Hi Paul, Thanks for the replies to my comments, On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:19 AM Paul Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all, > > Multiple responses inline. > > > * * * > > > On Aug 29, 2016, at 10:20, Korvin Szanto <korvinsza...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I just don't see why this is at all necessary, what does this get us > other than a new name? To me it seems like this is just a semantic > runaround for what old fig will be once fig 3.0 passes. > > From my original blog post, the benefits (among others) are these: > > - As a brand-new organization, it can define its vision and mission > without in-group rivalry. To me this would mean that an individual or a small group of individuals would dictate vision and mission for the rest of us, why would we want this? > - It can curate its membership, bringing in only the people and projects > that adhere to its vision (and keeping out those who do not) This reads to me: "It can exclude more people" which sounds like a negative > - It can establish any organizational structure (hierarchical or > otherwise) from the outset, without having to worry about precedent or > prior expectations > This reads to me: "It can dictate structure instead of voting in structure" which sounds like another negative > - It can have any code of conduct it wants as part of its foundational > structure. > How is this excluded in the FIG 3.0 proposal? We could have a CoC as part of the foundational structure there too if we want. - Whatever negative baggage is perceived as being part of the FIG is > dropped. > I think the PHP community - especially those that pay attention to the FIG - deserve a little more credit. I don't think it matters to those who have disdain for the fig whether it breaks down and reforms or whether it forms into a new group, they will still consider it a continuation of the FIG because it's full of the FIG members. > Joe Ferguson paraphrased this as "green fields." (If nothing else, think > of the biggest benefit as the ability to exclude that pesky, pernicious, > Paul M. Jones without needing a vote to do it.) > Is this something you wanted a serious response for? > > > IMO once FIG 3.0 is around for a little bit of time, FIG 2.0 will become > just a slide on someones presentation and that's all. What does it matter > if that slide says "Gone: Disbanded then remade into FIG 3.0" vs "Gone: > Reformed as FIG 3.0"? > > The new group (if any arises) will be a new and different creation, with a > new and different name. It may resemble the FIG in some ways, but it most > definitely will *not* be the same. It will be a break from, not a > continuation of, the FIG. As such I don't see why anybody would confuse it > with FIG, especially if the new group behaves properly and actively > distances itself from FIG and the FIG's PSRs, as it should. > > I think this distinction matters to only a few while anyone paying attention will obviously realize that this is a continuation of the FIG regardless of the course of action. Especially considering we're trying to plan it here in the FIG mailing list. Best wishes, Korvin -- 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/CANeXGWU1ruJov6Wn8rMZD4gnNsLw1MHZi3FE8gDEKum8r27b6g%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
