Re: Ethics of competing proposals

On 7/18/05 9:09 AM Pacific Time, Lukas Smith (lsmith@php.net) wrote: > Just to make it clear. PEAR is a technical group. As such we are > interested in the best code. Thanks for clearing this up. : ) I'll leave a full response to this to those who are already upset about the quality of some PEAR packages, the PEAR package competition issue, etc. I have no personal axe to grind on this topic, but I know that others do. > While ego are involved its irrelevant to > PEAR who maintains what as long as the code is good and well maintained. > So if Luca gets the ball rolling, yet someone else provides the better > code, then there is no reason to accept Luca's code. What you are > suggesting sounds like a land grant due to creating inertia in a new > direction. I don't think I actually made a suggestion. What I'm questioning is how ethical it is for: 1. Person A to propose a package. 2. Person B to attempt to circumvent the entire PEPr process by simultaneously submitting a competing *proposal*. Based on what you're saying, this is okay to do? If so, I think it needs to be documented somewhere that the PEAR Group considers this acceptable behavior. > However I think we are still well on our way to a collaborative effort. > ... I am quite confident this will work out > and its obvious from the feedback that the PEAR world is sensitive > enough to the problem that support is there when needed. While I agree that it seems like things will work out well in this case, I think that the way we got here was atypical enough that it be explored and clarified as to what is considered to be acceptable behavior. Perhaps an RFC is in order regarding the notion that proposing a package may not guarantee that it ever gets to a vote, in case someone else steps up with a competing proposal? Or, an RFC for PEPr modifications to specifically handle competing proposals? -Clay -- Killersoft.com