Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83654
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <54EC610C.4030806@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:31:24 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
CC: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, 
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAAyV7nGS6TE+JKV8u_P7HXfPi4yYGVh1s_XzSyE+Kbkhv06F-A@mail.gmail.com>	<CAEZPtU6kjP2t8keJ54R7WRRW9Kck=myJw2s4sK7-fXHi1DsS3w@mail.gmail.com>	<382DAB41-094A-44F4-A50A-EF7AF2FAE852@gmail.com> <CAEZPtU6yTEy3aQDhyjX0U07OAoa0cJ9m2HcbvKi3MCB1JYOvxQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU6yTEy3aQDhyjX0U07OAoa0cJ9m2HcbvKi3MCB1JYOvxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------060800080608020802030906"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Coercive Scalar Type Hints RFC
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

--------------060800080608020802030906
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Pierre Joye wrote on 24/02/2015 01:57:
>
>
> On Feb 23, 2015 2:48 PM, "Rowan Collins" <rowan.collins@gmail.com 
> <mailto:rowan.collins@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On 22 February 2015 23:56:18 GMT, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com 
> <mailto: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
>
> What happened for phpng.
>

Yes, that is what I had in mind when writing that paragraph. To make 
absolutely clear: I agree that that is a bad thing.


> And my reply to this exact post makes clear what I refer to. It is not 
> a quick chat like we see everywhere, irc, conferences or UGs. This is 
> about an on going discussion going off list for no valid reason.
>

The thread you replied to contains no timestamps outside Sun 22 Feb, and 
was forwarded back to the list that same day, so there is no evidence of 
a long hidden discussion. It doesn't contain any evidence of trying to 
reach a back room deal, or otherwise deliberately exclude others from 
the discussion.

What it looks like to me is an attempt by someone to get a better 
understanding of a particular detail without creating extra noise on the 
list; as the conversation evolved, it became clear that it was useful to 
the list, and Anthony forwarded it here. This all seems to be entirely 
the right thing to do.


> The same applies to private mails about open topics, rfc or patch to 
> try to get one to change her mind. This is not acceptable and will 
> never be, to my eyes at least.
>

I would like to repeat that I do agree there are lines that should not 
be crossed, and guidelines that should be followed. But I do not see how 
any such lines were crossed in this instance.

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]


--------------060800080608020802030906--