Re: Re: [PEPr] Proposal finished Console::Console_Getargs

Lukas Smith wrote:

I dont know why everyone assumes that the group has evil intent instead of if there might have been another more plausible reason. Anyways I think its becoming pointless if everybody thinks that the group is just some inner circle on a power trip. So I guess we might as well kill it off. Anyways pear-dev has the assume PEPr system to put

The problem is not the existence of the group, it is the unelected membership. It would be much better to have a representative group of people elected by pear developers to handle these things, and relatively brief terms with re-election possible. This way, those who are simply too busy will not be accused of anything other than being too busy or unresponsive. PEPr could easily be modified to handle voting for PEAR Group members, if Toby/someone else who coded it feels they have the time to do it. We needn't get too involved in the elections unless there is a crucial issue. Honestly, if there is a crucial issue, I think the evidence shows we get involved in 500-message threads anyways, so that won't be anything new :). In other words, people will always blame problems on what is perceived to be a flaw in the structure. If the PEAR group consisted entirely of Java developers, grumbling would be "well, they aren't really PHP developers" if it was only people from phpclasses.org, people would say "They don't really understand PEAR." Since the problem is that no one voted for the group, they say "the group doesn't really care about or understand what is important to me/my view of PEAR." Incidentally, there are enough high-quality coders in PEAR, I don't think we need to fear that someone is going to take PEAR in an awful direction just because the majority wants them to lead. After all, nobody's middle name is Dubya (oops, did I say that out loud?) I'll bet that if there was a democratic election, many of the current PEAR Group members would simply be elected to do what you're already doing, but this time with a mandate. I don't see a huge political turmoil in the making :). Greg