Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83250
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <francois@php.net>
To: "'Anthony Ferrara'" <ircmaxell@gmail.com>,
	"'Stas Malyshev'" <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Lester Caine'" <lester@lsces.co.uk>,
	"'PHP Internals'" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAAyV7nHHBxSPemoF0Gj+ridov99WFLMh-+nxDwBY5ikJwV0OUg@mail.gmail.com>	<CADR=R-iBDWCAeaRh53txfKvvL4ccKA9Fr8Bg68wt0NEHkJefbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAyV7nEcOkFctzy0nYra2WSTKAHZ8UKB_r1mqmsGojZxAkR5pQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nEcOkFctzy0nYra2WSTKAHZ8UKB_r1mqmsGojZxAkR5pQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 00:13:27 +0100
Message-ID: <04c701d04c99$ab0da5d0$0128f170$@php.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQHZm35ye3NFGwIiX+/cnKgzWZqQygMQ3uOUAXUy2e+cwcEzYA==
Content-Language: fr
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Using Other Channels (was Scalar Type Declarations v0.5)
From: francois@php.net (=?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=)

Hi Anthony,

I'll post a more elaborate message later, including what I *really* sent =
to Sara, so that we can estimate how rude I was. I'll also explain the =
context. But I need a little more time to write it (I know I'm always =
asking for time ;).

The replies below are just quick and dirty.

> De : Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmaxell@gmail.com]
>
> That ignores the mail that spawned this thread (and the one I got in
> private) saying in no uncertain terms I shouldn't open a proposal (and
> should abandon this one) because someone else was working on one. It
> goes both ways.

I never asked anyone to abandon his work. I just asked to respect the =
rules. What I told you first is that, while Sara did not resigned =
formally, I didn't see why you could publish derived concurrent work =
from the RFC she was currently owning (and I don't use reddit, sorry).

Now, it is still not very clear to me whether we have one or two active =
RFCs at this time...

You will be surprised but I prefer the way you're dealing with Andrea's =
RFC, because you are just taking over, orienting but not denaturing =
anything she did, and that's fine, even if we don't fully agree. The =
reason I didn't formally take over the RFC first is that I considered I =
would denature her work and couldn't do that (while it would have =
brought me less problems, finally).

> And sometimes the best way to cooperate is to compete. That doesn't
> mean we're enemies. It means we have different ideas. So we let the
> ideas stand for themselves, away from ourselves.

That's exactly my position. The only point I insist on is that we =
compete with the same rules. Then, it is positive and I am all for it.

> Again, please don't twist words. The point was there exists a proposal
> which I believe can pass by a supermajority (and nearly did the first
> time). Why should that be abandoned because some people disagree with
> it? People disagree with proposals all the time. The way we've agreed
> to solve that is voting. So isn't that the proper way forward?

I agree I was a little late to propose something. I just asked if I =
could have 4/5 days to propose an alternative. Feature freeze is soon =
but I thought it was acceptable. But, while I was using that time to =
speak with people and move towards, not an acceptable, but a satisfying =
compromise between both positions, I saw all the stuff put on the table =
again almost every day, destroying everything we had built, and even =
questioning new points that were agreed for months. I don' believe it =
was the case but I could have thought of sabotage too...

One last thing. I voted yes on Andrea's 0.3 and was for nothing in the =
withdrawal. I even privately proposed solutions for issues I had =
detected without exposing them publicly, while I thought the approach =
was fundamentally flawed. But, it was the rule, she was first. So, I'm =
not so shameful on the way I'm playing the game.

More later.

Fran=C3=A7ois