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

On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 02:40, anatoly techtonik 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. *Sigh* You just can't stop trolling, can't you ? I think I've at least answered you this 2x times, QA can't decide anything major unless the community accepts it, that's why we have RFC and QA will use them a lot, can't see how they can influence your freedom in anyway if they make drafts for ideas that the community it self has to accept (community being developers that have karma to vote, yes karma! proposal accounts don't have enough karma yet to vote on other packages), and I can't get that CS and guideline part, afaik the original PEAR authors took apart in designing them, also the original PEAR authors are busy with other things, and have said them self that they are inactive at best, so the control has to be passed to some other people (which was not passed to pear QA btw.) You can't trust them ? We don't blame you, I see no reason in trusting someone you've never meet, but then again, how can you take part of any open source project ? Want to see their deeds ? Look at their user info, see what packages they help with, that must count as a deed, look through commits, mailing lists and such and get to know them if you really must trust a Quality Assurance team leaders ... Those people were chosen because they wanted to help with this, because the people that voted trusted them. Ohh yes like Justin has pointed out, we allow only people with enough karma (as it is called in the database pear.dev) to vote on things in PEPr is because they at least have had a glance at what's happening in PEAR, know their way around. > 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. Justin just took my words out of my mouth in his email. > > 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". Like Justin said, no need for a lengthy talk on CS and rules, but well making everything free makes us no better then PHPClasses or so, I for one wouldn't not like to say "We are high quality code" and then show users some spaghetti code. Product/package/project/app that doesn't have QA is probably a buggy one and can't claim quality. Tell me why not QA? Why do we have laws in real life (okey maybe a bad example but well) they restrict our freedom in many ways, but then again our lives are much better because of them. Sometimes something has to be sacrificed to make things better. (like often said in the movies "We have to sacrifice 1 man to allow millions of others to live") > 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. Won't help it ? Did you ever had a look at others OS projects ???? Doubt it, take the Linux kernel for example, only X many people have access to commit in it's CVS and it's going pretty well, Wine only one person gets to commit in the CVS, Gnome they restrict their apps to be resided in their CVS, it can't be in SF CVS or some, they also have QA and many groups actually. Probably much more examples of something in this direction about limitation of fully successful OS projects. Anyway if you've ever worked in a company makes software of web apps or similar, then you'd know that coding standards, QA and just about everything that we're doing in PEAR is very important to make a project successful and rather bug free. - Helgi