Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83184
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.213.173 as permitted sender)
References: <CAAyV7nHHBxSPemoF0Gj+ridov99WFLMh-+nxDwBY5ikJwV0OUg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nHHBxSPemoF0Gj+ridov99WFLMh-+nxDwBY5ikJwV0OUg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQHZm35ye3NFGwIiX+/cnKgzWZqQypzlWDRA
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:52:58 +0200
Message-ID: <a25095424ba7a260f9a149a5711afa61@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Using Other Channels (was Scalar Type Declarations v0.5)
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmaxell@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:24 PM
> To: francois@php.net
> Cc: Lester Caine; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] Using Other Channels (was Scalar Type Declarations
> v0.5)
>
> Let me quote something that was said:
>
> "Ze'ev and Fran=C3=A7ois have not-so-politely asked [Sara] to not put 0.4
> forward
> since they have something they believe they have consensus on."

Anthony,

Please stop this.  I have been in touch with Sara, yes, but it was
absolutely and 100% polite, which I'm sure she'll confirm if you ask her.  =
I
can't speak for Fran=C3=A7ois as I wasn't a part of whatever correspondence=
 they
had between them.
And no, quoting someone else instead of you making that statement and
doesn't make it any better.

> So while it may not have been "abandoned", it was sandbagged (sabotaged,
> strong-armed, etc). I used abandoned as a light term to not point out to
> list
> what strong-arming happened behind the scenes.
> But since you apparently don't want "other channels used"...
>
> I can't stress how deplorable that act is. How harmful to the community i=
t
> is
> to ask in private for a contributor to stop what they are doing because
> someone else "has a better idea".

Strong-arming, sabotaging...  Absolute nonsense, and offending nonsense at
that.  I, for one, didn't ask her to stop what she was doing.  I try to get
her opinion of an alternative which I - and many others - believe is better=
.
I'll let her decide whether she wants to disclose her reply, but I can quot=
e
her public tweet, which I'm sure you've seen:

"@ircmaxell @andrerom @trevorsuarez @zeevs @rasmus ftr, I'm deferring to a
couple of other proposals on the table. Doesn't need to be mine."

There's absolutely nothing deplorable about talking to Sara off list.  As I
told her in my email, I wanted to first gauge her opinion about that
proposal and see if she was willing to support it.  I did not push her to
abandon v0.4.

To be clear, the proposal you're pushing as v0.5 is very different from wha=
t
she had in mind for v0.4, based on the initial discussions on internals.
She was trying to listen in to issues and come up with substantial changes
to the v0.3 RFC to radically increase the consensus around it.  v0.5, on th=
e
other hand, is, for the most part, v0.3 with opinionated, discussionless
explanations of why it's absolutely fine to keep as-is.

> We had a proposal that *had* consensus
> (66%). It was withdrawn.

66% is not consensus.  It's a form of special majority but by any stretch
absolutely not consensus in any definition of the word.
I'm not going to refer to your guesstimates you have about your ability to
reach consensus with slight modifications to the proposal, but I can say
that I know there are at least a few people that voted yes, and in light of
the new proposal that's forming up would now vote no, preferring that new
option.

Zeev