[TYPO3-ect] [TYPO3-core] Wishlist from ECT

[Ernesto Baschny [cron IT]]

Elmar Hinz wrote: on 12.02.2007 12:15:

>> I did not understood why we need to misuse the new typo3/contrib/
>> directory for something that in my eyes is clearly an extension. So
>> maybe someone from the ECT could sum-up the arguments in favor of
>> "creating an empty directory in typo3/contrib", because the core team
>> clearly didn't see why it is needed. Remember that the core members
>> might not be involved in the ECT mailing list and probably don't follow
>> the discussions here. Even I, which read the list, cannot understand why
>> one would need that empty directory.

> the request was not an empty directory, but rather an include path for
> PEAR that extension developers can rely on. Maybe that was a little
> unclear. But if core members would read this list, that would know this.
> Do you really think extension developers that simple-minded to request an
> empty directory without any deeper motivation.

I thought the ECT was the bridge between the extension development and
core team. I cannot imagine that the core team wants to read the
discussions in ECT, but wants just to know about the results. The result
in this case was not very clearly formulated. It is not too much to ask
for some request from ECT to the core list to be clearly formulated. The
core team has to assume this has been discussed and agreed in the ECT
team, but you also have to know that it will be discussed and will have
to be agreed upon in the core list.

> As we from ECT can't technically write on the core list, it is the logical
> consequence that the members of the core list need to inform themself on
> the ECT list.

I disagree. The request was forwarded by Ingmar Schlecht to the core
team list and this was the only channel the core team was informed and
this is how I think it should work. You cannot expect that all core
members have time to follow the discussions in ECT list. This is not
productive.

> They also have the technical possibility to write on this
> list and ask for informations before making harum scarum decisions, due to
> lack of informations and they know they should do so.
> 
> If the core list is a closed list, this is to protect the core team
> from all those people who only do feature requests without contributing
> anything. That is OK so far. The danger with this is, that it encourages
> encapsulation and ignorance. If a mentality is creeping up that leads to
> this kind of ignorance towards requests of other active members of the
> community it is time to rant.

I think you are being a bit too dramatic here. The ECT team just have to
agree upon arguments against certain modifications in the core, forward
them to the core team (e.g. like done here, through Ingmar Schlecht) and
then wait to see the feedback from the core team. Joerg Schoppet was
able to follow the core team discussion and follow up upon that. So I
fail to see how the workflow is not working as the discussion is still
going on.

Your latest contributions in this thread seem to be filled with anger
for the core team but with little objective arguments with which you
could convince us. Is there any still pending argument for
typo3/contrib/pear you would like to share?


Cheers,
Ernesto