Newsgroups: php.internals,php.webmaster
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74579 php.webmaster:19018
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com from 209.85.220.174 cause and error)
References: <CAH-PCH54+qGf7CzY1Q5r28ck5Fkv0vxQ6_Cj4_y1R1mHHezc7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABDNdAGCSZP0T0ajjzX1VavvjMpvBtbdmLsXxrxDCoyGYrkHtA@mail.gmail.com>
	<f27e754a57561fa2a27420f8ac940c9e@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAR7rTFatTvf7yaQ8w2mY7G+HWXBVNhm4e53dS9rxBr1xtTV-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<4695c8ecd91a1c16367541f0743a2400@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFp73Xu+iAr8vMEroezvpq5w2XDkHZE926nqFY8tFa-DnMYS0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPgKKxVaoDMBQnwwiCvK4YJc6aZnHCpdreHQhmgqt-xvY8SwUA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPgKKxVaoDMBQnwwiCvK4YJc6aZnHCpdreHQhmgqt-xvY8SwUA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQGmJDgvAkP0sKjJxzC2NytXAGOEhQFoNGukAphvu9kCPMWb0wHR6uEjAm/vAssB5a5IyJtFkZOQ
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 17:29:47 +0300
Message-ID: <cd639d681da0004021316b1c6b909cca@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonny Stirling <phoenix@jonstirling.co.uk>, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com
Cc: Philip Sturgeon <email@philsturgeon.co.uk>, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>, php-webmaster <php-webmaster@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11339e2e0823fe04fa76a50d
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] about the latest frontpage entry
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

--001a11339e2e0823fe04fa76a50d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jonny,



If anything, I think how we=E2=80=99re handling this on these lists is lax=
=E2=80=A6



Someone (I don=E2=80=99t even know who it is and it doesn=E2=80=99t really =
matter) put
facts on the ground and published an article on www.php.net that deviates
greatly from anything we ever publish there without getting anything
remotely close to an approval.  Whomever those 3 people that gave him the
green light, it was wrong.  We never publish anything remotely similar on
there, not even approved RFCs let alone unapproved ones.



Honestly I=E2=80=99m not sure why we=E2=80=99re debating this so much.  The=
 fact-putting
needs to be undone as quickly as possible.  The burden of proof as to why
it makes sense to keep it there should be on those who want to deviate from
how www.php.net has been running for the past 15 years, not the other way
around.



Zeev





*From:* Jonny Stirling [mailto:phoenix@jonstirling.co.uk]
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 28, 2014 5:22 PM
*To:* guilhermeblanco@gmail.com
*Cc:* Zeev Suraski; Philip Sturgeon; Ferenc Kovacs; PHP Internals;
php-webmaster
*Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] about the latest frontpage entry



On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com <
guilhermeblanco@gmail.com> wrote:

Can we please have an RFC around it, vote and then you guys can announce
wildly on php.net?
I feel really frustrated that a main article on php.net frontpage proclaims
that next PHP will have something that haven't even been voted internally.
Otherwise, anyone with website karma can post a new feature support (even
though it was not yet voted) and we'll have to deal with the situation
later if it gets rejected.

Thanks,





First off, I don't see anywhere in the post that specifies this is going to
be in PHP.next or otherwise unlike other posts around the internet which
are filled with inaccuracies. Others have said it is opinionated, but I
would suspect that's Joe's way of trying to make the post seem up-beat.



Was it the wrong place to post? Maybe. Was there a better alternative.....
possibly not.



Saying that, the language used in the post was perhaps a little on the lax
side, but it was approved not by an individual, but by a group of what I
can only assume were the relevant people, so discussing it now and
retrospectively saying it's "unprofessional" is a bit late, but perhaps can
end up being useful.



As for the idea of an RFC. This seems a completely over-the-top solution
for a relatively minor issue. In the long run, PHPNG and the work being
done in and around the place are arguably news worthy and as above, the
post was apparently reviewed. On top of that, there appear to have been
legitimate reasons for publishing the off-norm posting on php.net.



Now, a possible solution to this. Simple. A separate blog (whatever the URL
may be). From what I can tell, Joe has already brought this up and
potentially volunteered to deal with it(?) and if so, great, I hope he's
still interested in going forward with it after this morning.



Internals as it stands is not a public friendly place to try and keep up
with what's going on inside of PHP (see this thread), so this idea gives,
in particular, userland developers, the ability to keep up-to-date without
having to jump through hoops to get onto / read the mailing list and then
have to parse out an awful lot of noise to work out what's going on. While
this may not be an issue for internals developers, I'm sure people who
aren't would certainly be interested in reading this kind of information.



Probably a little over my 2 cents worth of bikeshedding, but hopefully of
relevance.



Jonny

--001a11339e2e0823fe04fa76a50d--