Hi,
Joe made a post about the introduction on phpng, what it is, and what it
isn't.
Some people (myself included) didn't liked that post for various reasons
(some says it is opiniated, some doesn't like the tone and the wording,
others feel that it is too early to made official announcement about phpng).
There were a couple of iteration on improving the text, but it is still not
up to our standards imo:
http://git.php.net/?p=web/php.git;a=history;f=archive/entries/2014-05-27-1.xml
;
It is already on hackernews and reddit, so while some people suggested, I
think it would be a bad move to just remove it.
Would like to know what do you guys think about the best step, I see the
following possible options:
- keep it as is
- remove it
- rewrite it to be more formal and factual(only talk about what it is
atm. not what it could be in the future). - create a post explaining that this post is controversional among the
core-devs, so it is reflects more of the authors opinion than the projects
official view on the topic.
I'm mostly interested on the opinion of the core devs, but others also
welcome to reply.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Hi,
Joe made a post about the introduction on phpng, what it is, and what it
isn't.
Some people (myself included) didn't liked that post for various reasons
(some says it is opiniated, some doesn't like the tone and the wording,
others feel that it is too early to made official announcement about
phpng).
There were a couple of iteration on improving the text, but it is still not
up to our standards imo:http://git.php.net/?p=web/php.git;a=history;f=archive/entries/2014-05-27-1.xml
;
It is already on hackernews and reddit, so while some people suggested, I
think it would be a bad move to just remove it.Would like to know what do you guys think about the best step, I see the
following possible options:
- keep it as is
No. I agree that it's too problematic as-is.
- remove it
No. As you said, it's already been disseminated and the last thing we'd
want is to give the appearance of censorship. Even if it didn't give that
impression, removing it at this point would just create even more confusion.
- rewrite it to be more formal and factual(only talk about what it is
atm. not what it could be in the future).
Yes.
- create a post explaining that this post is controversional among the
core-devs, so it is reflects more of the authors opinion than the
projects
official view on the topic.
Yes. If we do the above suggestion, as well, then this would perhaps focus
more on what changes were made and why they were made.
--Kris
Hi,
Joe made a post about the introduction on phpng, what it is, and what it
isn't.
Some people (myself included) didn't liked that post for various reasons
(some says it is opiniated, some doesn't like the tone and the wording,
others feel that it is too early to made official announcement about phpng).
There were a couple of iteration on improving the text, but it is still not
up to our standards imo:
http://git.php.net/?p=web/php.git;a=history;f=archive/entries/2014-05-27-1.xml
;
It is already on hackernews and reddit, so while some people suggested, I
think it would be a bad move to just remove it.Would like to know what do you guys think about the best step, I see the
following possible options:
- keep it as is
- remove it
- rewrite it to be more formal and factual(only talk about what it is
atm. not what it could be in the future).- create a post explaining that this post is controversional among the
core-devs, so it is reflects more of the authors opinion than the projects
official view on the topic.I'm mostly interested on the opinion of the core devs, but others also
welcome to reply.
It should be removed, as soon as possible.
The reasoning is rather simple:
- it does not remotely represent all developers opinion
- wrong fact about JIT
- since when do we post work in progress on the frontpage? Not even
ready to be proposed as RFC
We did not even did a post about a critical thing like heartbleed, as
it could have helped a lot of our users, even if not directly related
to php, there is absolutely no reason to transform www.php.net home is
some kind of personal blog. planet-php exists for that.
Whoever committed that, please remove it, now.
Cheers,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
Hi!
Would like to know what do you guys think about the best step, I see the
following possible options:
I wonder why I didn't see any discussion about it here. Did I miss it?
If not, it would be a good idea next time to announce such things
upfront and solicit feedback. Of course, usually php.net news do not
require that, but usually they also are much more routine than
announcing a big rewrite of the engine in progress.
- keep it as is
- remove it
- rewrite it to be more formal and factual(only talk about what it is
atm. not what it could be in the future).- create a post explaining that this post is controversional among the
core-devs, so it is reflects more of the authors opinion than the projects
official view on the topic.
I would propose to include link to the RFC and the branch for people to
actually look at, right now it's a bit of "there's a new thing there
called phpng, it's awesome, we're working on it". Those who know about
it already know that, those that do not, would probably need some more
info about it for that announcement to be useful to them, IMHO. Of
course, that all provided it is not removed :) I personally think it's
more harm than good to remove it. It was a bit premature posting it on
php.net instead of personal blog, but what is done is done, and it is
better to use it in positive direction.
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Stas Malyshev smalyshev@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
Would like to know what do you guys think about the best step, I see the
following possible options:I wonder why I didn't see any discussion about it here. Did I miss it?
If not, it would be a good idea next time to announce such things
upfront and solicit feedback. Of course, usually php.net news do not
require that, but usually they also are much more routine than
announcing a big rewrite of the engine in progress.
there were no previous discussion on the list about it, it was a short
discussion on irc (#php.pecl), but originally it was meant to be a personal
blogpost, so there is a chance that not every participant understood that
it would end up on the frontpage.
I agree that statements like this should be written more carefully and
making sure that it comforms with the opinion of the majority of the people
behind the project.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Stas Malyshev smalyshev@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
Would like to know what do you guys think about the best step, I see the
following possible options:I wonder why I didn't see any discussion about it here. Did I miss it?
If not, it would be a good idea next time to announce such things
upfront and solicit feedback. Of course, usually php.net news do not
require that, but usually they also are much more routine than
announcing a big rewrite of the engine in progress.there were no previous discussion on the list about it, it was a short
discussion on irc (#php.pecl), but originally it was meant to be a personal
blogpost, so there is a chance that not every participant understood that
it would end up on the frontpage.
I agree that statements like this should be written more carefully and
making sure that it comforms with the opinion of the majority of the people
behind the project.
It should be removed if nobody is able to reword it in an objective
and professional style.
I'd really refrain from using words or phrases like "kittens",
"necessitated the birth", "collaboration it is inspiring" and
"grounded, honest and open" -- but maybe it's just the aggregation of
all of it.
--
Regards,
Mike
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com
wrote:Hi!
Would like to know what do you guys think about the best step, I see
the
following possible options:I wonder why I didn't see any discussion about it here. Did I miss it?
If not, it would be a good idea next time to announce such things
upfront and solicit feedback. Of course, usually php.net news do not
require that, but usually they also are much more routine than
announcing a big rewrite of the engine in progress.there were no previous discussion on the list about it, it was a short
discussion on irc (#php.pecl), but originally it was meant to be a
personal
blogpost, so there is a chance that not every participant understood that
it would end up on the frontpage.
I agree that statements like this should be written more carefully and
making sure that it comforms with the opinion of the majority of the
people
behind the project.It should be removed if nobody is able to reword it in an objective
and professional style.
I'd really refrain from using words or phrases like "kittens",
"necessitated the birth", "collaboration it is inspiring" and
"grounded, honest and open" -- but maybe it's just the aggregation of
all of it.--
Regards,
Mike
If it is to be rewritten, I think it would be best to brainstorm and agree
here what specific points it should cover and what stuff from the original
should specifically be left-out. Then a professionally worded post could
be drafted that covers those points. I'd be happy to volunteer to take
that part on.
I do agree with everything Pierre said about it. However, given that it's
already been widely disseminated, I don't think simply removing it is any
longer an option. That bridge has already been burned behind us, in my
opinion. Instead, I propose that we remove it and replace it with one that
covers the following points (this is just a start; please feel free to
add/remove points):
- Brief summary of phpng and its goals.
- Current status of the project (perhaps with emphasis on the fact that
it is very early stage and doesn't reflect any current change to PHP?). - Credit to the initial authors.
- Explanation of why the original post was removed.
Other possible points to include would be an explanation of the JIT stuff
and a link to an archvie of the original post for transparency, though I'd
be interested to know what everyone else thinks about including those.
As for stuff not to include, I think Mike already summed it up pretty well.
Editorial language (i.e. opinion), melodramatic hyperbole, and sardonic
quips about kittens should definitely be left out of any official
announcement.
Thoughts?
--Kris
As for stuff not to include, I think Mike already summed it up pretty well.
Editorial language (i.e. opinion), melodramatic hyperbole, and sardonic
quips about kittens should definitely be left out of any official
announcement.Thoughts?
Looking at the search results ALREADY linked to it, I would suggest that
as a matter of urgency it should be replaced with a simple message
saying that it has been withdrawn pending a proper review of the content !!!
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
Hi,
I'm only a lowly docs and phpweb guy, but here are my two pennies.
Hi,
Joe made a post about the introduction on phpng, what it is, and what it
isn't.
Some people (myself included) didn't liked that post for various reasons
(some says it is opiniated, some doesn't like the tone and the wording,
others feel that it is too early to made official announcement about
phpng).
There were a couple of iteration on improving the text, but it is still not
up to our standards imo:http://git.php.net/?p=web/php.git;a=history;f=archive/entries/2014-05-27-1.xml
;
It is already on hackernews and reddit, so while some people suggested, I
think it would be a bad move to just remove it.
And it is being picked up by international news websites.
Would like to know what do you guys think about the best step, I see the
following possible options:
- keep it as is
Nope. But remember, any change will be being tracked and could in and of
itself become something to talk about if we start "fixing" our homepage
news articles after-the-fact. That said, I think change would be good.
- remove it
It's far too late for that. The internet already knows it exists.
- rewrite it to be more formal and factual(only talk about what it is
atm. not what it could be in the future).
More formal, more factual, would be good. I also feel it's missing a huge
chunk of context. The average php.net homepage reader, and more importantly
the readers of the places picking this up as news, would benefit from a
wider perspective of the events leading up to this publication.
- create a post explaining that this post is controversional among the
core-devs, so it is reflects more of the authors opinion than the
projects
official view on the topic.
This could be part of an amendment (or just the git commit message).
I'm mostly interested on the opinion of the core devs, but others also
welcome to reply.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
I'm mostly interested on the opinion of the core devs, but others also
welcome to reply.
Since it has not even been voted on, and at present only a few people
can even test it, it is far too early to be pushing this out at all? It
has all the ring off PHP6 which was also announced far too early! It
SHOULD be replaced with a message that simply says that it is ONE option
that may be used as the basis of PHPNext. I still view this as something
that could yet another PHP engine rather than the main PHP path until
such time as there is a democratic agreement that it should be adopted?
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
I think it's a good piece of news.
Lets people see the information from the first place.
Thanks. Dmitry.
Hi,
Joe made a post about the introduction on phpng, what it is, and what it
isn't.
Some people (myself included) didn't liked that post for various reasons
(some says it is opiniated, some doesn't like the tone and the wording,
others feel that it is too early to made official announcement about
phpng).
There were a couple of iteration on improving the text, but it is still not
up to our standards imo:http://git.php.net/?p=web/php.git;a=history;f=archive/entries/2014-05-27-1.xml
;
It is already on hackernews and reddit, so while some people suggested, I
think it would be a bad move to just remove it.Would like to know what do you guys think about the best step, I see the
following possible options:
- keep it as is
- remove it
- rewrite it to be more formal and factual(only talk about what it is
atm. not what it could be in the future).- create a post explaining that this post is controversional among the
core-devs, so it is reflects more of the authors opinion than the
projects
official view on the topic.I'm mostly interested on the opinion of the core devs, but others also
welcome to reply.--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
I think it's a good piece of news.
Lets people see the information from the first place.
facepalm
Would like to know what do you guys think about the best step, I see the
following possible options:
I'd remove it at this point without caring too much about news, search
engines or censorship. I don't remember any sort of message quite like it
in www.php.net's history and I don't see a reason to start now. For those
who may inquire, we can say this was an unapproved post that reflected a
personal opinion and wasn't suitable for publishing on www.php.net. We can
then point them to Dmitry's post, the Wiki page and the discussion on
internals.
We should remember that at this point it's also probably a bit too early for
the average user to get involved; The more advanced ones may obtain
information about phpng in other ways, but www.php.net gets to too wide an
audience for now.
My 2c.
Zeev
Hi,
Joe made a post about the introduction on phpng, what it is, and what it
isn't.
Some people (myself included) didn't liked that post for various reasons
(some says it is opiniated, some doesn't like the tone and the wording,
others feel that it is too early to made official announcement about phpng).
There were a couple of iteration on improving the text, but it is still not
up to our standards imo:
http://git.php.net/?p=web/php.git;a=history;f=archive/entries/2014-05-27-1.xml
;
It is already on hackernews and reddit, so while some people suggested, I
think it would be a bad move to just remove it.Would like to know what do you guys think about the best step, I see the
following possible options:
- keep it as is
- remove it
- rewrite it to be more formal and factual(only talk about what it is
atm. not what it could be in the future).- create a post explaining that this post is controversional among the
core-devs, so it is reflects more of the authors opinion than the projects
official view on the topic.I'm mostly interested on the opinion of the core devs, but others also
welcome to reply.--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
There probably should have been more of a discussion, but this was a
great move by Joe.
What you lot might not have noticed is a huge amount of FUD going
around the community, mostly thanks to Manuel Lemos - once again -
getting things completely wrong and doing so loudly.
http://www.phpclasses.org/blog/post/234-PHPNG-Dramatic-Speedup-Features-Coming-in-PHP-6-Release.html
That article was a huge amount of misfact about what PHPNG is, some
weirdly strong opinions about what it means for PHP (apparently
doomsday is near).
This was then picked up by SitePoint:
http://www.sitepoint.com/php-fights-hhvm-zephir-phpng/
Bruno here based his article around assuming Manuel's article was...
vaguely correct about anything and unfortunately added some wrong
assumptions on top of that. I've spoke to Bruno yesterday and he'll be
updating the article today.
In all, the PHP community at large is confused thanks to people
prematurely announcing stuff from the mailing list like its news, then
adding their opinions on top of it without understanding a damn thing
they're talking about.
Joe could have let that fester, but he approached it with an article.
Now, of course not everyone agrees with the article. When has everyone
on here agreed about anything? We'd probably argue over what color
grass is, because, you know, there's lots of different types of grass
and everything.
If the article is factually wrong about anything then redact the
sentence and update it. Otherwise, it needs to be left alone.
Good job to Joe for keeping his thumb on the pulse of the community.
More of that please.
In all, the PHP community at large is confused thanks to people
prematurely announcing stuff from the mailing list like its news, then
adding their opinions on top of it without understanding a damn thing
they're talking about.
This might be the case, still php.net is not the place to write
opinionated articles about non-approved changes which are in progress
without discussion beforehand. Those things can be written in a blog, as
guest author on a news site or whatever, but not as official statement.
johannes
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Philip Sturgeon pjsturgeon@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
Joe made a post about the introduction on phpng, what it is, and what it
isn't.
Some people (myself included) didn't liked that post for various reasons
(some says it is opiniated, some doesn't like the tone and the wording,
others feel that it is too early to made official announcement about
phpng).
There were a couple of iteration on improving the text, but it is still
not
up to our standards imo:http://git.php.net/?p=web/php.git;a=history;f=archive/entries/2014-05-27-1.xml
;
It is already on hackernews and reddit, so while some people suggested, I
think it would be a bad move to just remove it.Would like to know what do you guys think about the best step, I see the
following possible options:
- keep it as is
- remove it
- rewrite it to be more formal and factual(only talk about what it is
atm. not what it could be in the future).- create a post explaining that this post is controversional among the
core-devs, so it is reflects more of the authors opinion than the
projects
official view on the topic.I'm mostly interested on the opinion of the core devs, but others also
welcome to reply.--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.huThere probably should have been more of a discussion, but this was a
great move by Joe.
Personally I think that he had good intention.
What you lot might not have noticed is a huge amount of FUD going
around the community, mostly thanks to Manuel Lemos - once again -
getting things completely wrong and doing so loudly.http://www.phpclasses.org/blog/post/234-PHPNG-Dramatic-Speedup-Features-Coming-in-PHP-6-Release.html
That article was a huge amount of misfact about what PHPNG is, some
weirdly strong opinions about what it means for PHP (apparently
doomsday is near).This was then picked up by SitePoint:
http://www.sitepoint.com/php-fights-hhvm-zephir-phpng/
Bruno here based his article around assuming Manuel's article was...
vaguely correct about anything and unfortunately added some wrong
assumptions on top of that. I've spoke to Bruno yesterday and he'll be
updating the article today.
yeah, this isn't really a new problem, phpclasses.org is pretty famous for
that kind of content, and it seems that posts picturing php and the
development of php in a negative way have an easier time to get hyped (as
we have seen with
http://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/for
example).
I also agree that there should be a better way to communicate/summarize the
development and internals@ discussion to the masses than expecting them to
follow the internals mailing list.
Joe's original idea about having an official php.net blog sounds like a
nice way to do that.
I can even accept that the current news entry would be okayish for a
blogpost, but for having it on our frontpage seems unprofessional, weird
(as this kind of post has no precedence), and the detail of the post (and
the lack of links to the rfc and stuff) doesn't really match with the
average php.net visitor's knowledge level.
In all, the PHP community at large is confused thanks to people
prematurely announcing stuff from the mailing list like its news, then
adding their opinions on top of it without understanding a damn thing
they're talking about.Joe could have let that fester, but he approached it with an article.
Now, of course not everyone agrees with the article. When has everyone
on here agreed about anything? We'd probably argue over what color
grass is, because, you know, there's lots of different types of grass
and everything.
having a controversial post on blog.php.net would be ok, because there you
would see that it is posted by XY(and you can get away with less formal
posts), but when the same content appears on the frontpage of
www.php.netthat needs to have consensus from the team.
If the article is factually wrong about anything then redact the
sentence and update it. Otherwise, it needs to be left alone.
even if we say that it is factually correct (I have a couple of issues, but
Dmitry approved it, and he knows better), that's not the only requirement
to be accepted (it needs proper grammar, tone, context, etc. and I
mentioned in my opening mail that people were complaining about those).
Good job to Joe for keeping his thumb on the pulse of the community.
More of that please.
good intention, poorly executed.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
In all, the PHP community at large is confused thanks to people
prematurely
announcing stuff from the mailing list like its news, then adding their
opinions
on top of it without understanding a damn thing they're talking about.
But the post on www.php.net is somewhat similar in that regard, at least in
the sense that it's premature and opinionated.
I think the way to deal with the misinformation is to move more quickly with
taking phpng forward; First get a formal agreement that it's going to
become the basis for the next version of PHP; Then double our efforts to
close the gaps so that users can start experimenting with it; And in
parallel, work on deciding what other changes go into PHP.next. I think
what we do is going to speak louder than what we say.
Zeev
I think the way to deal with the misinformation is to move more quickly
with
taking phpng forward; First get a formal agreement that it's going to
become the basis for the next version of PHP;
I have to disagree here. It is one part, performance focused, but by no
mean could be considered as a sane basis for the next major version, the
version we will have to work with doe the next decade+.
Cheers,
Pierre
Hi,
Joe made a post about the introduction on phpng, what it is, and what it
isn't.
Some people (myself included) didn't liked that post for various reasons
(some says it is opiniated, some doesn't like the tone and the wording,
others feel that it is too early to made official announcement about phpng).
There were a couple of iteration on improving the text, but it is still not
up to our standards imo:
http://git.php.net/?p=web/php.git;a=history;f=archive/entries/2014-05-27-1.xml
;
It is already on hackernews and reddit, so while some people suggested, I
think it would be a bad move to just remove it.Would like to know what do you guys think about the best step, I see the
following possible options:
- keep it as is
- remove it
- rewrite it to be more formal and factual(only talk about what it is
atm. not what it could be in the future).- create a post explaining that this post is controversional among the
core-devs, so it is reflects more of the authors opinion than the projects
official view on the topic.I'm mostly interested on the opinion of the core devs, but others also
welcome to reply.
Wow. How unprofessional on so many levels!!
Unfortunately it seems this has been picked up already by a lot of folks incl. I just got a press inquiry on it.
While my instinct would say just remove it, I think it’s not an option anymore. I think we need to write something very short and sweet that has zero opinion and only fact and post it instead.
Andi
Unfortunately it seems this has been picked up already by a lot of folks
incl. I
just got a press inquiry on it.
While my instinct would say just remove it, I think it's not an option
anymore.
I think we need to write something very short and sweet that has zero
opinion and only fact and post it instead.
FWIW I still think your instinct is correct and it's very much an option
to remove it.
We can keep the URL and just have it read something like:
"The news entry that was previously available here was mistakenly
published on www.php.net; phpng is presently under discussion on
internals@, and is not ready for consumption by most users. If you want
to read more about the phpng patch you can do so at
https://wiki.php.net/phpng or follow the internals@ discussion."
Zeev
"The news entry that was previously available here was mistakenly
published on www.php.net; phpng is presently under discussion on
internals@, and is not ready for consumption by most users. If you want
to read more about the phpng patch you can do so at
https://wiki.php.net/phpng or follow the internals@ discussion."
+1, and put the re-wording of Rowan as intro on the wiki.
--
Regards,
Mike
Let me point out that there is not a single person in this thread who
was there when this news entry was conceived, drafted and posted.
Please, everyone calm down and wait for someone to respond properly.
That qualifies exactly three people: Hannes, joe and I.
Last night Joe, Hannes and a few others were talking about the
misinformation out there about PHPNG how it would be nice if the PHP
project as a whole conveyed more information about what is going on
with our projects, sort of how we used to have a PHP Weekly.
Basically, PHP internals developers could be more public to
non-internals devs about what's going on; similarly the website team
can be more public about changes going on there too. Overall it seemed
like a good idea.
So Joe wrote a post. He tried to help curb the misinformation out
there about PHPNG including a JIT. At the same time he was trying to
be more open and transparent to the community at large about PHPNG. He
was also trying to be optimistic and encouraging. All of these things
are good things; let's stop the flaming and raging and be
constructive.
I'm currently working on a revision with Joe and others that will
hopefully retain the good parts of the news entry and trim out the
controversial bits.
All of these things
are good things; let's stop the flaming and raging and be
constructive.
Levi,
There's not raging or flaming. I don't think there's any hard
feelings by anybody. We just want to remedy the situation.
I'm currently working on a revision with Joe and others that will
hopefully retain the good parts of the news entry and trim out the
controversial bits.
I think that regardless of how we phrase it, it does not belong on
www.php.net at this time. Take a look at any and all messages
published on www.php.net in the past if you disagree with me.
Deviating from that line requires a strong majority if not consensus,
which is clearly not there at this point. It should be removed until
such consensus is reached, if at all.
By the way, note that I'm obviously very sympathetic of this phpng
project. But a message dealing with it simply does not belong on
www.php.net at this time regardless of whatever misinformation is out
there right now.
Zeev
I think that regardless of how we phrase it, it does not belong on
www.php.net at this time[...]Deviating from that line requires a strong majority if not consensus,
which is clearly not there at this point. It should be removed until
such consensus is reached, if at all.
That is all just your opinion. Maybe others share it; I don't know.
Where does it say we need to reach a consensus on what we put on our
homepage?
I mean no disrespect here, but if we need to vote on this then we have
much bigger issues than this news entry.
I think that regardless of how we phrase it, it does not belong on
www.php.net at this time[...]Deviating from that line requires a strong majority if not consensus,
which is clearly not there at this point. It should be removed until
such consensus is reached, if at all.That is all just your opinion. Maybe others share it; I don't know.
Where does it say we need to reach a consensus on what we put on our
homepage?
changing the status quo always requires consensus imo.
if we want to start using our frontpage for future "blog" entries, then I
agree that we would need consensus/support from the other contributors
first.
if nothing else release announcements will be less visible on the
frontpage, and that can be an undesired side-effect for the qa releases,
which already have too little exposure/feedback.
I mean no disrespect here, but if we need to vote on this then we have
much bigger issues than this news entry.
I would be curious why do you think that.
I mean if I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is a bad thing
if somebody (or a small group of people) can't change our current "policy"
on the frontpage posts.
Personally I think that it would be counter-productive to remove this entry
now, I think the best course of action would be improving the entry to
remove the controversial parts (what you already mentioned doing it
yourself), and as nobody argued against the intention of the post, I think
it would be nice to start up an official blog where we can put up these
kind of posts in the future.
I would prefer either using some 3rd party blogging platform with our own
domain name (like wordpress.com, I'm fairly sure we could get a free
account there), or using a static blogging engine like octopress which
makes the maintenance cost near-zero.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Personally I think that it would be counter-productive to remove this entry
now, I think the best course of action would be improving the entry to
remove the controversial parts (what you already mentioned doing it
yourself), and as nobody argued against the intention of the post, I think
it would be nice to start up an official blog where we can put up these
kind of posts in the future.
I think the very existence of this message is controversial in the sense
that we don’t have anything similar to this message on www.php.net. I
think removing it and putting a clear removal message instead, with
pointers to what phpng is makes the most sense.
FWIW, I am arguing against the intention of the post in the sense that it
uses www.php.net to ‘fight’ misinformation on news sites. That can be done
on Twitter, blogs, or comment sections. As I think you pointed out, we
never did it before, not when people wrote the ‘fractal of bad design’ and
not when PHP was accused of being insecure. In that latter case, which was
all the rage back in 2006, I used my own blog to fight this misconception,
not www.php.net.
Zeev
Personally I think that it would be counter-productive to remove this
entry now, I think the best course of action would be improving the entry
to remove the controversial parts (what you already mentioned doing it
yourself), and as nobody argued against the intention of the post, I think
it would be nice to start up an official blog where we can put up these
kind of posts in the future.I think the very existence of this message is controversial in the sense
that we don’t have anything similar to this message on www.php.net. I
think removing it and putting a clear removal message instead, with
pointers to what phpng is makes the most sense.FWIW, I am arguing against the intention of the post in the sense that it
uses www.php.net to ‘fight’ misinformation on news sites. That can be
done on Twitter, blogs, or comment sections. As I think you pointed out,
we never did it before, not when people wrote the ‘fractal of bad design’
and not when PHP was accused of being insecure. In that latter case, which
was all the rage back in 2006, I used my own blog to fight this
misconception, not www.php.net.Zeev
I agree that this doesn't belong to the frontpage, nor do we did ever have
stuff like this there.
But I also think that removing it would do more harm than good at this
point.
I also think that having a easier to understand channel and posts like this
to communicate the roadmap and development of the project would be a nice
thing to have (as long as we don't try to use the frontpage for that).
So I would suggest checking out the updated version from Levi, and discuss
if it still has any controversial stuff.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
I agree that this doesn't belong to the frontpage, nor do we did ever have
stuff like this there.
But I also think that removing it would do more harm than good at this
point.
Why? What’s bad about properly retracting it and explaining it wasn’t
meant for www.php.net? I’m not arguing for a 404.
I also think that having a easier to understand channel and posts like this
to communicate the roadmap and development of the project would be a nice
thing to have (as long as we don't try to use the frontpage for that).
Agreed.
So I would suggest checking out the updated version from Levi, and discuss
if it still has any controversial stuff.
Again I have a hard time accepting it as the very existence of the post on
the front page is controversial. I’ll wait until I see the new text but I
have a hard time imagining what it would look like that would fit
www.php.net’s http://www.php.net's front page.
I agree that this doesn't belong to the frontpage, nor do we did ever have
stuff like this there.But I also think that removing it would do more harm than good at this
point.Why? What’s bad about properly retracting it and explaining it wasn’t
meant for www.php.net? I’m not arguing for a 404.I also think that having a easier to understand channel and posts like this
to communicate the roadmap and development of the project would be a nice
thing to have (as long as we don't try to use the frontpage for that).Agreed.
So I would suggest checking out the updated version from Levi, and discuss
if it still has any controversial stuff.Again I have a hard time accepting it as the very existence of the post on
the front page is controversial. I’ll wait until I see the new text but I
have a hard time imagining what it would look like that would fit
www.php.net’s http://www.php.net's front page.
I like what was proposed earlier here:
- write a text explaining the issue
- add a note, more objectively, about phpng
- remove from www homepage, such things have nothing to do there.
- keep the URL with the new text
Cheers,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
I agree that this doesn't belong to the frontpage, nor do we did ever have
stuff like this there.
But I also think that removing it would do more harm than good at this
point.
I also think that having a easier to understand channel and posts like this
to communicate the roadmap and development of the project would be a nice
thing to have (as long as we don't try to use the frontpage for that).
So I would suggest checking out the updated version from Levi, and discuss
if it still has any controversial stuff.
yes, I agree that we should have simpler to digest channels for users to
follow with little effort. In the past we had Steph Fox for some time
creating nicely written weekly summaries. recently I found Pascal Martin
doing this on a monthly base:
http://blog.pascal-martin.fr/post/php-mailing-list-internals-february-2014-en
Maybe we can also work with the Planet PHP guys to work on some
highlighting of different authors/content ("internals related" /
"framework related" / "app related" / ...) and maybe integrate it in
some way with php.net or alternatively work on people.php.net to allow
developers to post their view.
However we should keep the focus of the php.net main news stream clear
factual news. Advertise improvements made in 5.6 ("sell what we have")
Mind that compared to php.net the blogs and other sites have a quite
small reach so damage they cause is quite little. A posting on php.net
(especially when used by some "journalist" on the bi news sites) can
create quite wrong expectations easily (the journalist has limited time
for research and condenses it, the reader just picks up some sentences
with even less context ...)
So yes, we have room for improvement, and yes as a trigger for such a
debate this post was helpful, but further discussion should be done
aside from this precise "incident".
johannes
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Johannes Schlüter
johannes@schlueters.dewrote:
I agree that this doesn't belong to the frontpage, nor do we did ever
have
stuff like this there.
But I also think that removing it would do more harm than good at this
point.
I also think that having a easier to understand channel and posts like
this
to communicate the roadmap and development of the project would be a nice
thing to have (as long as we don't try to use the frontpage for that).
So I would suggest checking out the updated version from Levi, and
discuss
if it still has any controversial stuff.yes, I agree that we should have simpler to digest channels for users to
follow with little effort. In the past we had Steph Fox for some time
creating nicely written weekly summaries. recently I found Pascal Martin
doing this on a monthly base:http://blog.pascal-martin.fr/post/php-mailing-list-internals-february-2014-en
I love the guy for that, and I'm proud that I have a small influence on
convincing him to start doing it in english:
https://twitter.com/Tyr43l/status/411187113334292480§
Maybe we can also work with the Planet PHP guys to work on some
highlighting of different authors/content ("internals related" /
"framework related" / "app related" / ...) and maybe integrate it in
some way with php.net or alternatively work on people.php.net to allow
developers to post their view.However we should keep the focus of the php.net main news stream clear
factual news. Advertise improvements made in 5.6 ("sell what we have")
agree
Mind that compared to php.net the blogs and other sites have a quite
small reach so damage they cause is quite little. A posting on php.net
(especially when used by some "journalist" on the bi news sites) can
create quite wrong expectations easily (the journalist has limited time
for research and condenses it, the reader just picks up some sentences
with even less context ...)
agree also
So yes, we have room for improvement, and yes as a trigger for such a
debate this post was helpful, but further discussion should be done
aside from this precise "incident".
I wasn't trying to avert attention from this issue, but trying to be
productive/pragmatic and focus on what to do now/next, instead of playing
the blame game.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Ferenc,
Nobody here plays a blame game, like I said, who did it doesn’t really
matter. The fact that this is still on our front page does*.*
Can we, for the love of PHP, remove this message from
www.php.net’shttp://www.php.net'sfront page? Let’s keep the message
but unlink it from the home page as a
first step. I do think we need to get rid of it altogether (remarkably I
think Pierre and I see eye to eye in terms of what needs to be done), but
at the very least we should immediately remove this post from the front
page. I don’t think we can wait any longer for the new updated text (I
thought the proposal will be available within 30-60 minutes, it’s been many
hours since then).
Thanks,
Zeev
Ferenc,
Nobody here plays a blame game, like I said, who did it doesn’t really
matter. The fact that this is still on our front page does.Can we, for the love of PHP, remove this message from www.php.net’s front
page? Let’s keep the message but unlink it from the home page as a first
step. I do think we need to get rid of it altogether (remarkably I think
Pierre and I see eye to eye in terms of what needs to be done), but at the
very least we should immediately remove this post from the front page. I
don’t think we can wait any longer for the new updated text (I thought the
proposal will be available within 30-60 minutes, it’s been many hours since
then).
I am about 99% confident you have karma; why haven't you done it?
I am about 99% confident you have karma; why haven't you done it?
Because I haven't touched the phpweb repository for probably around a
decade. I admit I'm looking into doing it right now, but hoped that those
who did it will undo it.
Zeev
I am about 99% confident you have karma; why haven't you done it?
After 2815 days from the previous commit, I've finally committed something
new to phpweb...
I unlinked the news entry from the homepage but for now kept it on the 2014
archive so that whomever kept links they'd still work.
Zeev
Thank you for removing it from the front page, Zeev. It needed to be done.
Based on the discussion here, I've compiled an informal count of who
advocates which action:
Remove the post: 13 (81.25%)
....and don't replace it: 1 (6.25%; 7.69%)
....and replace (or modify) it: 10 (62.5%; 76.92%)
....and ???: 2 (12.5%; 15.38%)
Keep the post: 3 (18.75%)
It looks like there's a pretty clear consensus that the post should be
removed (which it was). There's also a clear consensus that it should be
replaced with something since it's already been widely disseminated.
I think it should cover the points Pierre proposed: A brief explanation of
phpng and a note explaining why the original post was removed. I would
like to add that a link to an archive of the original post that was removed
should be included in that note for the sake of transparency.
--Kris
I am about 99% confident you have karma; why haven't you done it?
After 2815 days from the previous commit, I've finally committed something
new to phpweb...I unlinked the news entry from the homepage but for now kept it on the 2014
archive so that whomever kept links they'd still work.Zeev
Thank you for removing it from the front page, Zeev. It needed to be done.
Based on the discussion here, I've compiled an informal count of who
advocates which action:Remove the post: 13 (81.25%)
....and don't replace it: 1 (6.25%; 7.69%)
....and replace (or modify) it: 10 (62.5%; 76.92%)
....and ???: 2 (12.5%; 15.38%)
Keep the post: 3 (18.75%)
It looks like there's a pretty clear consensus that the post should be
removed (which it was). There's also a clear consensus that it should be
replaced with something since it's already been widely disseminated.
For completeness sake, there were people who weighed in on the issue
in IRC but not here. This would influence the stats quite a bit
actually; it's not so drastically in favor of removing the post. The
people who want it removed were willing to fight for it; those who
didn't care too much or wanted to keep it in some form weren't as
vocal.
I also know there are people out there who are upset with it being
removed. The mailing list does not represent the whole story.
I'm not advocating anything here; I'm just citing things for
completeness sake in case someone references this in the future.
I don't see those quoted numbers here, at all.
Zeev, it's cowardly to say "I don't know who it was" or "it doesn't matter
who it was", you can read my name on the commit, and know full well who it
was, if you have something to say, say it.
Andi, It's not fair to call me unprofessional for bothering to act.
It makes no sense to say that because we have never done something, we
should never do it, this is complete and utter nonsense.
I was not, I repeat, NOT, writing a news entry; I had an idea to start
a blog and was TOLD to use the index by SOMEONE RELEVANT to phpweb.
The material was reviewed by relevant individuals, 2 of the 3 who wrote
phpng included, it was not factually incorrect, nor was it opinionated. It
started with a joke and ended optimistically, because once again I was NOT
writing a news entry, but starting a blog, or so I thought.
The conversation was started, and conducted extremely poorly by Tyrael at
times yesterday, he made statements that weren't true because he couldn't
be bothered to look at what really happened, this set the tone, told
everyone I done it on my own, tricked some people into reviewing the
content, none of this happened, obviously it didn't.
The shambolic reaction that the world saw yesterday completely turned me
off from the idea, the idea that Zeev can reverse whatever commits anyone
makes it sickening, and completely discourages me from even bothering to
try again, the idea that we must gather a consensus on facts before
communicating them is dysfunctional, and it was completely pointless to
remove indexed content from the front page other than to flex your "I'm
going to get my own way" muscles; it was already being read, all you really
done there is piss me off, and make everyone look foolish, but especially
me.
Those people I respect understand what I was doing and why, and are still
supportive of the idea to have a developer blog it's just a shame that we
seem to have a community that is incompatible, completely incompatible.
I don't see those quoted numbers here, at all.
Zeev, it's cowardly to say "I don't know who it was" or "it doesn't matter
who it was", you can read my name on the commit, and know full well who it
was, if you have something to say, say it.Andi, It's not fair to call me unprofessional for bothering to act.
It makes no sense to say that because we have never done something, we
should never do it, this is complete and utter nonsense.I was not, I repeat, NOT, writing a news entry; I had an idea to start
a blog and was TOLD to use the index by SOMEONE RELEVANT to phpweb.
The material was reviewed by relevant individuals, 2 of the 3 who wrote
phpng included, it was not factually incorrect, nor was it opinionated. It
started with a joke and ended optimistically, because once again I was NOT
writing a news entry, but starting a blog, or so I thought.The conversation was started, and conducted extremely poorly by Tyrael at
times yesterday, he made statements that weren't true because he couldn't
be bothered to look at what really happened, this set the tone, told
everyone I done it on my own, tricked some people into reviewing the
content, none of this happened, obviously it didn't.The shambolic reaction that the world saw yesterday completely turned me
off from the idea, the idea that Zeev can reverse whatever commits anyone
makes it sickening, and completely discourages me from even bothering to
try again, the idea that we must gather a consensus on facts before
communicating them is dysfunctional, and it was completely pointless to
remove indexed content from the front page other than to flex your "I'm
going to get my own way" muscles; it was already being read, all you really
done there is piss me off, and make everyone look foolish, but especially
me.Those people I respect understand what I was doing and why, and are still
supportive of the idea to have a developer blog it's just a shame that we
seem to have a community that is incompatible, completely incompatible.
My opening post here was true to the last word, and I've tried to be
unbiased.
You are right, that originally I missed an didn't mentioned the important
part that somebody else suggested you to write the blogpost, which doesn't
really matter from the POV of this thread (it wasn't intentended to focus
on who posted it, but whether or not we want to keep/remove or change it).
I also don't like how you handled this situation on your part (especially
the stackoverflow chat stuff), but we discussed this in private.
If you wanna think that this whole drama is my fault and mine alone, then
feel free, I can't stop you from that.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Those people I respect understand what I was doing and why, and are still
supportive of the idea to have a developer blog it's just a shame that we
seem to have a community that is incompatible, completely incompatible.
Joe, the root problem here is that turning www.php.net into a developer
blog is a decision that takes a bit more than a couple of people
agreeing late at night on irc when many of us were asleep. At the very
least a quick email to webmaster@ would have been in order. I don't see
this as an incompatible community issue (what does that even mean?) at
all. Waking up and seeing a blog entry on www.php.net came as a surprise
to many of us and that is where the reaction came from.
-Rasmus
Hi Joe,
I don't see those quoted numbers here, at all.
Zeev, it's cowardly to say "I don't know who it was" or "it doesn't matter
who it was", you can read my name on the commit, and know full well who it
was, if you have something to say, say it.Andi, It's not fair to call me unprofessional for bothering to act.
The action was unprofessional.
It makes no sense to say that because we have never done something, we
should never do it, this is complete and utter nonsense.
Right, we have to move forward and a place where the project members
can post their view is a good idea. That's part of the goals of
planet-php.
However the frontpage of php.net does not represent individual
opinions and should never do. It shows critical or important
information, in an official manner. It is read by millions of users
and directly affect our image. It is rather easy to understand the
difference between a blog and the frontpage of a project used by
millions of users.
I was not, I repeat, NOT, writing a news entry; I had an idea to start
a blog and was TOLD to use the index by SOMEONE RELEVANT to phpweb.
While having a little idea about this relevant person, I do not think
anyone contributing codes can suddenly decide alone that www.php.net/
can become a blog for the php.net members. Neither can he suddenly
decide alone what our web presence should be. This is not how it
should work, sorry.
The material was reviewed by relevant individuals, 2 of the 3 who wrote
phpng included, it was not factually incorrect, nor was it opinionated. It
started with a joke and ended optimistically, because once again I was NOT
writing a news entry, but starting a blog, or so I thought.
It is important to keep in mind that the problem here was not the
content but the whole idea of having phpng announced officially (yes,
having it on the frontpage makes it official) was not good, the
timing, the way it was done and the form used were inappropriate.
The news, blogs, HN and other sources of information, bad or good, are
made of various kind of content, sometimes very positive, and too
often very negative. We do not have to reply to every single news out
there. However we do post critical information when necessary. Or we
try to.
The conversation was started, and conducted extremely poorly by Tyrael at
times yesterday, he made statements that weren't true because he couldn't
be bothered to look at what really happened, this set the tone, told
everyone I done it on my own, tricked some people into reviewing the
content, none of this happened, obviously it didn't.
Count me with Tyrael as well, and I blame me to do not have removed it
as soon as I have seen it.
The shambolic reaction that the world saw yesterday completely turned me
off from the idea, the idea that Zeev can reverse whatever commits anyone
makes it sickening
Excuse me Joe, but can you see anyone in this thread except one,
saying that this post was a good idea? I can't. Zeev acted in the way
I should have acted 12hours before.
As a matter of fact we have a communication problem, it is no secret.
And some people here keeps work like 12 years go, even me. This is the
problem. I do not have a magical solution but we have to fix that. We
have to avoid these kind of troubles. Not only because it costs us a
huge amount of energy for nothing, but also because it is discouraging
(like in your case here or in your past RFC). But it is also
discredits the php.net project, and seriously, we are already in a
very bad shape from an image point of view. Events like this one just
make things worst.
, and completely discourages me from even bothering to
try again, the idea that we must gather a consensus on facts before
communicating them is dysfunctional,
Please explain me why it is dysfunctional to get peers reviews before
posting something on www.php.net, which represents the official view
of the PHP project. I totally fail to understand you here.
and it was completely pointless to
remove indexed content from the front page other than to flex your "I'm
going to get my own way" muscles; it was already being read, all you really
done there is piss me off, and make everyone look foolish, but especially
me.
We are all fool and fooled here. We are seen as clowns, more and more
every time such things happens, and I am getting sick of that. You, as
an individual person, are not guilty of having done that. Maybe
misguided but that's all about it. How this happened is only another
sign that something is deeply broken in how we work together. We must
fix that.
Those people I respect understand what I was doing and why, and are still
supportive of the idea to have a developer blog it's just a shame that we
seem to have a community that is incompatible, completely incompatible.
I respect everyone here. However I cannot accept, tolerate or even
remotely agree on unilateral decisions, no matter the area. It is
critical to separate the individual from their opinions. I disagree
more than often with Zeev, Derick for example, but I totally respect
them as individuals, even if I can disagree with their way of doing
things. The world is not black and white, php.net is not different. It
is important to keep a safe distance between opinions, emotions and
the facts. Easy to say (oh gosh, I have hard time to do follow this
rule too).
Long story short, we are at a critical point in the php history. Yet
again we are about to begin the next major PHP version. If we do not
have to fail, and that could be our last chance, we have to put our
ego, emotions, personal goals on the side and begin to work more, much
more, together. We have to communicate (and internals is the only
place where you reach anyone), more, better, more respectfully and
early, as early as possible for every possible idea. Communication is
not about politics, communication about getting more people involved,
early and try to get everyone on the same board and in sync.
Cheers,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
Trimming all the forwarding around ...
Long story short, we are at a critical point in the php history. Yet
again we are about to begin the next major PHP version. If we do not
have to fail, and that could be our last chance, we have to put our
ego, emotions, personal goals on the side and begin to work more, much
more, together. We have to communicate (and internals is the only
place where you reach anyone), more, better, more respectfully and
early, as early as possible for every possible idea. Communication is
not about politics, communication about getting more people involved,
early and try to get everyone on the same board and in sync.
That phpng throws an area of the creation of phpnext open for
discussion, and offers limited demonstrations of the capabilities of
that solution is a fact. It is currently actually a block to progress
until such time as others can become involved, and incorporating other
developments into it seems to be on hold? It is only concentrating on a
sub-set of what is needed for phpnext and so the discussion that is
still needed is just what else should be addressed.
Unicode support is probably still in the melting pot, as much as the
string length of internal string elements and opinions are still divided
as to if those internal strings SHOULD support unicode?
Re-factoring function names and perhaps making strings proper objects
are all important elements, and this re-factoring may well impinge on
the 'results' that phpng is reporting anyway?
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
I don't see those quoted numbers here, at all.
Hi Joe,
I personally compiled those numbers by reading every single message on this
thread to-date and tallying according to what each person said. There is
some inherent subjectivity involved, though the sentiments were pretty
clear and consistent in this case.
For the sake of transparency, here are the notes I took when tallying the
responses on this thread:
ferenc = remove / replace
kris = remove / replace
pierre = remove / replace
stas = remove / replace
peter = remove / replace
mike = remove / replace
lester = remove / replace
dmitry = keep
zeev = remove / don't replace
philip = keep
johannes = remove / ?
andi = remove / replace
guil = remove / ?
jonny = keep
rowan = remove / replace
levi = remove / replace
The "?" entries correspond with posts where there was a clear sentiment to
remove the post but no clear mention as to whether or not it should be in
some way replaced. Those who advocated rewording the original post were
counted as "remove / replace" since they're functionally the same.
If any of the people mentioned feels as though I misinterpreted your post,
please let me know and I'll update the tally with my apologies for the
error.
I hope this clarifies that point for you, Joe. If you're still confused as
to how I arrived at those numbers, please let me know and I'll do my best
to be of help. =)
--Kris
Zeev, it's cowardly to say "I don't know who it was" or "it doesn't matter
who it was", you can read my name on the commit, and know full well who it
was, if you have something to say, say it.
Joe,
I think you just derailed this conversation in a manner that I’m surprised
so many people answered you and didn’t point out that kind of talk is
unacceptable.
Until this email, I did not know nor did I care who did this. Of course I
could come up with that name if I wanted to, but that would imply it
mattered, and it doesn’t. What I cared about is the undoing the deed and
preventing it from happening again, not playing a blame game.
What I do have to say to you is the same thing I mistakenly said to the
wrong person yesterday:
“I'm really not sure why you're still fighting this. If I were in your
shoes I'd admit messing up, apologize, and quickly remove this post. And
I'm not flaming or bashing anybody, we're all humans and we all make
mistakes.”
While you’re at it, consider apologizing for your unacceptable choice of
words.
Zeev
Zeev,
While you’re at it, consider apologizing for your unacceptable choice of
words.
I'm sorry that you find my words unacceptable.
I've already said I was wrong to act on the little consensus I had, but I
did actually have one, the wrong kind of consensus ... sorry.
I didn't remove the post myself because I was trying to get something
started, I fail at interacting with internals so I don't normally try and
let other people try to sort it, but I was still involved, all day long
yesterday.
I was trying to get something started, and seemed to have appropriate
permission; it was the approved way of getting done what I wanted to get
done, by someone in control of these things, on a team that usually acts
pretty independently, that's what I genuinely thought ... I was doing
everything I was meant to be doing.
It's not reasonable to completely ignore my intentions, what I thought was
happening, what I was told to do ... completely not fair.
If we could stop arguing, that'd be great, I still want a blog, can we talk
about how to get that actually started in a sensible way ??
Cheers
Zeev, it's cowardly to say "I don't know who it was" or "it doesn't matter
who it was", you can read my name on the commit, and know full well who it
was, if you have something to say, say it.Joe,
I think you just derailed this conversation in a manner that I’m surprised
so many people answered you and didn’t point out that kind of talk is
unacceptable.Until this email, I did not know nor did I care who did this. Of course I
could come up with that name if I wanted to, but that would imply it
mattered, and it doesn’t. What I cared about is the undoing the deed and
preventing it from happening again, not playing a blame game.What I do have to say to you is the same thing I mistakenly said to the
wrong person yesterday:“I'm really not sure why you're still fighting this. If I were in your
shoes I'd admit messing up, apologize, and quickly remove this post. And
I'm not flaming or bashing anybody, we're all humans and we all make
mistakes.”While you’re at it, consider apologizing for your unacceptable choice of
words.Zeev
Zeev,
While you’re at it, consider apologizing for your unacceptable choice of
words.
It's not reasonable to completely ignore my intentions, what I thought was
happening, what I was told to do ... completely not fair.
I do not think anybody gave you mad intention or ignored the goal. We
only tried, in a more or less good way, to limit the PR drama.
If we could stop arguing, that'd be great, I still want a blog, can we talk
about how to get that actually started in a sensible way ??
I think people.php.net could be a good place.
Something like https://sculpin.io/ could be used, using one git
repo/module per user. but people.php.net really needs some love, it
looks suboptimal and horrible right now :)
Cheers,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
I think people.php.net could be a good place.
Something like https://sculpin.io/ could be used, using one git
repo/module per user. but people.php.net really needs some love, it
looks suboptimal and horrible right now :)Cheers,
Pierre
Pierre,
I think I can see what you're getting at with that suggestion, but I don't
believe it fits with what the ideas have been.
From what I can tell your suggestion is effectively a variation on a planet
but with the people having to specifically submit posts to repos and auto
published. Is that correct?
From a personal point of view, I was expecting this to become something
along the line of curated content either written and approved by those
managing it, or accepted from submissions, not simply an aggregation of
posts posted by a select group of people.
Admittedly this would take a lot more effort, but I think there are the
people around who are able to put the time in to keep it on track.
Cheers.
Jonny.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Jonny Stirling
phoenix@jonstirling.co.uk wrote:
Pierre,
I think I can see what you're getting at with that suggestion, but I don't
believe it fits with what the ideas have been.
It is. The idea was to have a blog.
From what I can tell your suggestion is effectively a variation on a planet
but with the people having to specifically submit posts to repos and auto
published. Is that correct?
I mean a blog for each individual contributor or a way to get their
existing blog published under people.php.net/<username>/, or the feed
related to core dev.
From a personal point of view, I was expecting this to become something
along the line of curated content either written and approved by those
managing it, or accepted from submissions, not simply an aggregation of
posts posted by a select group of people.
It is not a selected group of people but all contributors to php.net,
please check people.php.net.
Admittedly this would take a lot more effort, but I think there are the
people around who are able to put the time in to keep it on track.
As long as we do not make www.php.net a blog for all personal views
from individual contributors, I have to support the idea. And this is
what Joe had in mind, a blog. It cannot work on www.php.net/ because
of all the reasons explained in this thread.
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
Pierre Joye wrote (on 29/05/2014):
It is. The idea was to have a blog.
[...]I mean a blog for each individual contributor
I think this is the distinction people are discussing: a single,
central, blog, vs many blogs in a unified interface.
It sounds like there's a need for some kind of submit-and-approve
mechanism to curate a single feed which people can follow as "what's
going on in PHP".
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
Pierre Joye wrote (on 29/05/2014):
It is. The idea was to have a blog.
[...]I mean a blog for each individual contributor
I think this is the distinction people are discussing: a single, central,
blog, vs many blogs in a unified interface.It sounds like there's a need for some kind of submit-and-approve mechanism
to curate a single feed which people can follow as "what's going on in PHP".
Something like what Pascal Martin does, and in a very nice way, is
what I could live with. Anything else is about having a PR department
and it is really the last thing I would like to see on www.php.net/.
Cheers,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
Something like what Pascal Martin does, and in a very nice way, is
what I could live with. Anything else is about having a PR department
and it is really the last thing I would like to see on www.php.net/.
Nobody has said that this should be put on www.php.net, I think we're all
agreed it would be best on its own subdomain whether it takes over from
people (unified up front and separated per author elsewhere perhaps?) or
gets created as blog / whatever else.
And yes, something similar in principal to the stuff Pascal Martin does,
but less of a digest. It's not about having PR, it's about making this part
of the PHP group being more transparent to the wider world which is surely
a good thing.
Jonny,
Thank you for removing it from the front page, Zeev. It needed to
be done.Based on the discussion here, I've compiled an informal count of who
advocates which action:Remove the post: 13 (81.25%)
....and don't replace it: 1 (6.25%; 7.69%)
....and replace (or modify) it: 10 (62.5%; 76.92%)
....and ???: 2 (12.5%; 15.38%)
Keep the post: 3 (18.75%)
It looks like there's a pretty clear consensus that the post should
be removed (which it was). There's also a clear consensus that it
should be replaced with something since it's already been widely
disseminated.For completeness sake, there were people who weighed in on the issue
in IRC but not here.
What happens on IRC is important and good for quick reply discussions,
but if it's not on the mailinglist, it "does not count". The internals
community discusses only officially on this mailinglist only.
cheers,
Derick
Zeev Suraski wrote (on 28/05/2014):
I think removing it and putting a clear removal message instead, with
pointers to what phpng is makes the most sense.
I realise it would require a bit of frantic work on someone's part, and
I'm afraid I'm not volunteering, but this could potentially be combined
with the "let's have an official blog" idea by setting up the blog right
now (very basic style, comments disabled, or even just a static page
with a blog-style URL which can be persisted or redirected later) and
replacing the notice with a message effectively saying "oops, we meant
to post this over here on our shiny new blog".
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
Where does it say we need to reach a consensus on what we put on our
homepage?
You're right, we actually don't. There's an established track record of
what kind of material goes onto www.php.net. This post clearly isn't it.
I'm really not sure why you're still fighting this. If I were in your shoes
I'd admit messing up, apologize, and quickly remove this post. And I'm not
flaming or bashing anybody, we're all humans and we all make mistakes.
I mean no disrespect here, but if we need to vote on this then we have
much
bigger issues than this news entry.
We don't need to vote. It doesn't belong in www.php.net as is proven by the
15+ year track record of what goes onto www.php.net and what doesn't.
If you think that news entries such as this one and similar belong on
www.php.net, we need to figure out a mechanism for agreeing but I for one
would advise we put all this energy into more constructive things.
Zeev
I'm really not sure why you're still fighting this. If I were in your shoes
I'd admit messing up, apologize, and quickly remove this post. And I'm not
flaming or bashing anybody, we're all humans and we all make mistakes.
Zeev,
I did not post the news entry; I am only trying to improve it
Regards,
Levi Morrison
Zeev,
I did not post the news entry; I am only trying to improve it
Sorry, I misunderstood when you said you were one of the 3 which were there
when it was conceived.
Zeev
Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 28/05/2014):
I'm mostly interested on the opinion of the core devs, but others also
welcome to reply.
I'm definitely in the category of "others", but I thought I'd try my
hand at a replacement wording:
While rarely visible to users, there are many people working behind
the scenes to improve PHP, both to bring new features and to increase
performance.Recently, a project known internally as "phpng" has gained some
attention outside the normal channels; this is an experimental branch
of the codebase, initially authored by Dmitry Stogov, Xinchen Hui, and
Nikita Popov, which cleans up and alters some internal APIs to improve
performance, particularly in terms of memory usage. The hope is that a
change such as this may pave the way for further improvements in the
future, such as a "JIT" capable executor, but the current branch does
not include such a change.However, the branch does give a considerable performance gain in real
world applications, for example a 20% increase in throughput for a
typical Wordpress setup. It is possible that this branch, or something
like it, may form one part of the next major release of PHP (hence the
optimistic "Next Generation" label of the branch), and discussions are
continuing around what that release should look like and what
timescales will be involved in bringing it to production quality.
I'm not sure whether or not it makes sense to include a link to the RFC,
or a pointer to check the mailing list - if so, it should probably be
stressed that the details are highly technical in nature, and require a
certain prior knowledge of the engine.
Just a thought, to move things forward. :)
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]