Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83227
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.217.180 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: php@golemon.com
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nHHBxSPemoF0Gj+ridov99WFLMh-+nxDwBY5ikJwV0OUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nHHBxSPemoF0Gj+ridov99WFLMh-+nxDwBY5ikJwV0OUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:20:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CAESVnVp0wXjTGDX-N46cEo39_MXoJnLVHFFGgXZ-czNqZYR=kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: francois@php.net, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <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: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:24 AM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Fran=C3=A7ois Laupretre <francois@php.ne=
t> wrote:
>> As long as she does not officially gives up (posting to the list), I'll =
keep considering Sara still has the lead on scalar type hinting. If she off=
icially gives up, I'll immediately propose to take it over and, if we are s=
everal to want it, we'll discuss.
>>
My official statement: I'm backing away from my 0.4
not-even-a-full-proposal-just-a-testing-of-the-waters because there
are at least two other strong proposals on the table and introducing a
third won't help the matter, it'll just make things more divided and
complicated.  I'll focus my effort on influencing those two to make
them more sensible from my pov.

> "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."
>
That quote was said, but it's not entirely accurate.  Ze'ev, as he's
protested on this list, was in fact perfectly polite in his
correspondence. In fact, he's been leaning on me to co-author his RFC,
probably in an attempt to make it balanced, rather than partisan.  If
he was impolite at all, it was the multiple pestering twitter DMs
trying to get me to provide feedback while I was running around on a
busy day. :)

Please notice the smiley at the end of that last sentence... for the
love of god notice it.

When I wrote that earlier statement, I was still steaming at Fran=C3=A7ois,
who *was* quite impolite and a bit bullying in his out-of-band email.
I didn't want to make him the single-target subject of any backlash
though, so I fuzzed it inti Ze'ev as well.  That's my bad.

My pulling back at this stage is not a reflection of the tone of his
email, I'm way to obstinate to put up with foolishness like that.  I'm
pulling back for the sake of this community.  Three RFCs active on a
single topic is too many.  If one of these succeeds, great.  If not, I
can step forward again.  That might mean this gets deferred to 7.1,
but that's the breaks.

> 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"...
>
"Strong-arm" is an unnecessarily forceful term.  I'm setting it on
pause pending the other two proposals.  The reasons for which include
you putting forth 0.5, so if you want to assign blame for pushing mine
out of the picture, include yourself. (But don't really, because I'm
glad you have a proposal that you're running with).

-Sara