Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85167
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.52 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <55090CAC.1020003@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:27:08 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
CC: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>, 
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>,
 Stelian Mocanita <stelian.mocanita@gmail.com>
References: <CAMc0WS5TRMGtFkPAJ5rrxyu+96GPnbMrOwUEd7+PaDnt8UXJZw@mail.gmail.com>	<CA+kxMuQFu6MmfvfwjuUp_dAF7Oapy9N_nuq3=c3K0pLPmOactg@mail.gmail.com>	<5508B7BA.6000108@gmail.com>	<CAEZPtU5fa8SMvuSyA_NKQkLpzmFNZsVLNf=zNxYn+LALoim7mw@mail.gmail.com>	<5508F669.4030804@gmail.com> <CAEZPtU63nq-vFTQsXi=LVJP6UvRg9XK1Cw+8XZRa5NR9URtDAA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU63nq-vFTQsXi=LVJP6UvRg9XK1Cw+8XZRa5NR9URtDAA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Vote process change proposal
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> Repeatedly, explicitly, strongly asking to shut down a RFC or general
> proposal is what I consider as harassment. Even more if prominent
> figures do it.

As I suspected, your definition of harassment is very different from
mine. If someone would ask me to shutdown RFC without explanation, I'd
just ignore it, with explanation - I may discuss it, but I don't see how
it qualifies as "harassment".

> But I have the damn right to say that most of the times private,
> extensive, and long discussions to finalize damage OSS projects. And
> recent events here tell me that I am right to think so.

You have full right to say it, but if you expect this to be believed,
you'd need some proof. I must note despite my pleas, no substantiation
of ominous but vague statements about "what is happening" and
"devastating problem" has been provided.

> Now, you can convince me by actually me explaining cases where private,
> extensive long discussions are actually good and I will proudly change
> my mind.

I can only base on my own experience, but in PHP world when I
participated in namespaces work, I've held both public and private
discussions with a lot of people. Both kinds were very useful.
When we started 5.4, I remember private discussion with one very active
and prominent project participant, who I'm sure you know too. I am not
sure if you consider that one "good" or not, and probably doesn't
qualify as "extensive long", but on my side I think it helped to move
the project further.
I'm sure I could remember more examples, but given the lack of proof so
far that there is any damage from occasional private discussion, I think
that's enough for now.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com