On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Philip Sturgeon <pjsturg...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Joe made a post about the introduction on phpng, what it is, and what it > > isn't. > > Some people (myself included) didn't liked that post for various reasons > > (some says it is opiniated, some doesn't like the tone and the wording, > > others feel that it is too early to made official announcement about > phpng). > > There were a couple of iteration on improving the text, but it is still > not > > up to our standards imo: > > > http://git.php.net/?p=web/php.git;a=history;f=archive/entries/2014-05-27-1.xml > > ; > > It is already on hackernews and reddit, so while some people suggested, I > > think it would be a bad move to just remove it. > > > > Would like to know what do you guys think about the best step, I see the > > following possible options: > > > > - keep it as is > > - remove it > > - rewrite it to be more formal and factual(only talk about what it is > > atm. not what it could be in the future). > > - create a post explaining that this post is controversional among the > > core-devs, so it is reflects more of the authors opinion than the > projects > > official view on the topic. > > > > I'm mostly interested on the opinion of the core devs, but others also > > welcome to reply. > > > > -- > > Ferenc Kovács > > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu > > There probably should have been more of a discussion, but this was a > great move by Joe. > Personally I think that he had good intention. > > What you lot might not have noticed is a huge amount of FUD going > around the community, mostly thanks to Manuel Lemos - once again - > getting things completely wrong and doing so loudly. > > > http://www.phpclasses.org/blog/post/234-PHPNG-Dramatic-Speedup-Features-Coming-in-PHP-6-Release.html > > That article was a huge amount of misfact about what PHPNG is, some > weirdly strong opinions about what it means for PHP (apparently > doomsday is near). > > This was then picked up by SitePoint: > > http://www.sitepoint.com/php-fights-hhvm-zephir-phpng/ > > Bruno here based his article around assuming Manuel's article was... > vaguely correct about anything and unfortunately added some wrong > assumptions on top of that. I've spoke to Bruno yesterday and he'll be > updating the article today. yeah, this isn't really a new problem, phpclasses.org is pretty famous for that kind of content, and it seems that posts picturing php and the development of php in a negative way have an easier time to get hyped (as we have seen with http://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/for example). I also agree that there should be a better way to communicate/summarize the development and internals@ discussion to the masses than expecting them to follow the internals mailing list. Joe's original idea about having an official php.net blog sounds like a nice way to do that. I can even accept that the current news entry would be okayish for a blogpost, but for having it on our frontpage seems unprofessional, weird (as this kind of post has no precedence), and the detail of the post (and the lack of links to the rfc and stuff) doesn't really match with the average php.net visitor's knowledge level. > > > In all, the PHP community at large is confused thanks to people > prematurely announcing stuff from the mailing list like its news, then > adding their opinions on top of it without understanding a damn thing > they're talking about. > > > Joe could have let that fester, but he approached it with an article. > > Now, of course not everyone agrees with the article. When has everyone > on here agreed about anything? We'd probably argue over what color > grass is, because, you know, there's lots of different types of grass > and everything. > having a controversial post on blog.php.net would be ok, because there you would see that it is posted by XY(and you can get away with less formal posts), but when the same content appears on the frontpage of www.php.netthat needs to have consensus from the team. > > If the article is factually wrong about anything then redact the > sentence and update it. Otherwise, it needs to be left alone. > even if we say that it is factually correct (I have a couple of issues, but Dmitry approved it, and he knows better), that's not the only requirement to be accepted (it needs proper grammar, tone, context, etc. and I mentioned in my opening mail that people were complaining about those). > > Good job to Joe for keeping his thumb on the pulse of the community. > More of that please. > good intention, poorly executed. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
