and even =
summarised the points as I remembered them=2E

But the reasoning given wasn't that it was too much effort to understand t=
he previous discussion; it was that all opinions from 10 years ago were aut=
omatically irrelevant, and that is the attitude I am fundamentally opposing=
=2E



To be fair, this particular topic hasn't come up many times, but I'm takin=
g a hard line because I don't want the next new contributor to say "but you=
 voted on that one twice, so let's revote my favourite one as well"=2E

If you think things have changed, that's fine - but be explicit *what* you=
 think has changed, don't just talk in the abstract and make us repeat ours=
elves=2E


Regards,
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]