Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:56237 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 30655 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2011 17:38:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Nov 2011 17:38:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.183 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.183 smtp183.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.183] ([67.192.241.183:41777] helo=smtp183.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 8A/4B-01205-23C0CBE4 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:38:59 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp18.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5D6A5268386; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:38:56 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp18.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id D8F2A26817C; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:38:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4EBC0C2F.9060404@sugarcrm.com> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:38:55 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: PHP Internals References: <4EBADCE4.9030702@sugarcrm.com> <4EBAF5D8.40608@sugarcrm.com> <4EBB7967.1070006@sugarcrm.com> <4EBBA278.60803@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] who can vote From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > See the votes, there is a patch, created by people able to maintain > it. It is especially obvious in this case as this RFC is supported by > a large part of our users. Able != will. There are tons of people able to fix bugs in PHP, yet some stay unfixed for years. "Supported by users" doesn't mean these people will maintain it. It means they want somebody to put it in core. These are totally different things. Anyway, you didn't name any projects, so the conclusion is there's no projects that ever done what you propose to do for PHP. That's what I am saying. > I call that consensus, and our vision has been proven wrong many times > already, remember the "we don't need OO" back then? Not sure if you > were already in php.net, but that was the moto for the core. We keep > repeating the same mistakes. I don't see how that (which was like 10 years ago) has any relationship to what happens now. And IIRC first iteration of OO in PHP sucked and we still struggling with the fallout from that. Maybe if the php group waited, it might be done right the first time. > I can show you many other major OSS projects where feedbacks and > proposals from users are taken seriously without this superior > attitude we keep to have here. We spend huge amounts of time discussing various third party proposals, yet I constantly hear about that "superior attitude" and complains about "not considering anything" - by weird coincidence, from people whose proposals aren't accepted. I'm starting to suspect something is missing in this picture. > However, and it is what we approved, OSS project leads have a voice, > today and here. And they are not random people, they know sometimes They do have a voice. They don't have a power to force PHP group do things that aren't accepted by consensus. Just as I don't have a power to force Apache Group or Python or Perl to do something they don't accept just because I use Apache or Python or Perl. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227