FAQ
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

Search Discussions

  • Kris Craig at May 28, 2014 at 8:08 am

    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:

    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
  • Pierre Joye at May 28, 2014 at 8:19 am

    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
    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
  • Stas Malyshev at May 28, 2014 at 8:24 am
    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
  • Ferenc Kovacs at May 28, 2014 at 8:30 am

    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Stas Malyshev 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.

    --
    Ferenc Kovács
    @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
  • Michael Wallner at May 28, 2014 at 9:12 am

    On 28 May 2014 10:29, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Stas Malyshev 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
  • Kris Craig at May 28, 2014 at 9:34 am

    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
    On 28 May 2014 10:29, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
    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
  • Lester Caine at May 28, 2014 at 9:45 am

    On 28/05/14 10:34, Kris Craig wrote:
    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
  • Peter Cowburn at May 28, 2014 at 8:29 am
    Hi,

    I'm only a lowly docs and phpweb guy, but here are my two pennies.
    On 28 May 2014 08:56, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:

    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
  • Lester Caine at May 28, 2014 at 9:31 am

    On 28/05/14 08:56, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
    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
  • Dmitry Stogov at May 28, 2014 at 10:26 am
    I think it's a good piece of news.
    Lets people see the information from the first place.

    Thanks. Dmitry.


    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:

    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
  • Michael Wallner at May 28, 2014 at 10:38 am

    On 28 May 2014 12:26, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
    I think it's a good piece of news.
    Lets people see the information from the first place.
    *facepalm*
  • Zeev Suraski at May 28, 2014 at 10:39 am

    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
  • Philip Sturgeon at May 28, 2014 at 10:40 am

    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
    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.
  • Johannes Schlüter at May 28, 2014 at 10:49 am

    On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 11:39 +0100, Philip Sturgeon wrote:
    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
  • Ferenc Kovacs at May 28, 2014 at 10:59 am

    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Philip Sturgeon wrote:
    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
    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.
    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
  • Zeev Suraski at May 28, 2014 at 11:05 am

    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
  • Pierre Joye at May 28, 2014 at 11:18 am
    On May 28, 2014 1:05 PM, "Zeev Suraski" wrote:
    >
    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
  • Zeev Suraski at May 28, 2014 at 11:21 am

    I'm not actually sure what it is opinionated about. If it's in regards to
    the
    "maybe JIT someday" aspects then that is clearly an open-ended comment,
    but mostly there to say "this is not actually a JIT" which did need to be
    said.
    Like Ferenc said, there's a tone in that message that is not subjective.
    I'm not even sure what it is, but it looks (or reads) awkward, and is unlike
    anything I can remember in the last 17+ years on www.php.net.
    If the choices are between writing blog posts to let the community know
    whats going on now and then, and rushing phpng because phpclasses.org
    spammed out another awful article, then I would pick keeping a blog going.
    I have no problem with blogging about it (on the contrary). www.php.net
    isn't a blog, though, it's the official news outlet of the PHP project and
    typically deals only with concrete versions. We never discuss anything
    internals@ related there, and the soonest we ever mention a PHP version on
    there is when it reaches alpha.

    I'm also not saying phpng should be 'rushed', although I would definitely be
    happy if it sped up a bit. To put things in perspective, I think that if we
    all work efficiently and everything aligns, mid 2015 is the soonest we might
    see a phpng-based version coming out. In order for that to happen, though,
    we need to start moving things along.
    blog.php.net would be awesome. If we can get that going then this article
    can be moved over there once its up, and people will see who wrote it and
    all
    of that good stuff. Please though, leave this where it is until then or
    the
    group looks indecisive as hell.
    I don't think this article should have been published on www.php.net in the
    first place, and I don't think it should stay there just because it happens
    to already be there.

    Zeev
  • Zeev Suraski at May 28, 2014 at 11:38 am

    Like Ferenc said, there's a tone in that message that is not subjective.
    I'm not
    even sure what it is, but it looks (or reads) awkward, and is unlike
    anything I
    can remember in the last 17+ years on www.php.net.
    s/not subjective/subjective
  • Guilhermeblanco at May 28, 2014 at 1:43 pm
    Can we please have an RFC around it, vote and then you guys can announce
    wildly on php.net?
    I feel really frustrated that a main article on php.net frontpage proclaims
    that next PHP will have something that haven't even been voted internally.
    Otherwise, anyone with website karma can post a new feature support (even
    though it was not yet voted) and we'll have to deal with the situation
    later if it gets rejected.

    Thanks,

    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:

    Like Ferenc said, there's a tone in that message that is not subjective.
    I'm not
    even sure what it is, but it looks (or reads) awkward, and is unlike
    anything I
    can remember in the last 17+ years on www.php.net.
    s/not subjective/subjective

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

    --
    Guilherme Blanco
    MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com
    GTalk: guilhermeblanco
    Toronto - ON/Canada
  • Jonny Stirling at May 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm

    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com wrote:

    Can we please have an RFC around it, vote and then you guys can announce
    wildly on php.net?
    I feel really frustrated that a main article on php.net frontpage
    proclaims
    that next PHP will have something that haven't even been voted internally.
    Otherwise, anyone with website karma can post a new feature support (even
    though it was not yet voted) and we'll have to deal with the situation
    later if it gets rejected.

    Thanks,
    First off, I don't see anywhere in the post that specifies this is going to
    be in PHP.next or otherwise unlike other posts around the internet which
    are filled with inaccuracies. Others have said it is opinionated, but I
    would suspect that's Joe's way of trying to make the post seem up-beat.

    Was it the wrong place to post? Maybe. Was there a better alternative.....
    possibly not.

    Saying that, the language used in the post was perhaps a little on the lax
    side, but it was approved not by an individual, but by a group of what I
    can only assume were the relevant people, so discussing it now and
    retrospectively saying it's "unprofessional" is a bit late, but perhaps can
    end up being useful.

    As for the idea of an RFC. This seems a completely over-the-top solution
    for a relatively minor issue. In the long run, PHPNG and the work being
    done in and around the place are arguably news worthy and as above, the
    post was apparently reviewed. On top of that, there appear to have been
    legitimate reasons for publishing the off-norm posting on php.net.

    Now, a possible solution to this. Simple. A separate blog (whatever the URL
    may be). From what I can tell, Joe has already brought this up and
    potentially volunteered to deal with it(?) and if so, great, I hope he's
    still interested in going forward with it after this morning.

    Internals as it stands is not a public friendly place to try and keep up
    with what's going on inside of PHP (see this thread), so this idea gives,
    in particular, userland developers, the ability to keep up-to-date without
    having to jump through hoops to get onto / read the mailing list and then
    have to parse out an awful lot of noise to work out what's going on. While
    this may not be an issue for internals developers, I'm sure people who
    aren't would certainly be interested in reading this kind of information.

    Probably a little over my 2 cents worth of bikeshedding, but hopefully of
    relevance.

    Jonny
  • Zeev Suraski at May 28, 2014 at 2:29 pm
    Jonny,



    If anything, I think how we’re handling this on these lists is lax…



    Someone (I don’t even know who it is and it doesn’t really matter) put
    facts on the ground and published an article on www.php.net that deviates
    greatly from anything we ever publish there without getting anything
    remotely close to an approval. Whomever those 3 people that gave him the
    green light, it was wrong. We never publish anything remotely similar on
    there, not even approved RFCs let alone unapproved ones.



    Honestly I’m not sure why we’re debating this so much. The fact-putting
    needs to be undone as quickly as possible. The burden of proof as to why
    it makes sense to keep it there should be on those who want to deviate from
    how www.php.net has been running for the past 15 years, not the other way
    around.



    Zeev





    *From:* Jonny Stirling
    *Sent:* Wednesday, May 28, 2014 5:22 PM
    *To:* guilhermeblanco@gmail.com
    *Cc:* Zeev Suraski; Philip Sturgeon; Ferenc Kovacs; PHP Internals;
    php-webmaster
    *Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] about the latest frontpage entry



    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com wrote:

    Can we please have an RFC around it, vote and then you guys can announce
    wildly on php.net?
    I feel really frustrated that a main article on php.net frontpage proclaims
    that next PHP will have something that haven't even been voted internally.
    Otherwise, anyone with website karma can post a new feature support (even
    though it was not yet voted) and we'll have to deal with the situation
    later if it gets rejected.

    Thanks,





    First off, I don't see anywhere in the post that specifies this is going to
    be in PHP.next or otherwise unlike other posts around the internet which
    are filled with inaccuracies. Others have said it is opinionated, but I
    would suspect that's Joe's way of trying to make the post seem up-beat.



    Was it the wrong place to post? Maybe. Was there a better alternative.....
    possibly not.



    Saying that, the language used in the post was perhaps a little on the lax
    side, but it was approved not by an individual, but by a group of what I
    can only assume were the relevant people, so discussing it now and
    retrospectively saying it's "unprofessional" is a bit late, but perhaps can
    end up being useful.



    As for the idea of an RFC. This seems a completely over-the-top solution
    for a relatively minor issue. In the long run, PHPNG and the work being
    done in and around the place are arguably news worthy and as above, the
    post was apparently reviewed. On top of that, there appear to have been
    legitimate reasons for publishing the off-norm posting on php.net.



    Now, a possible solution to this. Simple. A separate blog (whatever the URL
    may be). From what I can tell, Joe has already brought this up and
    potentially volunteered to deal with it(?) and if so, great, I hope he's
    still interested in going forward with it after this morning.



    Internals as it stands is not a public friendly place to try and keep up
    with what's going on inside of PHP (see this thread), so this idea gives,
    in particular, userland developers, the ability to keep up-to-date without
    having to jump through hoops to get onto / read the mailing list and then
    have to parse out an awful lot of noise to work out what's going on. While
    this may not be an issue for internals developers, I'm sure people who
    aren't would certainly be interested in reading this kind of information.



    Probably a little over my 2 cents worth of bikeshedding, but hopefully of
    relevance.



    Jonny
  • Jonny Stirling at May 28, 2014 at 2:51 pm
    Zeev,

    I think you missed my point a bit. While I don't disagree with what you
    say, my point, if any, is a hope that once this is sorted we will end up
    with something that does provide a place for this kind of thing to go.

    Bottom line. It's happened, it's now up to those in charge to decide what
    to do next whether that's removing or leaving it. If nothing else I feel
    it's shown a gap in the information provided on php.net that can be filled
    going forward if people are motivated to do so.

    We will see what happens :).

    Jonny.

    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:

    Jonny,



    If anything, I think how we’re handling this on these lists is lax…



    Someone (I don’t even know who it is and it doesn’t really matter) put
    facts on the ground and published an article on www.php.net that deviates
    greatly from anything we ever publish there without getting anything
    remotely close to an approval. Whomever those 3 people that gave him the
    green light, it was wrong. We never publish anything remotely similar on
    there, not even approved RFCs let alone unapproved ones.



    Honestly I’m not sure why we’re debating this so much. The fact-putting
    needs to be undone as quickly as possible. The burden of proof as to why
    it makes sense to keep it there should be on those who want to deviate from
    how www.php.net has been running for the past 15 years, not the other way
    around.



    Zeev





    *From:* Jonny Stirling
    *Sent:* Wednesday, May 28, 2014 5:22 PM
    *To:* guilhermeblanco@gmail.com
    *Cc:* Zeev Suraski; Philip Sturgeon; Ferenc Kovacs; PHP Internals;
    php-webmaster
    *Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] about the latest frontpage entry



    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com <
    guilhermeblanco@gmail.com> wrote:

    Can we please have an RFC around it, vote and then you guys can announce
    wildly on php.net?
    I feel really frustrated that a main article on php.net frontpage
    proclaims
    that next PHP will have something that haven't even been voted internally.
    Otherwise, anyone with website karma can post a new feature support (even
    though it was not yet voted) and we'll have to deal with the situation
    later if it gets rejected.

    Thanks,





    First off, I don't see anywhere in the post that specifies this is going
    to be in PHP.next or otherwise unlike other posts around the internet which
    are filled with inaccuracies. Others have said it is opinionated, but I
    would suspect that's Joe's way of trying to make the post seem up-beat.



    Was it the wrong place to post? Maybe. Was there a better alternative.....
    possibly not.



    Saying that, the language used in the post was perhaps a little on the lax
    side, but it was approved not by an individual, but by a group of what I
    can only assume were the relevant people, so discussing it now and
    retrospectively saying it's "unprofessional" is a bit late, but perhaps can
    end up being useful.



    As for the idea of an RFC. This seems a completely over-the-top solution
    for a relatively minor issue. In the long run, PHPNG and the work being
    done in and around the place are arguably news worthy and as above, the
    post was apparently reviewed. On top of that, there appear to have been
    legitimate reasons for publishing the off-norm posting on php.net.



    Now, a possible solution to this. Simple. A separate blog (whatever the
    URL may be). From what I can tell, Joe has already brought this up and
    potentially volunteered to deal with it(?) and if so, great, I hope he's
    still interested in going forward with it after this morning.



    Internals as it stands is not a public friendly place to try and keep up
    with what's going on inside of PHP (see this thread), so this idea gives,
    in particular, userland developers, the ability to keep up-to-date without
    having to jump through hoops to get onto / read the mailing list and then
    have to parse out an awful lot of noise to work out what's going on. While
    this may not be an issue for internals developers, I'm sure people who
    aren't would certainly be interested in reading this kind of information.



    Probably a little over my 2 cents worth of bikeshedding, but hopefully of
    relevance.



    Jonny
  • Andi Gutmans at May 28, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    On May 28, 2014, at 12:56 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
    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
  • Zeev Suraski at May 28, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    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
  • Michael Wallner at May 28, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    On 28 May 2014 16:25, Zeev Suraski wrote:

    "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
  • Levi Morrison at May 28, 2014 at 2:58 pm
    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.
  • Levi Morrison at May 28, 2014 at 3:34 pm
    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.
  • Zeev Suraski at May 28, 2014 at 3:48 pm

    On 28 במאי 2014, at 18:34, Levi Morrison wrote:

    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
  • Levi Morrison at May 28, 2014 at 4:00 pm

    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.
  • Ferenc Kovacs at May 28, 2014 at 4:15 pm

    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:

    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
  • Zeev Suraski at May 28, 2014 at 4:30 pm
    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
  • Ferenc Kovacs at May 28, 2014 at 4:47 pm

    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:

    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
  • Zeev Suraski at May 28, 2014 at 4:58 pm
    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.
  • Pierre Joye at May 28, 2014 at 5:01 pm

    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
    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
  • Johannes Schlüter at May 28, 2014 at 7:02 pm

    On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 18:47 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:

    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
  • Ferenc Kovacs at May 28, 2014 at 7:33 pm

    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
    On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 18:47 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:

    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
  • Zeev Suraski at May 28, 2014 at 8:36 pm
    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<http://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).



    Thanks,



    Zeev
  • Levi Morrison at May 28, 2014 at 8:38 pm

    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
    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?
  • Zeev Suraski at May 28, 2014 at 8:42 pm
    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
  • Zeev Suraski at May 28, 2014 at 9:42 pm
    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
  • Kris Craig at May 29, 2014 at 2:01 am
    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


    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:

    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

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
  • Levi Morrison at May 29, 2014 at 6:29 am

    On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
    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.
  • Joe Watkins at May 29, 2014 at 7:40 am
    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.
  • Ferenc Kovacs at May 29, 2014 at 8:05 am

    On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:

    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
  • Rasmus Lerdorf at May 29, 2014 at 8:08 am

    On 5/29/14, 12:40 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
    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
  • Zeev Suraski at May 29, 2014 at 8:45 am

    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 want to point out the obvious and - putting blog entries on www.php.net
    requires a radical change in how we view www.php.net and I'm not even sure
    what process would have to be followed in order to get there; Also, an
    email to webmaster@ would have helped us become aware of the problem more
    quickly - but let's be clear to everyone, those changes shouldn't get onto
    www.php.net, message to webmaster@ or not. I'm pretty sure that's what you
    meant, just wanted to make sure nobody misreads it as a carte blanche to
    commit such blog entries if 5 people give thumbs up and a notification is
    sent to webmaster@.

    Zeev
  • Rasmus Lerdorf at May 29, 2014 at 8:47 am

    On 5/29/14, 1:45 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
    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 want to point out the obvious and - putting blog entries on www.php.net
    requires a radical change in how we view www.php.net and I'm not even sure
    what process would have to be followed in order to get there; Also, an
    email to webmaster@ would have helped us become aware of the problem more
    quickly - but let's be clear to everyone, those changes shouldn't get onto
    www.php.net, message to webmaster@ or not. I'm pretty sure that's what you
    meant, just wanted to make sure nobody misreads it as a carte blanche to
    commit such blog entries if 5 people give thumbs up and a notification is
    sent to webmaster@.
    I meant that a note to webmaster@ would have alerted the rest of the web
    team and we would have avoided this whole mess.

    -Rasmus
  • Zeev Suraski at May 29, 2014 at 8:49 am

    I meant that a note to webmaster@ would have alerted the rest of the web
    team and we would have avoided this whole mess.
    Agreed.

    Zeev
  • Hannes Magnusson at May 30, 2014 at 4:00 pm

    On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
    I meant that a note to webmaster@ would have alerted the rest of the web
    team and we would have avoided this whole mess.
    Agreed.

    Probably not, as I still would have promised him to create
    blog.php.net if he successfully pulled of two updates.

    I don't see this as a mess either. We tried to do something new with
    out dead frontpage - which we have been hoping to achieve for many
    many years now. Unfortunately it didn't work out.

    It did not create security issues in PHP. It did not result in data
    loss. It didn't harm anyone.

    We've learned that people that flame us for not changing and not
    accepting contributions from new people.
    The same people also flame us for changing and accepting contributions
    from new people.

    Its easy to hate on things. Its difficult to try to move forward and
    test out new things. At least he tried.
    Now lets not be making this into something it isn't.


    -Hannes

Related Discussions

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase