On 5 August 2016 at 20:24, Paul Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 5, 2016, at 14:01, Michael Cullum <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > A vote for FIG 3.0 is [potentially/hopefully] getting closer and one big > thing people had been asking for is a TL;DR of FIG 3.0 to give an overview > of the new structure and processes. > > > > The last couple of days I've been working with Larry on compressing it > into 3 graphics and a post that, according to medium, takes 3 minutes or > less to read. I'd invite to you all to have a read of that version, and if > that wets your appetite for more, then of course I'd suggest you take a > read of the full bylaws (after all, that is what will actually be being > voted upon). > > > > I'd love to see some active discussion (or if you are just in general > agreement about it, some +1s) > > Of course we don't ask for -1s, do we. >
No I don't ask for -1s; if you're opinion is best represented by '-1' then of course we'd much rather see some feedback as to why so we can improve things or discuss things rather than just leaving it there, otherwise there is no point in having the discussion periods you advocate for. > For the record, again: the FIG 3.0 proposal is a fine idea *for a new and > different* organization under a *new and different* name. Let it be free of > the history and accomplishments (and baggage) of the FIG, and build a > following of its own through its own new accomplishments. > This is a very understandable view, and I know a few people share it so I'll try address it briefly here: My personal 2 cents on this is that if that were to happen, a new organisation would end up (accidentally or intentionally) replacing the FIG; if this happens then it could cause logistical issues with the looking after old PSRs, and I imagine maintenance of them would eventually end up under the new organisation, and then we've essentially had exactly the same outcome as a transition within the FIG, but without the name, reputation (which is, after many years, now actually a very strong brand across the php ecosystem, far wider than reddit or our twitterspheres which unrepresentatively discuss drama), background in our current 7 PSRs and 11 current draft PSRs being worked on (only 2 of which are inactive) and without the 'grandfathering' over of existing member projects. Furthermore, the initial CC/Secretary elections of a new organisation would be very un-democratic without that initial base of contributors and projects. Alternatively, if both standards organisations exist and continue with new development of standards, ultimately, at some point in the future, they will end up competing, and creating competing standards (which is kind of the opposite of standardisation). Furthermore I'd add that it would either split projects, where some projects are part of one group whereas others are part of another (splitting the php ecosystem into two mini-ecosystems that are interoperable within themselves but not with each other); or they would end up sharing the same member base, in which case it would add even further complexity as to when there are competing standards. Many thanks Michael C (Note: I am not posting this as a secretary but as a co-author of FIG 3.0 in line with my declared conflict of interest) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to php-fig@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CAAqcDMhsRjwE1qZSGdCtiHSN9WzKth3waOh69YdPSXpcsQ0wqA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
