Ethics of competing proposals

Am I the only one who is a little disturbed by what's gone on over the past few days with the HTML_AJAX proposals? To summarize events as they appear to me, from California time: Wednesday, July 13: ------------------ * Luca Mariano, first-time PEAR contributor, makes an informal HTML_AJAX package proposal to PEAR-DEV list. * Joshua Eichorn, fairly well-known PEAR contributor, and prolific writer thus far on PHP-friendly AJAX implementations, expresses resistance to having a "half baked" AJAX implementation in PEAR. * Lukas Smith, Pierre-Alain Joye, Nola Stowe, Alan Knowles, Joe Stump, and Sérgio Carvalho (and others) weigh in on the discussion, establishing that there are no rules for "stable only" packages being accepted into PEAR. The suggestion is made that Luca and Joshua collaborate on an HTML_AJAX implementation ... Even though at this point, only Luca has actually done anything towards putting a package together. * Joshua outlines features he feels an HTML_AJAX package should have that Luca's pre-proposal draft does not have. Friday, July 15 ------------------ * Luca gets a PEPr account, proposes HTML_AJAX. * 4-5 hours later, Joshua puts together an HTML_AJAX package that incorporates his suggestions for improvements to Luca's package, and solicits PEAR-DEV for co-maintainer assistance. Sunday, July 17 ------------------ * Joshua invites Luca, via a comment on the PEPr HTML_AJAX proposal, to switch his proposal's code to the code he put together on Friday. * Joshua asks the list > Finally what do I do about pepr, there is already and Ajax proposal > http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=275 > Do I wait for Luca to respond, can I just put in a competing proposal? Monday, July 18 ------------------ * A few posts from Lukas indicating (as I read them) an awareness of the ethical conflict brewing here. [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&m=112168154518885&w=2 [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&m=112168419110048&w=2 Now, I don't know Luca, and I don't know Joshua. I've never had any interaction with either of them. I am aware of Joshua's name in the community, and am aware of his writings on various AJAX toolkits. That said, the series of events above looks a lot like Joshua not liking the look of an AJAX package in PEAR, and also Joshua realizing that despite his rep as a PHP+AJAX authority, a PEAR implementation of AJAX is in proposal state that he's not associated with. What follows just seems like using established rep to bully a package proposer into (almost) backing off. All relatively cordial in its exchanges, but still seems a lot like bullying. I'm aware of the debate regarding competing packages, but to my knowledge, this is the first instance of an attempt to have competing proposals. I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone here -- I'm just curious if I'm the only one who feels like the democratic process isn't getting its due here. After all, any one of us could have proposed an HTML_AJAX package at any time ... Only Luca actually took the initiative to DO ONE. Shouldn't he get his day for an unchallenged PEPr vote? Should Luca's package be accepted, Joshua could contribute his enhancements and get added as a maintainer to the package ... Just like anyone else would on any other package proposal. Despite the fact that I really don't have time to be writing this, I felt it important to write, as what's going on here could be setting a precedent for how other proposals are challenged and handled. -Clay -- Killersoft.com