Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:56238
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4EBBFE8B.40308@lerdorf.com>
References: <CAH-PCH79fgb+isqZyeZcsSjY6WWJ=ZjGY2oEMgdrjO2=eBFC8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c_sKnS4nRpfActoUQ3OHst248X6cGp9CP=JZ2WO1wbw4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH7qN52+sEfnj3Ud0EyK=B8njNkAGfKzwaeUkDYPPGD3UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c8WmbbdtMMau=HnMEpQ+dhJJDEQzgsTtrn9GCxqvFdZ-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBADCE4.9030702@sugarcrm.com>
	<CAF+90c_rdZ4DpVgZ_hq7yYiDpXPEBaozq9Rf9GD5Kfcga2vztQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBAF5D8.40608@sugarcrm.com>
	<CAFp73Xv2_CJaYvGasrvjf8rgv2=cCNoDW5fvk8UenikCjheStQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBB5847.50400@lerdorf.com>
	<CAFp73XveEuDZSuHb7pz9i=s1xkwigcuqrE9OweQjDW2CjDJpZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EBBFE8B.40308@lerdorf.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:44:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU70z7aOJqcRk5p-N+YDV5gjJZQwN62xkTYd+Jo1aSAcDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: "guilhermeblanco@gmail.com" <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] who can vote
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:

> If there is voting on an RFC related to php-doc stuff, then the
> meritocracy shifts to the main php-doc contributors. Same goes for
> testing-related issues. My vote on a doc issue carries considerable less
> weight than my vote on a src issue. Call it a consensus-based
> meritocracy, if you will. The idea here is that it isn't sustainable for
> the voting process to create a decision that a large number of the
> people doing the day-to-day work on a given part of the project disagree
> with. In a volunteer organization that simply doesn't work because the
> volunteers will naturally just stop volunteering if they are forced to
> work this way.

We may really come back to earth. There are no decision that has been
taken in a way that php has been hurt in any way, since the RFC has
been re introduced.

There is also not 1000s of random people voting on features but well
known persons. Persons who already contribute to PHP in one way or
another.

We are not giving away our power or freedom of choices but only giving
a voice to people who deserves it, for the good of the future of PHP.
And we damned have to do it.

> Sure, but this is another great example. If you wrote an RFC that
> basically said, "Let's rewrite the engine" I bet it would get a lot of
> positive votes. But then what? Rewriting the engine is a multi-year
> effort by at least a couple of really strong developers. Unless the RFC
> is written by these developers or it includes a credible commitment by
> said developers to actually do the work and stick around to support it,
> the votes are meaningless. You are kind of implying that because a bunch
> of people click a checkbox on the wiki site, I, or someone like me
> should quit our jobs and spend the next 2 years of our lives working on
> something you think is a good idea. Things just don't work like that.

That's another myth spread by the opponents of making our process
open. All RFCs proposed has been proposed with patches, implemented by
the proposers, with or without the help of other core developers.
Nobody ever succeed (except the alternative array RFC which did no go
further than draft) to propose something without a clear&clean
implementation. I'm sorry, and with all respects, this is FUD.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org