Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49717 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 18074 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2010 17:55:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Sep 2010 17:55:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.163 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.163 smtp163.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.163] ([67.192.241.163:50703] helo=smtp163.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 68/87-15036-A1A529C4 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:55:38 -0400 Received: from relay16.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay16.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 253441511D; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:55:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by relay16.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id CDDF814FFE; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:55:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C925A17.8080401@sugarcrm.com> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:55:35 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christian Kaps CC: Frederic Hardy , James Butler , "internals@lists.php.net" References: <4C91D0ED.4010001@mageekbox.net> <6ac1402fc6f27c445bb04a894b2f5c3c@localhost> In-Reply-To: <6ac1402fc6f27c445bb04a894b2f5c3c@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] More formal feature request cycle From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! >>> This thought is brought on mainly by watching the annotations >>> drama that is currently occupying internals, does anyone else >>> agree it might be a good idea to have a slightly more formal >>> procedure for requesting features and then recording votes pros, >>> cons, side effects, etc. against it. It might do a fair bit to >>> stop anecdotal talk of how many people actually want a feature, >>> and stop the list retreading the same arguments over and over >>> again. Have no idea just yet what this would look like, but an >>> thinking something between launchpad and the current php wiki. I agree that some rules about how we do this would be good. PHP now is big enough and complex enough and the community is diverse enough that we can engage in a discussion for months and the only result would be that everybody is so exhausted that they lose the understanding where we are, what we arrived at and nobody has any idea what's going on. And then people get frustrated and resort to cowboy comitting, etc. We do not need to have bureaucracy like Java, but some semi-formal process with results being recorded - as PEPs, for example - would do good, IMHO. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227