Re: RE: Zend +Paypal = PEAR::SOAP??

On 6/30/05, bertrand Gugger <bertrand@toggg.com> wrote: > Justin Patrin wrote: > > >On 6/21/05, George Schlossnagle <george@omniti.com> wrote: > > > > > >>On Jun 21, 2005, at 7:59 PM, Davey Shafik wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Shane Caraveo wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Davey Shafik wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>My other reason for pointing this out is that having companies > >>>>>support packages is a *good* thing, but we need to come up with a > >>>>>strategy on how this is to be done, who gets paid, etc. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>Why? I think it's a non-issue. It's not like someone who nobody > >>>>knew could get stuff through to cvs without it being scrutinized > >>>>by someone in the pear-dev group. And the pear group has no way > >>>>to make an organization to hire a specific person for a job. > >>>>Shane > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Shane, > >>> > >>>The point it put a process in place where companies can approach > >>>specific package developers and offer them money. Of make it known > >>>that they're working on it internally and wish to contribute their > >>>changes back. > >>> > >>>Not that PEAR handles these monetary transactions or anything, just > >>>that it facilitates and encourage this kind of participation and co- > >>>operation. > >>> > >>> > >>Why should a company want to work through a vague, non-corporate > >>identity for this sort of thing? What precisely is the PEAR group's > >>value-add in this situation? And what business is it of yours (or > >>anyones) what company X hires person Y to do to a BSD-style licensed > >>project? It's not your business nor anyone else's. The package > >>maintainer always has the right to refuse to merge the changes, > >>besides that you have no empowerment at all. > >> > >> > >> > > > >I really don't understand what all this animosity is about. This > >reminds me a lot of bertrand Gugger's first e-mails to the list (or > >was it the other guy) who was scared of the QA team. > > > It's really bad language, please give some references about your > accusations against me. > Don't talk of animosity, it's perhaps worse here to attack someone > pesonnally, loosely, without any real matter. Sorry, didn't mean to offend. I did say that it might not have been you. Either you or another person who joined the list near to the time you did was saying that they didn't trust the QA team. I'm just mentioning that this is similar in tone to the current conversation. -- Justin Patrin