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

On May 18, 2004, at 2:59 PM, Lukas Smith wrote:

Paul M Jones wrote:

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

I have better things to do with my time.

Right, I agree that the hourly basis thing is non sense

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 ;-).

good reasons to disolve the group .. I actually thought that respect for someone elses work can be sufficient to create trust sufficient to have something like the group.

Not really. I don't think the group should be dissolved for 1 to 3 developers brainstorming on the list.

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.

Believe it or not.

I think this negative light mantra doesn't really reflect the reality.

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.

Well I dont feel that this "open group" you talk about makes any sense. It simply will not be able to do what you say it should do. Outsiders can then just as well mail pear-dev. Mediation will not be possible because it will effectively become personal again. etc. But this has been said before by us.

Stig founded PEAR with the group and this shouldn't disappear now just because some people don't like/know how to work within a set of rules. If they want to play with their own rules, nothing stops them to open their own repository. Cheers David Costa

regards, Lukas Smith smith@backendmedia.com _______________________________ BackendMedia www.backendmedia.com berlin@backendmedia.com Linn Zwoch Smith GbR Pariser Str. 44 D-10707 Berlin Tel +49 30 83 22 50 00 Fax +49 30 83 22 50 07 -- PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php