Re: Re: [PEPr] -1 for XML::XML_RPC2

Daniel Convissor wrote:

Hi Sergio: On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 07:07:16PM +0100, Sergio Carvalho wrote:

Excuse me for the heads up, but you should refrain from voting then. I can't discuss any issues with you if you're scared by the noise alone.

My vote is completely appropriate. I don't want the package approved at this point due to unresolved issues. I've read the discussions. I just haven't looked over the source code.

I don't see any guidelines for the criteria for voting up or down a package on PEAR's site, so perhaps you are right that your vote is appropriate. However, it sounds more to me like you're just saying you voted -1 to just support the dissenting opinions of others on the list. That's great! -- I look forward to a day when all PEAR voting is done this way: with complete ignorance of the actual content of a proposed package. I have complete faith in Sergio & Greg to work out their differences in terms of the package design. I haven't used XML_RPC2, but I looked at the code & I think Sergio did a great job. It may not be the "best" design for PHP (admittedly I tend to favor the more Java-esque implementations too) but it was certainly good. I think that perhaps voting for the package was premature, as it seems like Sergio & Greg do have more to discuss; however, I respect both of them a great deal (& know that they respect each other) and am completely confident that they'll come up with a great implementation. Voting -1 on this package instead of a conditional +1 (i.e. "great idea, but work it out!") is a pretty strong statement. I do think that voters have an obligation to actually look at the package code, *especially* if they're voting something down. Hopefully PEAR Group can add some guidelines to this end -- or perhaps they already have & I just didn't see them. Hans