Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83263
Return-Path: <francois@php.net>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 81260 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2015 04:33:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 20 Feb 2015 04:33:05 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net
X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr  
Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:39720] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id E5/B0-11624-FF8B6E45 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 23:33:05 -0500
Received: from moorea (unknown [82.240.16.115])
	by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F984B0140;
	Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:32:58 +0100 (CET)
Reply-To: <francois@php.net>
To: "'Pierre Joye'" <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: =?utf-8?Q?'P=C3=A1draic_Brady'?= <padraic.brady@gmail.com>,
	"'Anthony Ferrara'" <ircmaxell@gmail.com>,
	"'Stas Malyshev'" <smalyshev@gmail.com>,
	"'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>	<04c701d04c99$ab0da5d0$0128f170$@php.net>	<CALwr1GnK6c0hmCyYBK4zSJiBVu6HTMORnnt2+J=_A-n5VMe=2Q@mail.gmail.com>	<04cc01d04cb2$e25511e0$a6ff35a0$@php.net> <CAEZPtU7TZz-kB=ega+uDv5Ewo=8BvmnneA1QWU0xS+nu3Q9wwQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU7TZz-kB=ega+uDv5Ewo=8BvmnneA1QWU0xS+nu3Q9wwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:32:56 +0100
Message-ID: <04dc01d04cc6$4cbd89f0$e6389dd0$@php.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHZm35ye3NFGwIiX+/cnKgzWZqQygMQ3uOUAXUy2e8C5+2pSgNLsNkyAo3mKpgCVQ2h3pxpakPQ
Content-Language: fr
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150219-1, 19/02/2015), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Using Other Channels (was Scalar Type Declarations v0.5)
From: francois@php.net (=?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=)

> De : Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre.php@gmail.com]
>
> Such as? Competition is good and my past experiences is that in cases
> like this one, it is nearly an utopia to think that the other party
> will actually try to reach your needs. So the only way to actually get
> a RFC representing what you want to do is to have a competitive one.

Competition is good but needs rules.

I am still skeptic about whether bringing concurrent RFCs in such =
complex and hot subjects does more good than bad. If discussion were =
meaningful and focused, maybe, but I'm afraid it could degenerate in FUD =
campaigns, which would waste energy for nothing.

You probably don't remember, I experienced such FUD when I proposed a =
concurrent to phar. That's something I'll try to avoid because it showed =
that competition with no rule is not the solution.

Regards

Fran=C3=A7ois