Re: Vote process change proposal

Hi! > Repeatedly, explicitly, strongly asking to shut down a RFC or general > proposal is what I consider as harassment. Even more if prominent > figures do it. As I suspected, your definition of harassment is very different from mine. If someone would ask me to shutdown RFC without explanation, I'd just ignore it, with explanation - I may discuss it, but I don't see how it qualifies as "harassment". > But I have the damn right to say that most of the times private, > extensive, and long discussions to finalize damage OSS projects. And > recent events here tell me that I am right to think so. You have full right to say it, but if you expect this to be believed, you'd need some proof. I must note despite my pleas, no substantiation of ominous but vague statements about "what is happening" and "devastating problem" has been provided. > Now, you can convince me by actually me explaining cases where private, > extensive long discussions are actually good and I will proudly change > my mind. I can only base on my own experience, but in PHP world when I participated in namespaces work, I've held both public and private discussions with a lot of people. Both kinds were very useful. When we started 5.4, I remember private discussion with one very active and prominent project participant, who I'm sure you know too. I am not sure if you consider that one "good" or not, and probably doesn't qualify as "extensive long", but on my side I think it helped to move the project further. I'm sure I could remember more examples, but given the lack of proof so far that there is any damage from occasional private discussion, I think that's enough for now. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com