Re: Ethics of competing proposals

Clay Loveless wrote:

I don't think I actually made a suggestion. What I'm questioning is how ethical it is for:

And I am saying that the acceptance of a package has nothing to do with ethics. However in order to better work together inside PEAR developers should try and be as friendly with eachother as possible.

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.

I am not the PEAR Group nor a member (anymore). To me this seems rather obvious. Not sure if we need an official thing in the manual about this. But maybe we do need some better explanation of the PEAR "principles". I have made by personal stab at this in an article for the international php magazin: http://phpmag.net/itr/ausgaben/psecom,id,275,nodeid,112.html This article will likely to be published on their website eventually anyways, but I am sure they would be happy if someone would buy the issue just because of my blathering :-) Anyways .. once its published it might become a starting point for an official manual entry.

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?

Hmm I dont see this as a proposal process thing at all. I see this as a "How does PEAR deal with competing packages" thing. And here the answer so far has been "no redundant packages are welcome unless they superceed the pervious solution or they take a different approach" (thats the short answer to a complex problem). regards, Lukas