Re: Using Other Channels (was Scalar Type Declarations v0.5)

Zeev, On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmaxell@gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:24 PM >> To: francois@php.net >> Cc: Lester Caine; internals@lists.php.net >> Subject: [PHP-DEV] Using Other Channels (was Scalar Type Declarations >> v0.5) >> >> Let me quote something that was said: >> >> "Ze'ev and François have not-so-politely asked [Sara] to not put 0.4 >> forward >> since they have something they believe they have consensus on." > > Anthony, > > Please stop this. I have been in touch with Sara, yes, but it was > absolutely and 100% polite, which I'm sure she'll confirm if you ask her. I > can't speak for François as I wasn't a part of whatever correspondence they > had between them. > And no, quoting someone else instead of you making that statement and > doesn't make it any better. That was a quote directly from Sara in a public chat room. It wasn't "someone else". So it seems like there was a failure in communication if you felt that it was 100% polite, and she described it as "not-so-politely". > To be clear, the proposal you're pushing as v0.5 is very different from what > she had in mind for v0.4, based on the initial discussions on internals. > She was trying to listen in to issues and come up with substantial changes > to the v0.3 RFC to radically increase the consensus around it. v0.5, on the > other hand, is, for the most part, v0.3 with opinionated, discussionless > explanations of why it's absolutely fine to keep as-is. Correct. v0.5 is very much in line with 0.3. Because many have been asking for it. Because I truely believe that the discussions that were happening around 0.4 and the other proposals have been moving further away from a good consensus rather than towards it. So I saw what I believe is a good proposal, and moved forward with it, tweaking the few things that I thought had to be tweaked. >> We had a proposal that *had* consensus >> (66%). It was withdrawn. > > 66% is not consensus. It's a form of special majority but by any stretch > absolutely not consensus in any definition of the word. > I'm not going to refer to your guesstimates you have about your ability to > reach consensus with slight modifications to the proposal, but I can say > that I know there are at least a few people that voted yes, and in light of > the new proposal that's forming up would now vote no, preferring that new > option. Then that's great! But let's find that out by voting rather than guessing, and rather than politicking. Let's let two competing proposals go head to head. Anthony