Hello, what you write and advocate for can't be heard by a vast majority of people here; because they are just not North-American; somehow that's a very interesting trait; most of people despise `kind` moralism.
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:14 PM Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net> wrote: > > On Oct 8, 2019, at 4:29 PM, Lynn <kja...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My middle ground is a vote, regardless of outcome. > > If a vote is the middle ground then why the need to participate in any > discussion? > > Also, how is a vote a middle ground? A vote ensures that one sides wins > and the other side looses. IOW, a zero-sum game. > > Why does it not make better sense to actively look for ways to optimize > outcomes so that the most people can win? For example... > > > This RFC is pretty simple, a deprecation + removal in a later patch, > there's not much to compromise on the implementation. > > A compromise might be "NO agreement to remove in a later patch." > > Why does it not make sense to offer that up as a consolation to the one > asking for deprecation? If they accepted and changed the RFC, then more > people could get a "win." > > > If people think a deprecation should not be done or if it's not worth > it, a vote is the way to show that opinion. > > If there are enough reasons to not deprecate them, the voting process > will show this and the RFC will be rejected. > > I have noticed on this list much discussion of the "minority vs. the > majority." But that is a red-herring. There are a small number of people > who have a vote (~200?) whereas there are over 5 million PHP developers and > even more PHP stakeholders who have no vote. > > In other words, when internals@ votes unanimously on an RFC they still > only represent ~0.004% of PHP stakeholders. Basically an aristocracy. > > So while a vote is a way to share an opinion, it is not representative of > the opinions of those it may affect. It is a shame that the PHP voting > process has no objective way to incorporate userland concerns except when > some act as their proxy. Which is not the same as userland having explicit > representatives with a vote. > > > PS. We need a CoC. > > 100% agree. > > -Mike > > P.S. I also think PHP needs an agreed statement of principles (Mission, > Vision and Values.) With said statement RFCs could be evaluated to > determine if they align with PHP's previously-agreed principles. Such a > statement could be revised from time to time, but having one would resolve > a lot of contentious debates before they happen. > > >
