Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74537
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH54+qGf7CzY1Q5r28ck5Fkv0vxQ6_Cj4_y1R1mHHezc7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH-PCH54+qGf7CzY1Q5r28ck5Fkv0vxQ6_Cj4_y1R1mHHezc7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 01:08:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSy-r-R7+q=1xjioO4YbfrzSxUT4pyUdkS_FXEpQzYYvxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>, php-webmaster <php-webmaster@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1139bb8810be1304fa7152a8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] about the latest frontpage entry
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--001a1139bb8810be1304fa7152a8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Joe made a post about the introduction on phpng, what it is, and what it
> isn't.
> Some people (myself included) didn't liked that post for various reasons
> (some says it is opiniated, some doesn't like the tone and the wording,
> others feel that it is too early to made official announcement about
> phpng).
> There were a couple of iteration on improving the text, but it is still not
> up to our standards imo:
>
> http://git.php.net/?p=web/php.git;a=history;f=archive/entries/2014-05-27-1.xml
> ;
> It is already on hackernews and reddit, so while some people suggested, I
> think it would be a bad move to just remove it.
>
> Would like to know what do you guys think about the best step, I see the
> following possible options:
>
>    - keep it as is
>

No.  I agree that it's too problematic as-is.


>    - remove it
>

No.  As you said, it's already been disseminated and the last thing we'd
want is to give the appearance of censorship.  Even if it didn't give that
impression, removing it at this point would just create even more confusion.


>    - rewrite it to be more formal and factual(only talk about what it is
>    atm. not what it could be in the future).
>

Yes.


>    - create a post explaining that this post is controversional among the
>    core-devs, so it is reflects more of the authors opinion than the
> projects
>    official view on the topic.
>

Yes.  If we do the above suggestion, as well, then this would perhaps focus
more on what changes were made and why they were made.

--Kris

--001a1139bb8810be1304fa7152a8--