Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83619
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.223.180 as permitted sender)
References: <CAAyV7nGS6TE+JKV8u_P7HXfPi4yYGVh1s_XzSyE+Kbkhv06F-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU6kjP2t8keJ54R7WRRW9Kck=myJw2s4sK7-fXHi1DsS3w@mail.gmail.com> <382DAB41-094A-44F4-A50A-EF7AF2FAE852@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <382DAB41-094A-44F4-A50A-EF7AF2FAE852@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQG5h7lzymcTbIYHH3RJlBm8t4uSEwELBC0iAnlDIDSdEEXCwA==
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:55:24 +0200
Message-ID: <967ff94abe0cfa1af4950f63eea06a89@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Coercive Scalar Type Hints RFC
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rowan Collins [mailto:rowan.collins@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:48 AM
> To: Pierre Joye; Anthony Ferrara
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Coercive Scalar Type Hints RFC
>
> 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.

I literally couldn't have put it better myself.  Wholeheartedly agree.

Zeev