Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83617
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.174 as permitted sender)
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU6kjP2t8keJ54R7WRRW9Kck=myJw2s4sK7-fXHi1DsS3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nGS6TE+JKV8u_P7HXfPi4yYGVh1s_XzSyE+Kbkhv06F-A@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU6kjP2t8keJ54R7WRRW9Kck=myJw2s4sK7-fXHi1DsS3w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 22:48:04 +0000
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>,Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
CC: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <382DAB41-094A-44F4-A50A-EF7AF2FAE852@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Coercive Scalar Type Hints RFC
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

On 22 February 2015 23:56:18 GMT, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>Can you all of you stop this madness with moving discussions off list?
>
>It is detestable, against almost all openness and principles behind an
>oss
>project like php. If we can't discuss anymore design, plans, ideas etc
>on
>the list then we are doomed, for good.

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree. This list is extremely high traffic at the moment, and the idea that recording every word of every discussion is the be all and end all of an open project is nonsense. Just as the entire list doesn't need to hear every word you say to your rubber duck, it doesn't need to see every quickfire thought of a collaboration or personal debate. Saying "I was just chatting to X about..." isn't that far removed from "I was just thinking about..."

Now, that's not to say that people should disappear off into private discussion for weeks and emerge with a polished product; clearly, important points need to be brought to the list promptly, and extra views solicited. And if the intention of going off-list was to hide a discussion from other participants, that is wrong. But I see no evidence of either fault here.

It seems to me perfectly desirable for people to go away and hash a few things out over a whiteboard or a beer, virtual or otherwise, then present a full and prompt summary to the wider community. Done right, it actually gives a *better* chance for other participants to follow the discussion, because they don't have to devote hours to reading every word, but are instead alerted to salient points they might want to think about and respond to further.

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]