Re[2]: [PEAR-QA] Documentation..

Hello Lukas, From Tuesday, December 7, 2004, 2:37:50 AM, you wrote: LS> I dont think you realize the level of democracy PEAR has compared to LS> most other opensource projects ... php inparticular. Your point about LS> documentation in general is well taken. Your arguments on a few ruling LS> the rest are so far off base ... I compare that level with TikiWiki. My arguments are weak, but the stress is that there are some guys, that are standing over me. That's not an original PEAR authors. They seem to be self-claimed (7 votes of 200) and can seriously influence my freedom in open-source. And they want me to know that I have to obey they rules too along with general PEAR CS and guidelines. I can't trust them, because I don't know them and haven't seen any of their deeds to have a respect. LS> The point is that if you make any half way serious contribution beyond LS> talk you are in the PEAR development community. Thats it. I am sure we LS> can even squeeze out a PEAR dev account for a regular doc contributor. LS> Its a bit harder to take over a package or getting a proposal in, but LS> even there if you are serious you just need to lurk here for that LS> orphaned package that is put up for grabs here. How can I make contribution if all of the most easy protocols are already implemented, nobody interested in another template engine, PHP applications are not welcomed in PEAR. And I don't have time to work with some Math:: packages, because I'm using Net_Socket, File_Search, XML_RPC and others.. And I can't write docs for things that I'm not interested in. All of my RFE's are either open and developers are silent about even receipt confirmation. All of my patches are still open due to the same reason or there just nobody from controlling instance to verify they work. I can live without PEAR dev account and I'm not in begging you about squeezing an account, but I don't want my efforts to be wasted. LS> So while I dont quite know what you mean "I am not a developer". If that LS> means you dont usually code then there is room for you in peardoc. If LS> you just said that you are not a PEAR developer, then like I said its LS> not that hard to become a member. If it is not that hard - try to get another one for yourself, but don't tell who you are. Make an experiment before venturing into long discussion about wasted time. LS> If you are just here to tell us we are a closed gang of powertrippers, LS> then you might be wasting our and your time. =) That's definitely not that I want. I don't want to waste my time perhaps even more, than you. LS> Finally this is opensource. Opensource is about free source. Its also LS> about doing things, together. And most importantly its about feeling LS> good about the code that develops under the fingertips of each of us LS> involved. So while infinite ego padding might not be what we need, LS> jumping to conclusions about this and that without taking the time to LS> get a feel for the community is like to just end up in a lot of insults LS> and misunderstandings. Well, I agreed with you and with Open Source, but for community I've got a negative feeling. Not on the every person in particular - there is a lot of good people I see - but on the direction this community takes. Started from FiDONet, then TikiWiki, University, some projects on SF I finally ended here to find some answers on the way from the robotics and automatic control to sociological synergy. I've started from QA. There are two kind of processes - natural ones and artificial. Open Source is natural. CS, QA, rules are artificial. Every artificial process limits freedom for natural process. Hence every artificial process must have a strong basis. You can't even form a justification for those, who freedom you want to restrict, but you are nevertheless creating QA. Instead of making a strong basis you use so-called democracy to vote and then let decide this QA what they will do. It doesn't even matters that smb. just wasn't able to understand what for he will vote and therefore he didn't. You've got a majority - 7 out of 200. I don't know about you, but I can't call this equity. One voice was against. It is much more far from a "strong basis". Even if I can believe, that there wasn't too much activity from developers then what you call a community? Who is making community and why developers don't participate? Maybe they just constantly receiving letters about "we can't allow anyone that karma" or some "skip problem" solution or just "what's its status, btw?" They've got some insults and they prefer to be silent. That is what I can imagine. It is hard to imagine a community, which is placing constant restrictions for it's members rather then provide them with a bit of service. It is more governmental style of rule and it will not help OS to survive. All these teams, counsils, democracy rules resembles me so well-known and pretty familiar human ill will to establish authority. It is hard to trust smb. if smb. makes use of such foul techniques. Nothing personal, just my sore. t --