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

Greg Beaver wrote:

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 I think it makes sense to get RPC2 in there ASAP.

The first step is be for Sergio to create a new package (http://pear.php.net/package-new.php) then for a PEAR Group member to approve it, QA does not have the necessary rights to do that. After that, you know the drill. Arnaud.