Re: [PEPr] Call for votes on XML::XML_RPC2 (reproposal)

Pierre-Alain Joye wrote: > > I will not, as said. I will even be happy if your package will get > in. However my point here is about maintainers and their rights and > roles. I'm not going to do anything more inside PEAR if one can > come in with a major version and get it approved using a proposal. Glad to hear that. To cap the discussion, I'd just like to clarify that I never questioned the "rights and roles" of maintainers. The use I'm giving to pepr here is not meant to produce an automatic acceptance. I'm using the proposal in pepr to frame a technical evaluation of the major milestone. I could have talked with the lead devs and gotten the package in without public discussion. I did not, because I feel this package, since it can be part of a PHP5 pear core, must be widely reviewed. Again I urge the centering of the discussion in the technical evaluation of XML_RPC2. *If* everything is technically ok with it, then we can discuss commiting to the XML_RPC package. For later thinking, and probably to spawn a discussion of PEAR procedures, I think this process should be required for major milestones of packages. Backward compatibility breaks are the prime time for gathering opinions from the package users on correcting previous API shortcomings. However, this is food for thought and a discussion to be talked about some other time. > What I suggested is that you role back your proposal to draft and > wait Daniel's feedbacks. If everything is fine with him,then you > can even directly commit it unde XML_RPC2. That would accomplish nothing. The package has been discussed to the ground in previous instances; the changes incorporate all requestes made by package users from the previous voting cycle, so there should be no major roadblocks. I am, naturally, here to debate criticism to what is written. I repeat, voting does not preclude debate. Cheers, -- Sérgio Carvalho