Re: Discussion of SCM_SVN Proposal

<smith@backendmedia.com> wrote : > Lukas Smith wrote: > >> Bertrand Mansion wrote: >> >>> <smith@backendmedia.com> wrote : >>> >>> >>>> So what I wanted to say is that you all are really doing a hood job of >>>> getting to the root of things and that "outsiders" need to really know >>>> what they are saying before they jump in. Otherwise they run the danger >>>> of heating up a debate that was well on its way in the right direction >>> >>> What do you mean by "outsiders" ? >> >> People who are not fully aware of the entire topic at hand. > > Maybe clarify that a bit more .. since I dont consider my self an > "insider" of the topic at hand, I wouldnt know who all the "insiders" > are, but they would certainly include be Chuck, Jan, Clay and Volker. > > All I am saying is the thread is moving in the right direction from my > perspective as an "outsider" to the topic, so I just wanted to say that > people trying to mediate should be aware that they might do harm to > something which doesnt seem to need mediation. That being said I am not > telling people to shut up who have valueable things to say and who have > taken the time to get intimate with the topci at hand. I personally think that people familiar with Subversion and who have reviewed Clay's code, are, in your own terms, "insiders" because they are trying to find out if Clay's code is ok to be included in PEAR and which changes are needed. Alan's comments on Clay's code are actually very pertinent. On the other hand, I think Chuck and Jan are "outsiders", because whether Horde_VC is to go in PEAR or Clay's code is to go in Horde has nothing to do with Clay's proposal and our all proposal system in PEAR. In the past, we have said no to Binary Cloud, to PHPlib, and maybe a few others. I don't see why Horde should be treated differently. If people from Horde want to contribute to PEAR, good. There is PEPr for that. If they think their code is better available only in Horde, good too. There are probably advantages to both solution. By having their code in PEAR, they expose it to a larger audience and might get more feedback or fixes in return. By keeping it in Horde, they might get more audience to their project alone. But that's not the point. The point is really that people see PEAR as being closed (as shown in the recent discussions we had) and the way Clay's proposal has been treated won't help give a better image of PEAR, and won't help us to get more proposals. I am surprised that you are not worried about the low number of proposals we actually get. Well, as a PEAR Group member, you should be worried. And you should be worried too that Horde people have so much power here that they can stop a good proposal, without saying anything interesting about the proposed code. I understand that they are trying to promote their project, a bit like Manuel Lemos used to do with PHPClasses, but they should do it more wisely and try not to discourage other people making proposals. What if Manuel commented every proposal by saying "I think you should look at phpclasses.org, there is a class that already does just that". At least, he stopped doing it. PEAR is strong enough not to rely on outside projects like Horde and, in the future, it is projects like Horde that will maybe rely on PEAR. But to achieve this, we have to be more open. I already know a lot of projects that rely on PEAR. If you don't understand that, well, too bad. Those were just comments from an "outsider". Bertrand Mansion Mamasam