FAQ
Dear Internals,

This seems like a good time to remind this list that we are all trying
build a better PHP. Each of us has a different idea of how to
accomplish that goal, but it is still our common goal to improve the
language. Each one of us has something unique that we can contribute
and we need each other to do this successfully.

The last few weeks we have been discussing concepts that greatly
impact on the future of PHP. These changes have the potential to be
the foundation for PHP 6.0; as such it is critical that everyone
participates to help create the best language we can. While doing so
it is important to be polite, civil and fair, particularly on this
list where it is more difficult to resolve misunderstandings than it
is in chat.

Here are some behaviors that are appropriate:
  - Asking members of the list to vote on an RFC
  - Politely disagreeing with someone's proposal
  - Using a longer voting window than one week

Here are some behaviors that are inappropriate:
  - Asking members of the list to vote in a particular way
  - Dominating a mailing list discussion
  - Engaging in a heated debate

Lastly, I ask that people take a moment to reread our mailing list
rules:
http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=blob_plain;f=README.MAILINGLIST_RULES;hb=HEAD

I hope by being polite, civil and fair we can build a better PHP
together.

Search Discussions

  • Zeev Suraski at May 17, 2014 at 8:12 pm

    Here are some behaviors that are inappropriate:
    - Asking members of the list to vote in a particular way
    There's actually nothing wrong with that. I absolutely don't think this
    should become a rule or a guideline.
    - Dominating a mailing list discussion
    Apologies for that, but many people subscribed with @php.net addresses are
    currently blocked from internals@ and consequently from the discussion due
    to some bug. I suspect it would have looked a lot different otherwise.

    Zeev
  • Andrea Faulds at May 17, 2014 at 8:20 pm

    On 17 May 2014, at 21:11, Zeev Suraski wrote:

    Here are some behaviors that are inappropriate:
    - Asking members of the list to vote in a particular way
    There's actually nothing wrong with that. I absolutely don't think this
    should become a rule or a guideline.
    I disagree. We should not have rallying cries on the list asking people with no connection or opinion on something to vote a certain way. That is unacceptable behaviour.

    --
    Andrea Faulds
    http://ajf.me/
  • Zeev Suraski at May 17, 2014 at 8:29 pm

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Andrea Faulds
    Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:21 PM
    To: Zeev Suraski
    Cc: Levi Morrison; internals
    Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Building a better PHP together.

    On 17 May 2014, at 21:11, Zeev Suraski wrote:

    Here are some behaviors that are inappropriate:
    - Asking members of the list to vote in a particular way
    There's actually nothing wrong with that. I absolutely don't think
    this should become a rule or a guideline.
    I disagree. We should not have rallying cries on the list asking people with no
    connection or opinion on something to vote a certain way. That is
    unacceptable
    behaviour.
    If it tries to create a legitimate connection and form an opinion (in this
    case, the fact that almost all engine maintainers oppose a patch that's
    about to be forced on them) - there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

    Zeev
  • Pierre Joye at May 17, 2014 at 8:36 pm

    On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:

    If it tries to create a legitimate connection and form an opinion (in this
    case, the fact that almost all engine maintainers oppose a patch that's
    about to be forced on them) - there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
    There is a lot wrong about that.

    Numerous critical features have been vetoed, rejected or blocked
    (before or after RFCs) because Zend so called maintainers considered
    them useless. Let take an example, annotation, interestingly enough
    every major frameworks out there use some userland implementation
    which implements exactly what the RFC proposed.

    Being crazy about performance is a good thing, being disconnected from
    user needs is another, as well as heavily opposed to additions or
    improvements without even taking care about anything but performance
    (even when proven wrong in the recent case) is counter productive, at
    best.

    Anyway, my point is that 99% of the political issues we are facing is
    because of the lack of communication and hidden/private development.
    It is always a bad thing. It was bad last year for opcache, it is bad
    now for phpng, even if the outcome is a very good thing in the long
    run. The result is a good thing, the way it is achieved hurts PHP in
    many ways. This is something you should work on, or think about it, as
    one the company leaders.

    To make my point clear, I have absolutely no personal issue against
    you or Zend. But we have to understand that Zend is not alone, since
    long, to take care about PHP's future. We should find better ways to
    cooperate, early, often, efficiently instead of letting such things
    happen again.

    Cheers,
    --
    Pierre

    @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
  • Derick Rethans at May 17, 2014 at 9:33 pm

    On Sat, 17 May 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:

    On 17 May 2014, at 21:11, Zeev Suraski wrote:

    Here are some behaviors that are inappropriate:
    - Asking members of the list to vote in a particular way
    There's actually nothing wrong with that. I absolutely don't think
    this should become a rule or a guideline.
    I disagree. We should not have rallying cries on the list asking
    people with no connection or opinion on something to vote a certain
    way. That is unacceptable behaviour.
    It's a lot better to rally for your cause out in the open than in
    private discussions in the back of IRC. It's a lot more transparent, at
    least to see where people stand.

    cheers,
    Derick
  • Levi Morrison at May 17, 2014 at 9:58 pm

    Here are some behaviors that are inappropriate:
    - Asking members of the list to vote in a particular way
    There's actually nothing wrong with that. I absolutely don't think
    this should become a rule or a guideline.
    I disagree. We should not have rallying cries on the list asking
    people with no connection or opinion on something to vote a certain
    way. That is unacceptable behaviour.
    It's a lot better to rally for your cause out in the open than in
    private discussions in the back of IRC. It's a lot more transparent, at
    least to see where people stand.
    I agree that rallying your cause on list is okay, it just needs to be
    appropriate. Let me provide an example of something that I think is
    appropriate:

    "I will be voting yes/no on ... because ... and encourage everyone to
    vote with this in mind"

    I think the heated and unhelpful debate on the "A call for help
    (urgent)" is evidence enough to validate the stance of not asking
    members to vote in a particular way.
  • Andrea Faulds at May 17, 2014 at 10:00 pm

    On 17 May 2014, at 22:58, Levi Morrison wrote:

    I agree that rallying your cause on list is okay, it just needs to be
    appropriate. Let me provide an example of something that I think is
    appropriate:

    "I will be voting yes/no on ... because ... and encourage everyone to
    vote with this in mind"

    I think the heated and unhelpful debate on the "A call for help
    (urgent)" is evidence enough to validate the stance of not asking
    members to vote in a particular way.
    Right, that’s what I was aiming at.

    --
    Andrea Faulds
    http://ajf.me/
  • Zeev Suraski at May 17, 2014 at 10:18 pm

    I think the heated and unhelpful debate on the "A call for help (urgent)" is
    evidence enough to validate the stance of not asking members to vote in a
    particular way.
    We may have to agree to disagree. If this heated debate helped us avoid a
    8% memory penalty (and a lot more as we move to phpng) - it was well worth
    it. We both know a 'I'll be voting yes/no because...' statement would have
    been ignored, as substantially more extreme statements from both me and
    Dmitry and perhaps others went ignored.

    In a couple of years when this thread is long forgotten, there'll be
    millions of servers out there benefitting from its results, keeping PHP
    relevant. Ultimately, that's the most important thing.

    Zeev
  • Stas Malyshev at May 17, 2014 at 10:33 pm
    Hi!
    I disagree. We should not have rallying cries on the list asking
    people with no connection or opinion on something to vote a certain
    way. That is unacceptable behaviour.
    People with no connection or opinion should not be voting at all. But if
    they do, they consider themselves to be interested and knowledgeable
    enough to form an opinion (at least I sincerely hope that's how it works
    since we presumably all are responsible adults here). Influencing
    opinions of others is the essence of the discussion - if not influencing
    others, why would we write to the list and discuss things? We could just
    silently vote and be done. Asking people to consider certain arguments
    and trying to influence their decisions is what discussions are for,
    it's their sole purpose. And what better place to do public discussion
    than the public list?
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Levi Morrison at May 17, 2014 at 8:30 pm

    On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
    many people subscribed with @php.net addresses are currently blocked
    from internals@ and consequently from the discussion due to some
    bug. I suspect it would have looked a lot different otherwise.
    I am aware; I too am affected by this bug. It is rather unfortunate to
    be having this problem.

    I am not singling out any person or particular thread of discussion;
    historically it is common for someone dominate a topic they feel
    passionately about.
    On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
    Here are some behaviors that are inappropriate:
    - Asking members of the list to vote in a particular way
    There's actually nothing wrong with that. I absolutely don't think this
    should become a rule or a guideline.
    - Dominating a mailing list discussion
    Apologies for that, but many people subscribed with @php.net addresses are
    currently blocked from internals@ and consequently from the discussion due
    to some bug. I suspect it would have looked a lot different otherwise.

    Zeev
  • Ferenc Kovacs at May 17, 2014 at 8:35 pm

    On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:

    Here are some behaviors that are inappropriate:
    - Asking members of the list to vote in a particular way
    There's actually nothing wrong with that. I absolutely don't think this
    should become a rule or a guideline.
    - Dominating a mailing list discussion
    Apologies for that, but many people subscribed with @php.net addresses are
    currently blocked from internals@ and consequently from the discussion due
    to some bug. I suspect it would have looked a lot different otherwise.

    Zeev

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
    I think it is ok to rally people for voting or making them aware that
    something will go through which they probably don't want to, and also ok to
    reconsider based and giving them reasons.
    But I think that prominent people like you should refrain from asking
    people to vote no while providing only generic/blanket statments ("morally
    wrong", etc.) because you are in a position where some people will just
    blindly follow what you say, and we should vote purely on the base on the
    technical merit of the proposed rfc, and not based on which sides has the
    more prominent people supporting it.
    Ofc. I'm not saying that the current voting RFC is perfect (far from it),
    but it would be nice if we could solve that outside of an in-progress vote.
    And you are also right, that currently there is some problem with
    lists.php.net which causes that people subscribed with their
    @php.netaddress won't get their emails from the lists.

    --
    Ferenc Kovács
    @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
  • Zeev Suraski at May 17, 2014 at 8:41 pm
    I think it is ok to rally people for voting or making them aware that
    something will go through which they probably don't want to, and also ok to
    reconsider based and giving them reasons.

    But I think that prominent people like you should refrain from asking
    people to vote no while providing only generic/blanket statments ("morally
    wrong", etc.) because you are in a position where some people will just
    blindly follow what you say, and we should vote purely on the base on the
    technical merit of the proposed rfc, and not based on which sides has the
    more prominent people supporting it.



    I wish that were true but the numbers prove otherwise J



    Regardless, my ‘call for help’ was very much in context (even if terse), it
    wasn’t a ‘vote No because I say so’. It also followed a long online debate
    on internals@ where I expressed my opinion very clearly.

    I’d agree that ‘Vote X and get $500’, ‘Vote Y for a spot in heaven’, or
    ‘Vote Z because I say so’ are no-no’s.
  • Ford, Mike at May 19, 2014 at 11:06 am

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Zeev Suraski
    Sent: 17 May 2014 21:42
    To: Ferenc Kovacs
    Cc: Levi Morrison; internals
    Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Building a better PHP together.

    I think it is ok to rally people for voting or making them aware
    that
    something will go through which they probably don't want to, and
    also ok to
    reconsider based and giving them reasons.

    But I think that prominent people like you should refrain from
    asking
    people to vote no while providing only generic/blanket statments
    ("morally
    wrong", etc.) because you are in a position where some people will
    just
    blindly follow what you say, and we should vote purely on the base
    on the
    technical merit of the proposed rfc, and not based on which sides
    has the
    more prominent people supporting it.



    I wish that were true but the numbers prove otherwise J



    Regardless, my ‘call for help’ was very much in context (even if
    terse), it
    wasn’t a ‘vote No because I say so’. It also followed a long online
    debate
    on internals@ where I expressed my opinion very clearly.

    I’d agree that ‘Vote X and get $500’, ‘Vote Y for a spot in heaven’,
    or
    ‘Vote Z because I say so’ are no-no’s.
    I hope you will forgive the opinionated ramblings of a normally
    dedicated lurker (although I've made sporadic contributions to The
    Fine Manual, I've done no development on the c sources -- so I don't
    have much voice here).

    First of all, let me say I'm glad to see this debate seems to have
    calmed down to some sort of consensus and looks like producing the
    best possible result for PHP as a whole. HOWEVER:

    (1) The intemperate and bullying nature of the original "Please Help:
    Vote No" email made me immediately want to vote "Yes" just to punish
    such untoward behaviour. (I wouldn't otherwise have considered voting
    at all, because I actually don't care -- not having any code that is
    ever likely to handle such big numbers/arrays/whatever.) Fortunately,
    I read all the ensuing arguments, now feel I have a much better
    understanding of the scope of the patch, and would actually be more
    inclined to vote No for the RFC *as it stands*.

    (2) It seems to me that the emerging consensus is different enough
    from the RFC currently up for vote that it should be withdrawn,
    redrafted on the basis of (say) Nikita's proposal, and go through
    another round of debating and vote. After all, as has been pointed
    out, it's likely to be 2 or 3 months before phpng is far enough
    developed to be capable of accepting any 64-bit patch, so withdrawing
    and redrafting is not likely to lead to any time penalty.

    (3) On the subject of required majority and what "language change"
    actually means -- my interpretation is that this is definitely a
    language change. AIUI, the patch could cause PHP integers to change
    from 32 to 64 bits for some users -- and whilst this shouldn't matter
    in the vast majority of cases, it *is* a change to how PHP works for
    them.

    (4) I do think the phpng team probably should have been a bit more
    pro-active in making their project known -- even a small announcement
    just to let people know it existed and might cause conflicts with e.g.
    int64 might have prevented the huge conflagration we've just seen! To
    have worked on it for so long with no outside awareness, particularly
    in view of the int64 patch, strikes me as distinctly disrespectful.

    (5) Finally, let me say that I admire the dedication of the two teams
    who have been working hard on such fundamental changes to the engine
    -- but, from my point of view, the total dedication of some team
    members to their project's target has been part of the problem. It
    looks to me that, though there are very fine cases to be made on both
    sides, neither one should necessarily be accepted in full and each
    side should make some compromise -- and the exact nature of those
    compromises should be the focus of the next round of (civilised!)
    debate.

    Thanks for listening -- I hope I haven't offended anyone too much
    (or, at least, equally all round :).

    Cheers!

    Mike

    --
    Mike Ford,
    Electronic Information Developer, Libraries and Learning Innovation,
    403a Leslie Silver Building, City Campus, Leeds Metropolitan University,
    Woodhouse Lane, LEEDS, LS1 3ES, United Kingdom
    E: m.ford@leedsmet.ac.uk T: +44 113 812 4730
    (on 22nd September, Leeds Metropolitan University will become Leeds Beckett University)





    From 22 September 2014 Leeds Metropolitan University will become Leeds Beckett University.
    Find out more at http://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk
    To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to:-
    http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/email-disclaimer.htm
  • Kris Craig at May 18, 2014 at 12:12 am


    Here are some behaviors that are appropriate:
    - Asking members of the list to vote on an RFC
    - Politely disagreeing with someone's proposal
    - Using a longer voting window than one week
    I agree with all those points. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the next
    points....
    Here are some behaviors that are inappropriate:
    - Asking members of the list to vote in a particular way
    There's nothing inappropriate about that. On the contrary, the whole point
    of voting discussion is to persuade. Asking people to support your
    position in an open thread is a good thing. Asking is not the same as
    coercing. And if somebody asked everyone to vote a certain way and you
    have a problem with that, you're free to ask everyone not to vote that way.
      You both then make your respective cases and people decide for themselves.

    - Dominating a mailing list discussion
    I've been guilty of this on more than one occasion, though I'd like to
    think I've done a fair job of muzzling myself after some complaints were
    raised a few years ago. However, it is worth noting that nothing is
    stopping you from increasing your participation in a given thread. People
    like me do need to hold ourselves back when it seems we're doing just about
    all the talking, but it is also incumbent on those who are feeling
    "dominated" to step-up and participate with equal vigor. I realize it's
    not in some people's nature to speak-up, just as it's not in other people's
    nature to keep quiet. We both have to be willing to overcome our nature to
    some extent when it comes to this.

      - Engaging in a heated debate
    >

    There is nothing inappropriate about this, either. Heated debate is
    inevitable on contentious issues. It can be a bit uncomfortable for some,
    but it is necessary. So long as people remain civil and don't resort to
    petty name-calling and whatnot, a heated discussion can be very
    constructive. So long as people disagree, there will be debate. The
    "heat" of that debate will be directly proportional to how strongly people
    on opposing sides believe in their position.

    Lastly, I ask that people take a moment to reread our mailing list
    rules:

    http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=blob_plain;f=README.MAILINGLIST_RULES;hb=HEAD

    I hope by being polite, civil and fair we can build a better PHP
    together.
    We agree on that. =)

    --Kris

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupphp-internals @
categoriesphp
postedMay 17, '14 at 8:00p
activeMay 19, '14 at 11:06a
posts15
users9
websitephp.net

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase