Someone mentioned having trouble with the form so I'm just doing a quick test. Also curious to see where these requests actually go. Please disregard.
This was me, please disregard. Someone in our local meetup group mentioned
having some problem with the form but it seems to be working just fine as
far as I can tell.
While I'm thinking about it, who actually approves (i.e. moderates) these
requests, anyway? I've always wondered about that.
--Kris
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Test - Please ignore <
just-a-test@whatever.com> wrote:
Someone mentioned having trouble with the form so I'm just doing a
quick test. Also curious to see where these requests actually go. Please
disregard.
This was me, please disregard. Someone in our local meetup group mentioned
having some problem with the form but it seems to be working just fine as
far as I can tell.
we had some problems with the box hosting master.php.net, it caused some
ruckus about the account requests, but we sorted that out for like a month
now.
While I'm thinking about it, who actually approves (i.e. moderates) these
requests, anyway? I've always wondered about that.
for the svn account requests:
http://git.php.net/?p=web/master.git;a=blob;f=manage/users.php#l454
for the pecl account requests it is mostly Pierre (albeit any pecl website
admin is able to)
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Ahh ok that makes sense. I actually didn't realize there was an added
"admin" layer. How was that list generated?
--Kris
This was me, please disregard. Someone in our local meetup group
mentioned
having some problem with the form but it seems to be working just fine as
far as I can tell.we had some problems with the box hosting master.php.net, it caused some
ruckus about the account requests, but we sorted that out for like a month
now.While I'm thinking about it, who actually approves (i.e. moderates) these
requests, anyway? I've always wondered about that.for the svn account requests:
http://git.php.net/?p=web/master.git;a=blob;f=manage/users.php#l454for the pecl account requests it is mostly Pierre (albeit any pecl website
admin is able to)--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Ahh ok that makes sense. I actually didn't realize there was an added
"admin" layer. How was that list generated?--Kris
what do you mean by that?
from the technical POV? that list is maintained manually.
from the policy POV?
usually who need access to something and he seems to be trustworthy, he/she
gets access.
on a related note:
http://phpadvent.org/2008/php-meritocracy-by-andrei-zmievski
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Both. I'd never read anything about that before so was kinda curious how
that works given how chaotic the PHP dev process can be at times.
I think it's a solid approach but I've always been a fan of having written
policies and clear procedures as opposed to the more ad hoc approach that
this appears to be. I wouldn't mind seeing this drafted into an RFC; I
believe the policy as you described it should remain exactly as it is but
the neurotic side of me would be far less antsy if this was clearly
articulated in some form of "official" policy documentation. This is part
of my longstanding campaign to ruin other people's Fridays with nitpicky
crap. ;P
--Kris
Ahh ok that makes sense. I actually didn't realize there was an added
"admin" layer. How was that list generated?--Kris
what do you mean by that?
from the technical POV? that list is maintained manually.from the policy POV?
usually who need access to something and he seems to be trustworthy,
he/she gets access.
on a related note:
http://phpadvent.org/2008/php-meritocracy-by-andrei-zmievski--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
I think it's a solid approach but I've always been a fan of having
written policies and clear procedures as opposed to the more ad hoc
approach that this appears to be. I wouldn't mind seeing this drafted
into an RFC; I believe the policy as you described it should remain
exactly as it is but the neurotic side of me would be far less antsy if
this was clearly articulated in some form of "official" policy
documentation. This is part of my longstanding campaign to ruin other
people's Fridays with nitpicky crap. ;P
Exactly. Please, leave it alone. We don't need an RFC for every $*#!
SCNR,
Mike
Lol well personally I disagree. I was super-stoked when the RFC process
was introduced and I would LOVE to see us make more use of it! Not only
does it help get a clearer guage of vote totals, but it also forces
proposals to be more explicit and well-thought-out IMHO.
Of course that's only my opinion. If other people say they'd like to see
that too then I'll propose something, otherwise I'll just mutter under my
breath and leave it alone. ;P
--Kris
I think it's a solid approach but I've always been a fan of having
written policies and clear procedures as opposed to the more ad hoc
approach that this appears to be. I wouldn't mind seeing this drafted
into an RFC; I believe the policy as you described it should remain
exactly as it is but the neurotic side of me would be far less antsy if
this was clearly articulated in some form of "official" policy
documentation. This is part of my longstanding campaign to ruin other
people's Fridays with nitpicky crap. ;PExactly. Please, leave it alone. We don't need an RFC for every $*#!
SCNR,
Mike
Lol well personally I disagree. I was super-stoked when the RFC process
was introduced and I would LOVE to see us make more use of it! Not only
does it help get a clearer guage of vote totals, but it also forces
proposals to be more explicit and well-thought-out IMHO.Of course that's only my opinion. If other people say they'd like to see
that too then I'll propose something, otherwise I'll just mutter under my
breath and leave it alone. ;P
the RFC process covers how do we introduce changes.
nothing to change here imo.
of course if you think that this info would be useful for others, feel free
to document it in the wiki.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Hmm yeah that's a good point. I guess the RFC would be to document what
the procedure is; and, if there's not a procedure, then to establish one
for consistency. I'm all for meritocracy for OOP project admins but if
there's no established "process" for determining who goes into that inner
circle I just don't think that's healthy IMHO.
Either way, if there is a process for selecting them, somebody else will
need to document it on the wiki because I have no idea what it is or if it
even exists.
--Kris
Lol well personally I disagree. I was super-stoked when the RFC process
was introduced and I would LOVE to see us make more use of it! Not only
does it help get a clearer guage of vote totals, but it also forces
proposals to be more explicit and well-thought-out IMHO.Of course that's only my opinion. If other people say they'd like to see
that too then I'll propose something, otherwise I'll just mutter under my
breath and leave it alone. ;Pthe RFC process covers how do we introduce changes.
nothing to change here imo.
of course if you think that this info would be useful for others, feel
free to document it in the wiki.--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Hmm yeah that's a good point. I guess the RFC would be to document what
the procedure is; and, if there's not a procedure, then to establish one
for consistency. I'm all for meritocracy for OOP project admins but if
there's no established "process" for determining who goes into that inner
circle I just don't think that's healthy IMHO.Either way, if there is a process for selecting them, somebody else will
need to document it on the wiki because I have no idea what it is or if it
even exists.
There is no big "selection" it's more like a "who doesn't run away"
there's no real "decision power" or anything in these tasks, purely
administrative tasks. If the current admins are to slow and somebody
trustworthy comes along and pushes them he gets access to the button. If
all those accounts are approved fast enough there's no need .. and once
there is need an RFC process to follow hurts.
johannes
--Kris
Lol well personally I disagree. I was super-stoked when the RFC process
was introduced and I would LOVE to see us make more use of it! Not only
does it help get a clearer guage of vote totals, but it also forces
proposals to be more explicit and well-thought-out IMHO.Of course that's only my opinion. If other people say they'd like to see
that too then I'll propose something, otherwise I'll just mutter under my
breath and leave it alone. ;Pthe RFC process covers how do we introduce changes.
nothing to change here imo.
of course if you think that this info would be useful for others, feel
free to document it in the wiki.--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Yeah your argument makes sense. The lack of process still makes me uneasy,
but you shouldn't take that too seriously. I just tend to be very neurotic
about this sorta thing. So don't let my apprehensive face-twitching about
it bother ya too much lol. =)
--Kris
2012/3/3 Johannes Schlüter johannes@schlueters.de
Hmm yeah that's a good point. I guess the RFC would be to document what
the procedure is; and, if there's not a procedure, then to establish one
for consistency. I'm all for meritocracy for OOP project admins but if
there's no established "process" for determining who goes into that inner
circle I just don't think that's healthy IMHO.Either way, if there is a process for selecting them, somebody else will
need to document it on the wiki because I have no idea what it is or if
it
even exists.There is no big "selection" it's more like a "who doesn't run away"
there's no real "decision power" or anything in these tasks, purely
administrative tasks. If the current admins are to slow and somebody
trustworthy comes along and pushes them he gets access to the button. If
all those accounts are approved fast enough there's no need .. and once
there is need an RFC process to follow hurts.johannes
--Kris
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Kris Craig kris.craig@gmail.com
wrote:Lol well personally I disagree. I was super-stoked when the RFC
process
was introduced and I would LOVE to see us make more use of it! Not
only
does it help get a clearer guage of vote totals, but it also forces
proposals to be more explicit and well-thought-out IMHO.Of course that's only my opinion. If other people say they'd like to
see
that too then I'll propose something, otherwise I'll just mutter
under my
breath and leave it alone. ;Pthe RFC process covers how do we introduce changes.
nothing to change here imo.
of course if you think that this info would be useful for others, feel
free to document it in the wiki.--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Lol well personally I disagree. I was super-stoked when the RFC process
was introduced and I would LOVE to see us make more use of it! Not only
does it help get a clearer guage of vote totals, but it also forces
proposals to be more explicit and well-thought-out IMHO.
http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html
-Hannes
hi Hannes,
RFC are good and now very well adopted way to propose new things to
the PHP project. We know that you don't like them, as it prevents one
to block or randomly veto new stuff or changes, but this is a good
move for the PHP project. Look at the 5.4 features, most of them have
been proposed through RFC.
Thanks for your understanding,
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Hannes Magnusson
hannes.magnusson@gmail.com wrote:
Lol well personally I disagree. I was super-stoked when the RFC process
was introduced and I would LOVE to see us make more use of it! Not only
does it help get a clearer guage of vote totals, but it also forces
proposals to be more explicit and well-thought-out IMHO.http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html
-Hannes
--
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org