Newsgroups: php.internals,php.pdo
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35120 php.pdo:104
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.198.185 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=QcamPfd8pFz+x+4cE9hM6RY7LNLhEI7MaDAhzNsVWQsRarNPYwEAJHXTWX6B+PzlkR/hJIpTmBepKRoNdDjE0AegTY05hoxZIeKhQKpTmppz+EarBoZs1Mc6M2RPjo2plrg0XrE+NeF6zIpieVk5WY/orrHx7a6mGEdDJkjm3Vc=
Message-ID: <fe05d1540802021551l704ac0d9k435772b69da50295@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 00:51:03 +0100
To: "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>
Cc: pdo@lists.php.net, internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <155955105.20080203001830@marcus-boerger.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <00ce01c865c2$22f23aa0$c6fc1f3e@foxbox>
	 <510220265.20080202204406@marcus-boerger.de>
	 <019c01c865d5$2ebbacf0$c6fc1f3e@foxbox>
	 <fe05d1540802021233n14dca604s413a750b9a52d0a7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <155955105.20080203001830@marcus-boerger.de>
Subject: Re: [PDO] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PDO] Re: [PHP-DEV] Fw: [PDO] [RFC] An Idea for PDO 2
From: pierre.php@gmail.com ("Pierre Joye")

On Feb 3, 2008 12:18 AM, Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net> wrote:
> Hello Pierre,
>
>   amen!, You're noted as no. But other people see a reason and continue to
> discuss *please* without you.

Sorry, are you saying that the discussions are restricted to only a
few chosen? All your arguments in your recent posts about openness and
transparent process are rather pointless now. You may be pragmatic,
but for your convictions, there is room for improvements.

> We will take your vote in as no when it comes to voting if ever.

And now you consider that discussions about what will happen in
php.net, pecl.php.net and php core can happen suddenly in a newly
created list and some people does not have to participate or are not
welcome. What a wonderful example of what you have in mind for the
future of the php.net projects and how they should work.

> If you are interested in explanations then I suggest you
> read all mails and blogs again until you understand the reason why some
> peole need a CLA.

Blog posts are not the way we communicate within a project sorry. All
mails I read did not give reasons why a CLA is required for us and
what benefits we will get. All one can read is only about external
entities not able to contribute because the lack of CLA, absolutely no
details about who they are, what are their real needs and expectations
. The biggest problem is that they did not think that informing us via
the normal way would have been expected.

If the process was transparent and if all parties were actually
discussing it then yes, I would have been more open and even helped to
provide the tools in the pecl web site or in other parts of our sites.
But how it goes, it is more the perfect example of a complete opaque
process and confirm everything we can think about such additions.

-- 
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org