On Mon, Jun 16, 2025, at 12:41 PM, 'Andreas Heigl' via PHP Framework Interoperability Group wrote:
>> For me at least it will be hard to vote yes on this without a document that >> describes what we're voting for. > > The bylaws by the way also specifically say that "The proposal is not > required to be fully developed at this point[...]. At minimum, it must > include a statement of the problem to be solved, the scope of the PER > Working Group, and the artifacts it expects to produce." - which has by > now been posted several times here. > > After that the bylaws speak of an "Entrance Vote of the Core Committee > to enquire whether the Core Committee is generally interested in > maintaining a PER for the proposed subject, even if they disagree with > the details of the proposal." > > In essence the vote is whether the FIG wants to create a WorkingGroup > that maintains a registry of interoperable attributes - where > interoperable is to be defined in more detail by the WorkingGroup. As is > "registry". Personally I see "registry" as one or more composer packages > along with one or more Meta-Documents but that is in the end up to the > WorkingGroup. Next step would be for the Editor/Sponsor to put together a PR against the fig-standards repository, including a metadoc that contains the mission statement for the WG, its members, and what it expects to produce (one or more composer packages that contain attributes). There's no real spec to include here at this point. Then that can be formally proposed to the CC. Once it's approved, we can spin up a Discord channel for the WG to hash out the details. --Larry Garfield -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/b5dd1546-cce3-431c-8fda-847affe52dba%40app.fastmail.com.
