RE: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR Meeting - Summary online

> From: Alexey Borzov [mailto:borz_off@cs.msu.su] > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 7:36 AM > Lukas Smith wrote: > > Actually both of these points were written by me. > > > > Regarding ITX-Sigma: > > We did not have a detailed discussion of this. However there were even > > some direct references to this being a good example of where a PEAR > > Group might have prevented greater harm. I know that George touched upon > > it briefly and I am very sure that I actually explicitly mentioned it as > > well. > > > > The example itself was mostly a cut and paste from a comment from > > Wolfram who commented on the prelease version (see below). > > Lukas, what was the *purpose* of this thing appearing in the summary? And > what > exactly is this mythical 'greater harm'? > > Unless you can answer both of the questions without much BS, I suggest > removing > the passage. Thanks in advance. Hi, This was an example of were current PEAR structures were unable to handle the situation. I think we can all agree here. You may be misinterpreting things here or putting too much into it though and finally we might not have been clear enough. A "veto" in this case could have also affected IT[X] development as in: "Alex go ahead commit this stuff" or rather "Pierre, its ok for him to commit". However this is not something we would like to have happen. At the meeting it was pretty much decided that redundant and even worse forks are not something we want in PEAR and that we need to build up structures and mechanisms to prevent this. The idea of "veto" in this context is to prevent things to get so out of hand that developers cannot effectively work together anymore. I will revisit the wording to make this more clear. But again this was an example who's purpose was not to illustrate a conflict where the PEAR group would act and on what scope. It was not meant was an example of what the exact decision would be. This is not something we discussed. This is a summary. And ITX:Sigma was an example that was brought up during the meeting of where PEAR administration failed. Regards, Lukas