Number of posts to internals since Jan.1,2012 (top 15):
[kris.craig@gmail.com] => 249
[smalyshev@sugarcrm.com] => 193
[pierre.php@gmail.com] => 146
[yohgaki@ohgaki.net] => 105
[tom@punkave.com] => 98
[tyra3l@gmail.com] => 96
[ircmaxell@gmail.com] => 75
[keisial@gmail.com] => 75
[ceo@l-i-e.com] => 63
[johncrenshaw@priacta.com] => 63
[rasmus@lerdorf.com] => 61
[laruence@php.net] => 61
[simonsimcity@googlemail.com] => 58
[glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt] => 51
[lester@lsces.co.uk] => 51
Number of posts to the commit list since Jan.1,2012 (top 25):
[stas@php.net] => 412
[dsp@php.net] => 146
[laruence@php.net] => 117
[ab@php.net] => 75
[cataphract@php.net] => 59
[irker@php.net] => 52
[rasmus@php.net] => 51
[pajoye@php.net] => 47
[johannes@php.net] => 42
[sixd@php.net] => 36
[mike@php.net] => 31
[derick@php.net] => 25
[dmitry@php.net] => 23
[iliaa@php.net] => 22
[christopher.jones@oracle.com] => 19
[smalyshev@sugarcrm.com] => 17
[nikic@php.net] => 17
[pierre.php@gmail.com] => 15
[nlopess@php.net] => 12
[yohgaki@php.net] => 11
[aharvey@php.net] => 11
[bjori@php.net] => 10
[philip@php.net] => 8
[sebastian@php.net] => 8
[pierrick@php.net] => 7
-Rasmus
Hi!
Number of posts to the commit list since Jan.1,2012 (top 25):
[stas@php.net] => 412
This figure is unfortunately over-inflated by the unfortunate tags
incident :) So subtract 300 or so from that :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
Number of posts to the commit list since Jan.1,2012 (top 25):
Number of commits to php-src (excluding merges) since Jan.1,2012 (top 15):
126 Xinchen Hui
83 Rasmus Lerdorf
79 Gustavo Andre dos Santos Lopes
73 Pierre Joye
62 Anatoliy Belsky
53 Stanislav Malyshev
46 Dmitry Stogov
45 Christopher Jones
36 Johannes Schlueter
32 Michael Wallner
29 Ilia Alshanetsky
28 Nikita Popov
17 Nuno Lopes
15 Derick Rethans
14 David Soria Parra
Great work everyone :)
Number of posts to the commit list since Jan.1,2012 (top 25):
Number of commits to php-src (excluding merges) since Jan.1,2012 (top 15):
126 Xinchen Hui
83 Rasmus Lerdorf
79 Gustavo Andre dos Santos Lopes
73 Pierre Joye
62 Anatoliy Belsky
53 Stanislav Malyshev
46 Dmitry Stogov
45 Christopher Jones
36 Johannes Schlueter
32 Michael Wallner
29 Ilia Alshanetsky
28 Nikita Popov
17 Nuno Lopes
15 Derick Rethans
14 David Soria Parra--
--
David Coallier
Number of posts to internals since Jan.1,2012 (top 15):
[kris.craig@gmail.com] => 249
Wooot! What's my prize? ;P
Now I just need to start getting some commits in there....
--Kris
Wooot! What's my prize? ;P
Shame.
Wooot! What's my prize? ;P
Shame.
Hmm can I just opt for the cash payout instead?
--Kris
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com
mailto:rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:Number of posts to internals since Jan.1,2012 (top 15): [kris.craig@gmail.com <mailto:kris.craig@gmail.com>] => 249Wooot! What's my prize? ;P
Now I just need to start getting some commits in there....
Kris, this was actually the point of that email. You are extremely busy
on this list and while I appreciate the enthusiasm, it would be good if
you could try to refrain from commenting on every single thread multiple
times every day. Let it sit for a while, see what everyone has to say
and write a single message with your thoughts.
This list is mainly for the people working on the code. Many of us are
simply deleting entire threads unread at this point which isn't a
healthy habit to get into.
One idea for everyone on the list is a kind of self-imposed list posting
quota. For every commit, bug comment, doc contribution, infrastructure
contribution you make you get a post to the list.
-Rasmus
The author of an RFC does need to respond to concerns raised (although
possibly not the same concerns over and over).
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com
mailto:rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:Number of posts to internals since Jan.1,2012 (top 15):
[kris.craig@gmail.com mailto:kris.craig@gmail.com] => 249
Wooot! What's my prize? ;P
Now I just need to start getting some commits in there....
Kris, this was actually the point of that email. You are extremely busy
on this list and while I appreciate the enthusiasm, it would be good if
you could try to refrain from commenting on every single thread multiple
times every day. Let it sit for a while, see what everyone has to say
and write a single message with your thoughts.This list is mainly for the people working on the code. Many of us are
simply deleting entire threads unread at this point which isn't a
healthy habit to get into.One idea for everyone on the list is a kind of self-imposed list posting
quota. For every commit, bug comment, doc contribution, infrastructure
contribution you make you get a post to the list.-Rasmus
--
--
Tom Boutell
P'unk Avenue
215 755 1330
punkave.com
window.punkave.com
Maybe this has been suggested before, but it would be nice if comments in, ahem, request for comments could be consolidated into one spot, the RFC page itself. Facebook comments come to mind, though I'm sure there are other solutions based on OpenID, etc.
Sent from my iPhone
The author of an RFC does need to respond to concerns raised (although
possibly not the same concerns over and over).On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com
mailto:rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:Number of posts to internals since Jan.1,2012 (top 15): [kris.craig@gmail.com <mailto:kris.craig@gmail.com>] => 249Wooot! What's my prize? ;P
Now I just need to start getting some commits in there....
Kris, this was actually the point of that email. You are extremely busy
on this list and while I appreciate the enthusiasm, it would be good if
you could try to refrain from commenting on every single thread multiple
times every day. Let it sit for a while, see what everyone has to say
and write a single message with your thoughts.This list is mainly for the people working on the code. Many of us are
simply deleting entire threads unread at this point which isn't a
healthy habit to get into.One idea for everyone on the list is a kind of self-imposed list posting
quota. For every commit, bug comment, doc contribution, infrastructure
contribution you make you get a post to the list.-Rasmus
--
--
Tom Boutell
P'unk Avenue
215 755 1330
punkave.com
window.punkave.com
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:23:35 +0200, Tjerk Meesters
tjerk.meesters@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe this has been suggested before, but it would be nice if comments
in, ahem, request for comments could be consolidated into one spot, the
RFC page itself. Facebook comments come to mind, though I'm sure there
are other solutions based on OpenID, etc.
This list should remain the main place for discussing PHP development. The
volume of e-mails can be mitigated by sending more consolidated answers
(that cover several points discussed recently) and avoiding recycling
arguments.
It's of little use to bring the same issues over and over again, be it
with different or the same people. It doesn't matter if someone didn't
"get it", you don't have to convince him individually that you're right as
that will have a near null effect on the outcome of the RFC.
In my opinion, one of the problems with these RFC threads is that the
proposers are busy retorting over and over again instead of just
collecting the objections and address them either by changing the proposal
or responding once in a well thought-out manner. That objection and a
short response should also be included in the RFC to avoid it being
brought up again.
--
Gustavo Lopes
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Gustavo Lopes glopes@nebm.ist.utl.ptwrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:23:35 +0200, Tjerk Meesters
tjerk.meesters@gmail.com wrote:Maybe this has been suggested before, but it would be nice if comments
in, ahem, request for comments could be consolidated into one spot, the RFC
page itself. Facebook comments come to mind, though I'm sure there are
other solutions based on OpenID, etc.This list should remain the main place for discussing PHP development. The
volume of e-mails can be mitigated by sending more consolidated answers
(that cover several points discussed recently) and avoiding recycling
arguments.It's of little use to bring the same issues over and over again, be it
with different or the same people. It doesn't matter if someone didn't
"get it", you don't have to convince him individually that you're right as
that will have a near null effect on the outcome of the RFC.In my opinion, one of the problems with these RFC threads is that the
proposers are busy retorting over and over again instead of just
collecting the objections and address them either by changing the proposal
or responding once in a well thought-out manner. That objection and a
short response should also be included in the RFC to avoid it being
brought up again.--
Gustavo Lopes--
Yeah one of the problems that really frustrates the hell out of me is that,
after I've answered a question or responded to an objection, somebody new
jumps in and raises the exact same issue. When I tell them to read earlier
in the thread for my answer, they tend to get hostile and will often just
keep re-repeating the criticism until I finally get fed-up and just repeat
the response I'd posted earlier. Rinse and repeat.
I'm naturally verbose and so I'll always tend to have more volume than the
average, but a huge portion of it could be eliminated if we could find a
way to break this pattern of the proposer being beaten over the head with
the same criticism(s) over and over and over again regardless of whether or
not it was responded to.
In my current RFC, once we eventually were able to break out of that
circular pattern, we started to actually make some real progress. So I
definitely agree that this is a problem and no doubt there are things that
I and other proposers can do to help, but I think a large bulk of the
problem is actually happening on the other end. The proposer then has the
option to either shut up and not argue for their proposal or add to the
incessant volume of noise. I'm not one to simply lie back and give-up when
things get tough, but I'll try to see if I can find a way to consolidate my
responses better. However, we have to do something on the other end of
this as well or the problem will persist.
--Kris
My response earlier was meant to be funny, mostly, but I did also intend to convey some of the same things Rasmus said. The only person who wants to participate in a conversation where someone is hogging the floor is the person doing the talking.
Yeah one of the problems that really frustrates the hell out of me is that,
after I've answered a question or responded to an objection, somebody new
jumps in and raises the exact same issue. When I tell them to read earlier
in the thread for my answer, they tend to get hostile and will often just
keep re-repeating the criticism until I finally get fed-up and just repeat
the response I'd posted earlier. Rinse and repeat.
In my opinion, the main reason this happens is because of your "natural verbosity" (as you put it). People are busy—especially smart people. You want the smart people to be able to read the important bits of your proposals/ideas, but most of them are unwilling and unable to sift through hundreds of messages. This is why they ask questions that have already been answered.
Ignoring entire threads is a horrible thing for PHP's most valuable contributors to be doing, but I bet very few of the main committers in the list Rasmus posted have actually read all of the messages in all of the threads, lately. There's just too much posting, and as you can see from the stats, the distribution of posts is way out of balance (the #1 poster should never have more than twice as many posts as the #3 poster in a functional community).
PHP has functioned as some sort of meritocracy since I've been a part of the community (and I'm sure that it was this way before then, too). If you want your opinions and comments to have weight, here, it's important to do more than talk. [1]
Please, for the sake of people reading this list, adjust your posting habits accordingly.
S
[1] Before I get more whiny emails from more whiny people calling me some sort of hypocrite: while I have been mostly dormant (including posts to this list), lately, I've also put in hundreds of hours contributing to many parts of PHP over the years—I say this not to seek a pat on the back; I'm just looking for some understanding from new(ish) people. I have stepped back for many reasons, but one of those is definitely the unreasonably low signal to noise ratio on this list.
My response earlier was meant to be funny, mostly, but I did also intend
to convey some of the same things Rasmus said. The only person who wants to
participate in a conversation where someone is hogging the floor is the
person doing the talking.Yeah one of the problems that really frustrates the hell out of me is that,
after I've answered a question or responded to an objection, somebody new
jumps in and raises the exact same issue. When I tell them to read earlier
in the thread for my answer, they tend to get hostile and will often just
keep re-repeating the criticism until I finally get fed-up and just repeat
the response I'd posted earlier. Rinse and repeat.In my opinion, the main reason this happens is because of your "natural
verbosity" (as you put it). People are busy—especially smart people. You
want the smart people to be able to read the important bits of your
proposals/ideas, but most of them are unwilling and unable to sift through
hundreds of messages. This is why they ask questions that have already been
answered.
But isn't that just a circular argument? I.e. "They're not reading the
list because its too cluttered," and, "They're cluttering the list because
they're not reading it."
If people would read the first few messages in a thread, there wouldn't be
all this clutter because they wouldn't be asking questions that have
already been answered. And if they can't be troubled to do that, then they
should hold-off on posting. Busy or not, rule #1 on any forum is that you
should read the thread you're responding to.
Yes, I can do my part by making my posts more succinct and I'll work on
that, but what I'm saying is it's a two-way street. Me doing that alone
won't be enough to solve this problem. Here's my rule: If a thread is
important enough to object to its content, it's important enough to read.
If it's not important enough to read, then it's not important enough to
respond to. Simple as that. If you're too busy to read everything, I
respect that. But if you then start cluttering that same thread with stuff
that's already been said, you're just making the problem worse by turning a
lively thread into a deluge.
If I post an RFC and somebody raises a concern, I'll respond to it. It's
totally unnecessary for someone to then post the same concern as if I never
did respond, and then turn around and complain that the thread is too
cluttery. We can't have it both ways.
--Kris
Yeah one of the problems that really frustrates the hell out of me is that,
after I've answered a question or responded to an objection, somebody new
jumps in and raises the exact same issue. When I tell them to read earlier
in the thread for my answer, they tend to get hostile and will often just
keep re-repeating the criticism until I finally get fed-up and just repeat
the response I'd posted earlier. Rinse and repeat.
If it's repeat criticism, it'll be skimmed over by the folks that
matter, trust me. Fighting every single skirmish could well lead to
losing the campaign.
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
Network Infrastructure Manager
http://www.php.net/
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com
mailto:rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:Number of posts to internals since Jan.1,2012 (top 15):
[kris.craig@gmail.com mailto:kris.craig@gmail.com] => 249
Wooot! What's my prize? ;P
Now I just need to start getting some commits in there....
Kris, this was actually the point of that email. You are extremely busy
on this list and while I appreciate the enthusiasm, it would be good if
you could try to refrain from commenting on every single thread multiple
times every day. Let it sit for a while, see what everyone has to say
and write a single message with your thoughts.
Rasmus makes an excellent point here, and I think Saun also makes this
very telling statement...
Ignoring entire threads is a horrible thing for PHP's most valuable contributors
to be doing, but I bet very few of the main committers in the list Rasmus posted
have actually read all of the messages in all of the threads, lately.
I've tread conveying this same point in my brief response to Kris'
thread by stating that I thought the RFC should then be revised in
order to alleviate much of the confusion that seemed to resonate
around this thread. I agree with Kris that this is a "two-way street",
but I have no illusions that one side was more at fault than the
other.
This is simply a matter of either be the first to take action and show
initiative and ownership of the situation in order to take control, or
cease to become a part of the solution and ultimately amalgamate with
the problem.
Kriss, you no doubt have passion. I believe I'm not alone in saying
that I would like to see you focus this passion into efforts that will
produce more fruitful and constructive results. Some times letting
nonconstructive criticism go isn't the same thing as "simply lie back
and give-up when things get tough", as you put it. Remember the
proverb "less is more"...
It takes a stronger person to be able to tolerate harsh criticism
(even if there is any merit to it) and simply redirect their
frustration into productivity and delivering better results, rather
than those who simply deliver on yet even more harsh criticism.
Kriss, I respect you, I appreciate your dedication and I only wish you
the best. Mind you I would never wish something upon someone that I do
not already wish upon myself. I want to see us all succeed and there
should be no reason why I'd be pleased with seeing anyone fail.
Remember that your success only contributes to my success and the
success of PHP's community collectively.
I hope these words help you in refining your efforts and lead you to
better results.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Sherif Ramadan theanomaly.is@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com
mailto:rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:Number of posts to internals since Jan.1,2012 (top 15): [kris.craig@gmail.com <mailto:kris.craig@gmail.com>] => 249Wooot! What's my prize? ;P
Now I just need to start getting some commits in there....
Kris, this was actually the point of that email. You are extremely busy
on this list and while I appreciate the enthusiasm, it would be good if
you could try to refrain from commenting on every single thread multiple
times every day. Let it sit for a while, see what everyone has to say
and write a single message with your thoughts.Rasmus makes an excellent point here, and I think Saun also makes this
very telling statement...Ignoring entire threads is a horrible thing for PHP's most valuable
contributors
to be doing, but I bet very few of the main committers in the list
Rasmus posted
have actually read all of the messages in all of the threads, lately.I've tread conveying this same point in my brief response to Kris'
thread by stating that I thought the RFC should then be revised in
order to alleviate much of the confusion that seemed to resonate
around this thread. I agree with Kris that this is a "two-way street",
but I have no illusions that one side was more at fault than the
other.This is simply a matter of either be the first to take action and show
initiative and ownership of the situation in order to take control, or
cease to become a part of the solution and ultimately amalgamate with
the problem.Kriss, you no doubt have passion. I believe I'm not alone in saying
that I would like to see you focus this passion into efforts that will
produce more fruitful and constructive results. Some times letting
nonconstructive criticism go isn't the same thing as "simply lie back
and give-up when things get tough", as you put it. Remember the
proverb "less is more"...It takes a stronger person to be able to tolerate harsh criticism
(even if there is any merit to it) and simply redirect their
frustration into productivity and delivering better results, rather
than those who simply deliver on yet even more harsh criticism.Kriss, I respect you, I appreciate your dedication and I only wish you
the best. Mind you I would never wish something upon someone that I do
not already wish upon myself. I want to see us all succeed and there
should be no reason why I'd be pleased with seeing anyone fail.
Remember that your success only contributes to my success and the
success of PHP's community collectively.I hope these words help you in refining your efforts and lead you to
better results.--
I appreciate the kind words. However, the fact that the RFC is in an
initial draft does not excuse repeating things that have been covered
already on the topic. I wanted to wait on updating the RFC until there was
a chance to discuss some of the methodologies available. I think we've
pretty well covered that, and now it's just a matter of me finding the time
to update it during a work week. =)
But yes producing more than just words is one of my goals. I recently
moved to Seattle and my old system was fried, so just this past weekend I
finally got my new system built and am still in the process of setting
everything up for a suitable dev/hosting environment. For example, I'd
planned to have my approved apxs RFC implemented over a month ago, but I've
been hit with one delay after another over here.
I'll try to reduce the noise by cutting down on less necessary responses to
other threads. But as far as the RFC thread goes, it might be prudent for
us to find a way to fork lively RFC discussions onto another medium,
whether it be a separate list, some sort of chat environment, etc. I
really don't want to discourage people from going all-out in RFC debates
(provided that they at least read before posting), so I think it would be
good to brainstorm some ideas on that, because even if you eliminate
redundancy and verbosity, controversial RFCs will always carry with them a
flood of emails. So having a way to move the conversation aside while
still keeping it publicly accessible and reviewable I think would be a
worthwhile topic to discuss.
--Kriss [sic; it's actually Kris lol ;p]