Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83235
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <84223f8590aa140b2e1c251d00c34560@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nHHBxSPemoF0Gj+ridov99WFLMh-+nxDwBY5ikJwV0OUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<a25095424ba7a260f9a149a5711afa61@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nEC9eCf1J0O_jBX3GdFrmPbf+ekmNRbjA2u9eWZ1F6e7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<84223f8590aa140b2e1c251d00c34560@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:08:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nHM2WD4=wDeHk-aGq_+GT3kx2N8Xh+=5R9H6SDWxoQdog@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Using Other Channels (was Scalar Type Declarations v0.5)
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

Zeev,

Based on Sara's clarification in this thread, I owe you a formal
apology. I interpreted something she said incorrectly, which was then
compounded by messages in private and on-list this morning. I then
attributed both of you qualities and motives that have been proven
false.

For this, I am sorry for any implication or direct acquisition that I
made against you.

I do believe that the best way forward is parallel proposals, as I
believe that we have different goals. So I look forward to seeing
yours, and will continue forward with mine. Hopefully this differing
of opinion can be rectified before too long.

Thanks,

Anthony


On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmaxell@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 4:04 PM
>> To: Zeev Suraski
>> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Using Other Channels (was Scalar Type Declarations
>> v0.5)
>>
>> Zeev,
>>
>> That was a quote directly from Sara in a public chat room. It wasn't
>> "someone else".
>>
>> So it seems like there was a failure in communication if you felt that it
>> was
>> 100% polite, and she described it as "not-so-politely".
>
> Ouch.  I'm really not sure why she felt that way.  I'll follow up with her
> to try and understand.
>
>> Then that's great! But let's find that out by voting rather than guessing,
>> and
>> rather than politicking. Let's let two competing proposals go head to
>> head.
>
> I'd rather find out by first discussing the alternative, rather than just
> moving ahead to a revote - especially a revote that was placed on a
> shortened timeline - given the importance of this RFC.  But as you clearly
> disagree, it's your call to make and I respect that.
>
> Zeev