Re: About the Group (was "Proposal Finished Console_Getargs")

On May 18, 2004, at 2:53 PM, Paul M Jones wrote:

Hi, Quick note on this issue ...

I dont know why everyone assumes that the group has evil intent instead of if there might have been another more plausible reason.

Regardless of how benevolent it may be in fact, all government is assumed to be "in it for itself" by default. The only remedy for this is preemptive transparency and obsessive communication (on an hourly basis if needed) about the reasons behind, options for, and methods of decision-making. It's nothing against PEAR Group per se, but I think most open-source developers have an innate distrust of authority ("power corrupts" and all that ;-).

Not really. I trust that before joining PEAR every developer read read http://pear.php.net/group/ There is a PHP Group too BTW. Obsessive communication on an hourly basis is NOT something you can demand from volunteers. This is not a full time job. The distrust of authority is, excuse me, BS. This was first raised by Alexey and again, it is BS. You don't trust/like PEAR ? then you have a problem, not the PEAR Group. Unless you or anyone else has a proof of any wrongdoing by the Group, these are just useless words which will have no other result then upsetting people like Lukas that donated their own time to make PEAR better.

The Group generally responds to calls for transparency with variations on "You don't need to know" such as "What we do it boring, you really don't want to see it," "No need for a publicly-readable PEAR-GROUP mailing list", and so on. This is why the Group is often seen in a negative light. "Trust but verify." By allowing anyone to verify, the Group will earn the trust it wants to have.

It has it already.

Anyways I think its becoming pointless if everybody thinks that the group is just some inner circle on a power trip.

If it reserves a veto for itself, that sounds like a power trip. It's poor advertising; you might not actually use it, but having it just looks bad. The circumstances under which veto may be applied are not spelled out; it's like having a law that says "the police may take your car away from you" without saying when, how, or why, and what recourse you might have. It's not a power trip, it is clearly stated on http://pear.php.net/manual/en/developers.contributing.howto.php

" The registration process is quite straightforward: Fill out the form on this site and submit the information. After you have done that, the PEAR Group has to finally approve your submission. " I don't really understand why people submit a package proposal under a set of binding rules and then complain about these rules.

So I guess we might as well kill it off. Anyways pear-dev has the assume PEPr system to put anything to a vote any of its members feel like having a vote on. I suggest that those people that feel that the group has become a separate entity which is forcing their opinions into pear-dev start an RFC to get the group removed.

Personally, I think the group is a good idea; as a management and standards tool, it could be fantastic. I think that without the Group, the culture and social standards of PEAR will deteriorate rapidly to the level of phpclasses or hotscripts. Some form of a managing body must be retained, I think.

I agree

Perhaps a method for replacing Group members on a regular schedule is a good idea, perhaps on an automatic rotating basis, or by voting, or by random selection... Just an idea.

could be really the case for group members who are not able to donate their time any longer.

To me the purpose was to help pear-dev work efficiently, but I have better things to do then having to deal with these constant accusations. I dont know what the majority feels like, however the majority is sure not defending the group either .. so I guess I have to assume that the majority doesnt care.

It doesn't. Whether or not that majority cares does not mean that having a leading group is unwise. I think having such body *is* wise. The trust issues you talk about are very easy to remedy, *if* the Group will open itself up to scrutiny (and *look* like it -- appearances are very important on these points). You have heard the suggestions, all that is needed is to implement them. Big Hugs, from Jones the Ogre.

;) Regards David Costa

-- Paul M. Jones Savant: the simple alternative to Smarty for PHP. http://phpsavant.com/ DB_Table: build RDBMS tables and XHTML forms in one PHP class. http://wiki.ciaweb.net/yawiki/index.php?area=DB_Table Yawiki: your collaborative online documentation system. http://wiki.ciaweb.net/yawiki/index.php?area=Yawiki -- PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php