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

This is my last response to your trolling. I will not waste my time telling you the same things over and over. You need to *listen*, *understand*, and *trust* or you can just leave. On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 04:40:17 +0200, anatoly techtonik <techtonik@php.net> wrote: > 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. What is this self-claimed "7 out of 200" stuff? The QA core group proposal had 23 votes. http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=77 That's the largest vote on record. See the proposal list: http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-overview.php?filter=finished Again, all major decisions are discussed on the PEAR-dev list by *all*, I repeat *ALL* interested PEAR developers. QA does not make rules. QA enforces the rules that the rest of the PEAR developers *AGREE ON*. Again, this is on the list. RFCs and rules are a collaborative effort by many people. If you have not been around long enough to see this, you need to trust what I'm saying and stop talking about things you don't understand. Again, *all* of the rules are voted on by *ALL* PEAR developers with voting priviledges. QA is simply the group that *we*, the developers voted in. They were the ones who were interested in being in the QA group, so they signed up. Then we all voted. > > 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. If you don't have anything new to contribute, then PEAR should fit your needs. If it doesn't, then propose packages, submit patches, etc. If you can give a truly compelling reason for another template engine then you can get it in. I doubt you can, though. If you want templating, help with the agnostic template system that others were working on. If your RFEs and patches have not been responded to, then you need to tell someone. QA is responsible for handling old bugs and they *are doing their job*. They, however, don't have the time to take over all abandoned packages (remember, they are *unpaid* for this) and finding someone else to take things over takes time. > > 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. > I would ammend this to say that you *have* wasted our time on yet another misguided trolling for absolutely not reason. > =) 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. You're only getting negative because you won't listen. Yes, this e-mail is negative but I don't care right now. You are not listening. PEAR is positive and is a community effort. You get respect and voting priveledges when you have proven yourself to the community. Everyone in the PEAR and QA groups is respected and has shown what they can do by submitting quality code in packages, patches, or docs. > > 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". There is a strong basis for everything we've done. Like I said, things were discussed. If someone didn't participate, that's their fault for not voiving their opinion. Democracy works because people speak. If you weren't here to speak, you didn't get a voice in that. Now that you're here feel free to discuss with us on things. Saying that you don't like our rules with no justification is a slap in the face to everything *we*have done to make PEAR great. > > 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. The rules are here to enforce quality and ease of use. All of PEAR is supposed to be interoperable and easy to use. Once you understand how one part works, it's easier to understand the rest. I will not have yet another long drawn out dicussion about the CS and the rules. Search the pear-dev archives for countless threads on it. > > Nothing personal, just my sore. > Yes, it is personal when you say that you don't trust the people of this community who have poured their time into making this all work. You need to lurk for awhile, ask polite questions, and understand why it is as it is before you can say it's bad. "Walk a mile in our shoes". -- Justin Patrin