Re: Package proposal misuse?

Ups... sorry OMC is the portuguese for WTO.... Citando "rocha@i-node.com.br" <rocha@i-node.com.br>: > Hi, > > I think the management of proposals is the central point > to the survival of PEAR. And I saw this flame war start over and over > in this ML the last year. No solution at all, just words in the wind. On one > > side we have the 'OMC' people saying 'just the rich people must decide!' > on the other the Seatle people yelling 'everyone must decide!'. > > During this time a saw a lot of proposals (one mine also) just fade way > without coments, with one or two +1's, etc. But no concluding status. We > are > nor denyed or accepted. The main problem i think is that OMC x Seatle thing. > > I have seen lots of "no one voting" most of the time. I personally, when see > > a proposal, ask myself should i vote or shouldnt? That isnt right. Someone > have to decide, or no one will. Maybe a group of developers > should should step forward or be choosen to do some pre-vote/analysis of > the > package. Then the package should be but on the "every one can vote" PAGE, so > > people can have their space too. > > I really think is about time to organize this issue. > > S.Rocha > > PS.: I know there is something about proposal rules at the PEAR site, but > looks > like no one is reading/agreeing with it. > > > > people who fall into the $DEVELOPERS category, there is more then enough > > > > opinions & points of view to determine the merits of package exclusion or > > > > inclusion. Inviting anyone from the street to make such decisions is a > bad > > > > > idea. You would have no reflection on the person level of competence, > which > > > > > you could determine about a $DEVELOPER by looking at their code and prior > > > > communication(s) to the list. You also have no guarantee that people > voting > > > > > are in fact distinct users, a person with multiple e-mail addresses, ips > > > > could easily trick the system. > > > A compromise of sorts would be to allow anyone to comment on the package. > > > > Which may bring up previously unconsidered benefits and downsides of a > > > particular package. However, the final vote of the merits of the package > > > > should be up to $DEVELOPERS and $GROUP (PEAR Group). Personally, I'd be > > much > > > happier if package acceptance decisions were $GROUP only, but that's > > probably > > > impractical. > > > > > > Ilia > > > > > > > *sigh* > > > > I find it hard to believe that 503 PEAR-DEVs can decide accurately what > > millions of people want. Also bring into the fact that theres maybe 50 > > people who ever actually vote on the ML, this just doesn't sit right > > with me. > > > > Ultimately, yes, the PEAR-DEVs/PEAR-GROUP should say what goes in and > > out, but the public should have their say, perhaps it'll make the DEVs > > go "wow, actually, I was wrong, people love this, perhaps it should be +1" > > > > I'm only trying to make sure that the devs are not some sort of deity > > figure. The public is what makes PEAR, without anyone to actually use > > the scripts and promote their use etc, we may aswell not have it. > > > > - Davey > > > > > > -- > > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ > > -- > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/