Re: in search for XML-RPC developers/maintainers contact

Lukas Smith wrote: > Sergio Carvalho wrote: > >> As an aside: At what point can we call PEAR too bureaucratic? XML_RPC2 >> saw the first idea float around pear-dev 10 months ago(!), and since >> then has spent over four months waiting for various kinds of approvals >> and reviews... > > > I agree. Its time someone else decides on this. > Appearently Daniel only has time to maintain XML_RPC, but has no time to > devote to future developments. As such I agree its time we get an > exception ruled that lets XML_RPC2 go through the normal proposal > process. I think it should be within the powers of Daniel or the PEAR > Group to put such an exception for this case into place. > > Note I am not implying I am necessarily in favor if XML_RPC2, but the > situation is getting rediculous and I find it increasingly unfair to > expect Sergio to wait even longer for a decision. Which ever direction > it will take in the end. The package was already put to a proposal and accepted by PEAR peers even after the call for halting voting was made (this was my fault), so I don't think a re-proposal and vote would be necessary. I also have heard no problems in the code (and was the most vocal critic of an earlier incarnation, as you recall), so I recommend a speedy resolution to this issue. Incidentally, PEAR_Server cannot and will not be proposed to PEAR if something similar to XML_RPC2 is not available in PEAR. Greg