Newsgroups: php.internals,php.pdo
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35475 php.pdo:129
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 64.233.184.238 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=Hfo7ncIAiiIfuGi0IY73a4rYCX6Vt+Mhin+7t8fwpDg9K8W7y9p4MIIXCpzKVoseUhblIWsfXnYIoMfTsIMefDagnWhyH3aa+ZludEziPN982ufSfKiYbImr9GGb6bFxjK98cpHawzrRU/IwMysLZirkxOwuF4lyjcaBUka7vck=
Message-ID: <fe05d1540802131813t7c58d8a1ke4e681b69a3eca9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:13:38 +0100
To: "Christopher Jones" <christopher.jones@oracle.com>
Cc: pdo@lists.php.net, "PHP Internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <47B39DF1.2000607@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <37388396.20080201212653@marcus-boerger.de>
	 <47A395BA.9020707@daylessday.org>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0802011702490.15624@miranda.org>
	 <fe05d1540802011420o22144724rdd4c9668e2ebfb94@mail.gmail.com>
	 <47B39DF1.2000607@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PDO] Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] An Idea for PDO 2
From: pierre.php@gmail.com ("Pierre Joye")

Hi Chris,

On Feb 14, 2008 2:48 AM, Christopher Jones <christopher.jones@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> Pierre Joye wrote:
>  > The targets were these/this companies(y) pushing CLA in php.net when
>  > it is not necessary to contribute. It has been proven already since
>  > months on a nearly daily basis.
>  >
>  > For example:
>  > http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/discuss/msgReader$268
>
> My understanding is that because of its collaborative nature,
> contributing to PDO V2 has new and very different implications.

You mean its collaborative and restrictive nature?

> Arguments using past contributions to show the ad-hoc development
> model is feasible are (unfortunately) not tenable

Again, please see my other posts. Since my last post, nothing has been
brought to the list to clarify the situation. Important questions like
who is asking a CLA, who will contribute and what will be brought on
board? Why did they not take contact with us? All these questions are
without answer and until they got one, I will not change my mind for a
yota (and I doubt any oposant will).

-- 
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org