Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Paul Jones]

> On Aug 29, 2016, at 17:37, Larry Garfield  wrote:
> 
> Is there a reason you excluded PSR-13, which recently entered Review stage?

My bad -- I regret the oversight.

To update the PSR listing:

"- PSR-13 has seen continuing, recent, and regular activity. As a side note, 
this too would be an excellent *-interop project."

And to update the conclusion:

"I think only 11, 13, 15, and 17 (and perhaps 12) meet that criteria; of those 
five, three are already *-interop projects, and I think would thrive even in 
the absence of the FIG. PSR-13 might or might not thrive as a *-interop; making 
it one would be a good test to see how widely it is actually needed."


-- 

Paul M. Jones
http://paul-m-jones.com

-- 
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/27A02924-EFB5-4FCF-B8F9-CB1046116759%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Woody Gilk]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Paul Jones  wrote:

> - The following started as PSR drafts, and have since also become
> *-interop projects.
>
> - 15 HTTP Middlewares
> - 17 HTTP Factories
>

To be clear, the reason for creating http-interop was to allow
experimentation with the draft interfaces to see if they would work in Real
World Projects. Depending on how ongoing discussions (FIG-3.0 among them)
play out, http-interop would be folded back into FIG later in the process.

--
Woody Gilk
http://about.me/shadowhand

-- 
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/CAGOJM6LRJX97XCz8a%2B1W2WRug3Afxxg%2BKu1ngyUxjdc5YpG3yw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Larry Garfield]

On 08/29/2016 05:06 PM, Paul Jones wrote:

On Aug 28, 2016, at 17:01, Christopher Pitt  wrote:


FIG has served its purpose and should be archived.

You mean aside from the ongoing PSR work? The 10 or so PSRs, approved by vote, 
to be worked on? Seems a bit premature to say FIG is purposeless and/or 
useless...

"Ongoing" is true, but fails to capture the entirety of the situation, perhaps misleadingly so. 
Let's take a look at those 10 or so PSRs, roughly from what I will call "arguably least-active" to 
"arguably most-active".

- I think we can dispense with "8 Huggable Interface" as "a funny idea at the 
time" that should probably be withdrawn without vote.

- Regarding the following PSRs, I do not recall much recent activity on this 
list; perhaps they are being actively discussed elsewhere?  Some are new; 
others are years old.

 - 5 PHPDoc Standard
 - 9 Security Advisories
 - 10 Security Reporting Process
 - 14 Event Manager
 - 16 Simple Cache

   (Incidentally, each of these seems like a very good candidate for a 
*-interop project.)

- The following started as PSR drafts, and have since also become *-interop 
projects.

 - 15 HTTP Middlewares
 - 17 HTTP Factories

- There has been a welcome surge of recent activity on "11 Container 
Interface". Interestingly enough, it is already a *-interop project.

That leaves "12 Extended Coding Style Guide". In my opinion, that ought to be 
delayed until there are more in-the-field examples to draw from. (It might or might not 
make a good *-interop project.) However, there does seem to be regular activity on this 
list regarding it.

So, to say that there is ongoing work on 10 or so PSRs is true in the sense 
that there has been activity in the past, and we may expect activity in the 
future.  But it is not true in the sense that there is continuing, recent, and 
regular (not even monthly!) activity on them all. I think only 11, 15, and 17 
(and perhaps 12) meet that criteria; of those four, three are already *-interop 
projects, and I think would thrive even in the absence of the FIG.



Is there a reason you excluded PSR-13, which recently entered Review stage?

--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 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/b69f5c7b-f107-df1a-e68d-43830940dec3%40garfieldtech.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Paul Jones]

> On Aug 28, 2016, at 17:01, Christopher Pitt  wrote:
> 
>> FIG has served its purpose and should be archived.
> 
> You mean aside from the ongoing PSR work? The 10 or so PSRs, approved by 
> vote, to be worked on? Seems a bit premature to say FIG is purposeless and/or 
> useless...

"Ongoing" is true, but fails to capture the entirety of the situation, perhaps 
misleadingly so. Let's take a look at those 10 or so PSRs, roughly from what I 
will call "arguably least-active" to "arguably most-active".

- I think we can dispense with "8 Huggable Interface" as "a funny idea at the 
time" that should probably be withdrawn without vote.

- Regarding the following PSRs, I do not recall much recent activity on this 
list; perhaps they are being actively discussed elsewhere?  Some are new; 
others are years old.

- 5 PHPDoc Standard
- 9 Security Advisories
- 10 Security Reporting Process
- 14 Event Manager
- 16 Simple Cache

  (Incidentally, each of these seems like a very good candidate for a *-interop 
project.)

- The following started as PSR drafts, and have since also become *-interop 
projects.

- 15 HTTP Middlewares
- 17 HTTP Factories

- There has been a welcome surge of recent activity on "11 Container 
Interface". Interestingly enough, it is already a *-interop project.

That leaves "12 Extended Coding Style Guide". In my opinion, that ought to be 
delayed until there are more in-the-field examples to draw from. (It might or 
might not make a good *-interop project.) However, there does seem to be 
regular activity on this list regarding it.

So, to say that there is ongoing work on 10 or so PSRs is true in the sense 
that there has been activity in the past, and we may expect activity in the 
future.  But it is not true in the sense that there is continuing, recent, and 
regular (not even monthly!) activity on them all. I think only 11, 15, and 17 
(and perhaps 12) meet that criteria; of those four, three are already *-interop 
projects, and I think would thrive even in the absence of the FIG.


-- 

Paul M. Jones
http://paul-m-jones.com



-- 
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/43FA75C2-D1CA-4107-A50F-0C60597148CD%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

tl;dr

the bulk of the community doesn’t care about our by-laws, they are about PSRs, 
so to the community “disbanding” FIG will just be confusion about why suddenly 
PSRs would live on another site/github repo ..

> A clean slate. Green fields. Adopt the the work that FIG has completed and 
> start fresh with fresh and old faces with a new mission statement. FIG 3.0 is 
> a major refactor where the points I've tried to make in this thread are 1: 
> Maybe it's time to call FIG complete and 2: FIG is still active, but the work 
> it's doing doesn't really seem to fit the "Framework" portion of the mission. 
> 3: A new organization solves many problems.


"it's time to call FIG complete"

actually I very much disagree. saying this would imply that there isn’t 
anything that could sensibly be done based on the old mission statement, let 
alone any new mission statement.

also from the “community” perspective the difference between FIG 1.0, 2.0 and 
3.0 don’t matter much. the evolution away from "just” framework to more was one 
driven by the community more so than by us I would say. as such arguing that 
3.0 is for some reason a too big a change seems entirely arbitrary and will 
lead to confusion in the community which will affect thousands of developers.

the issues regarding the definition of who we are and how to proceed are, if 
they are even so fundamental, only on this mailing list and maybe some reddit 
threads. but the general community isn’t pondering our mission statements, they 
are looking at the PSRs that come out and not how they were crafted.

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
sm...@pooteeweet.org



-- 
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/C3C4EED8-3109-4FE8-819D-B868D3C66B83%40pooteeweet.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Korvin Szanto]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:06 AM Joe Ferguson  wrote:

> For another group to be successful I believe FIG would have to close up
> shop. Disband sounds like the wrong word to me. I do like "Archive" that
> Woody mentioned previously.
>
> A potential new organization road map for what FIG may need to do & what a
> new organization would need to do:
>
> FIG's agenda:
>
> * Formal 2 week discussion to discuss the following points:
> * Do voting reps want to close up / disband / archive FIG? - If Yes,
> continue
> * Allow transfer of all in progress work to any new organization that
> is willing to pick it up
> * Set end date for FIG (~4-6 weeks after passing vote closes)
> * End date allows time for any formal last minute business & lead time
> for new organization.
> * Stop opening votes for FIG members to vote on (So that this vote is the
> last closed vote)
> * Open 2 week voting period
>
>
> New Org Agenda:
>
> * Get your ducks in a row asap
> * Write your bylaws / Figure out who and how your membership works
> * Formally declare your intentions to FIG voting members
> * Start talking to everyone currently working on in progress work and
> inform them of your intentions
>
>
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. 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"?


>
> IMHO a competing organization to FIG would struggle. I feel like the best
> path forward in this scenario *requires* FIG to no longer be active.
>
>
Definitely agree here, FIG is not much without the people that make it
happen and those people need whatever extra time they have to be devoted to
the most current organization instead of being split unnecessarily.


> --
> 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/d0b62cfa-ceda-44bf-8da3-a1c30794ee6a%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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/CANeXGWWG75xUBTUhwMifyakuBr29u-KK9UmU0aYowSorWQWqNQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Joe Ferguson]

For another group to be successful I believe FIG would have to close up 
shop. Disband sounds like the wrong word to me. I do like "Archive" that 
Woody mentioned previously.

A potential new organization road map for what FIG may need to do & what a 
new organization would need to do:

FIG's agenda:

* Formal 2 week discussion to discuss the following points:
* Do voting reps want to close up / disband / archive FIG? - If Yes, 
continue
* Allow transfer of all in progress work to any new organization that 
is willing to pick it up
* Set end date for FIG (~4-6 weeks after passing vote closes)
* End date allows time for any formal last minute business & lead time 
for new organization.
* Stop opening votes for FIG members to vote on (So that this vote is the 
last closed vote)
* Open 2 week voting period


New Org Agenda:

* Get your ducks in a row asap
* Write your bylaws / Figure out who and how your membership works
* Formally declare your intentions to FIG voting members
* Start talking to everyone currently working on in progress work and 
inform them of your intentions


IMHO a competing organization to FIG would struggle. I feel like the best 
path forward in this scenario *requires* FIG to no longer be active.

-- 
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/d0b62cfa-ceda-44bf-8da3-a1c30794ee6a%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Woody Gilk]

I think Paul is probably right here, in so far as FIG itself no longer
seems to be useful. Though I disagree with Paul's reasoning as to why FIG
is in its current state, the end result is the same: FIG has served its
purpose and should be archived.

--
Woody Gilk
http://about.me/shadowhand

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Paul Jones  wrote:

> All,
>
> > On Aug 18, 2016, at 12:39, Alessandro Pellizzari  wrote:
> >
> > Those who don't agree with the result will be free to leave and create
> another group if they wish.
>
> Indeed -- the proponents of FIG 3.0 are free to leave *right now* and
> create another group if they wish.  (The "founding" vision has the better
> case for a prior claim, and thus there is no reasonable way to request its
> exit.)
>
>
> On Aug 18, 2016, at 13:57, Lukas Kahwe Smith  wrote:
>
> > But if you would rather see FIG die, than evolve into FIG 3.0 then I
> think this is a very sad approach.
>
> Perhaps it is already dead; a zombie, if you will, walking around seeking
> brains.  Joe Ferguson has  already presented a similar idea, noting that
> FIG seems to be casting about for something to do. If that's the case (and
> I think the case is supportable) then the best thing to do is recognize it,
> and act on that recognition to disband the group. Let a new group rise in
> its absence, if one really is needed.
>
> Further, the FIG 3.0 proposal is not an "evolution" in any meaningful
> sense. It is not a marginal change to make a small adaptation. It is a
> deliberate "re-creation."  And while I think the FIG 3.0 proposal might be
> fine for a *different* group, it is not fine as an approach for *this*
> group to follow.  If the FIG really is dead, then FIG 3.0 is not a
> resuscitation, but a possession.
>
>
> --
>
> Paul M. Jones
> http://paul-m-jones.com
>
> --
> 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/627B6598-02C1-42EB-B392-024EE90E0B51%40gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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/CAGOJM6JCf1gzvXQwt9N5fNoYCsJbSQ45H%2B2Tm8QGSBtwh9Vpdw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Joshua Drake]

Hello,

A mark of a mature project is incremental improvement. I can certainly 
empathize with those that are tired of all the "mess" but in the end, it 
will be a positive thing. Instead of trying to shut things down or start a 
new project, the members should introduce incremental, positive changes 
through the voting mechanism. That is how it works folks. We don't take our 
balls and go home. We objectively assess the rules and change them as the 
PROJECT and MEMBERS require.

JD

>
>

-- 
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/e936f417-1420-4c45-bbc9-18e032621b8d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Joe Ferguson]

Hello all,

I'd like to clarify a few things based on responses and conversations I've
had one on one with people outside the mailing list since posting the
original message in this thread.

PHP needs a group making decisions on best practices for users. That has
been FIG for a long time just because of the nature of PHP not having an
official standards body. My comment is that maybe its time PHP get a
standards body, led by the people who want to see FIG 3.0 happen. Let your
work in FIG stand on it's own. PSRs aren't going anywhere. Start a
Standards Body Group that adopts the work you've done here and picks up all
the currently in progress PSRs and continues working on them. Close FIG
down since it's work as a Framework Interoperability Group has been
completed.

This would be a perfect time to start fresh, get your bearings, and sort
your stuff out with all the lessons learned from FIG. I would rather see
this than people oppose FIG 3.0 and it being shoehorned in.

If you take away absolutely nothing else from my comments: FIG 3.0 is such
a shift that it warrants the consideration of a new organization with
leadership based on the people doing the work to make things happen in FIG.

Paul D. & Larry:

I was not trying to say that FIG is dying/dead I'm well aware of everything
FIG has going on. Probably more aware than a few member project
representatives. I was also not trying to discredit any contributions to
FIG by anyone, especially you two gentlemen.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Alessandro Pellizzari 
wrote:

> On 09/08/2016 17:17, Joe Ferguson wrote:
>
> By “standards for the language” I mean an official (or as close to
>> official as it can get)  Standards for the PHP language. PHP has never (as
>> far as I’m aware) had a Standards Body. FIG is as close as we’ve come. My
>> observation is that FIG 3.0 should skip FIG and become that standards body.
>>
>
> If, by this, you mean FIG (or the new standards group) should become an
> alternative to php-internal (to discuss the future of the language), I
> disagree. That kind of group should come from php-internal itself.
>
>
I am absolutely *not* saying FIG or *any* Standards Body should replace
internals. Internals is it's own demon and I do not wish to disturb that
beast in this conversation.


> I think FIG should just broaden its horizon and not think of just
> frameworks anymore, but I also think it's the way it is already going. We
> just need to find the correct formula.
>
> Changing the meaning of the acronym would be easier than changing the
> whole system around it. Just make it recursive: FIG = FIG Interoperability
> Group and call it done.
>
> I think Paul's idea is not bad, and it's probably very similar to FIG 3.0.
>

What I (and others against FIG 3.0) are commenting is that FIG 3.0 is a big
departure and instead of transitioning FIG into a Standards Body, that it
should become a new organization and stand on it's own while adopting FIG
PSRs (As mentioned in the original post)

-- 
- Joe Ferguson
JoeFerguson.me
MemphisPHP.org

-- 
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/CABj1BabTe%2Bu56Fg_ijSBWOBysBb7APRq4RuyANa5s-9%3DBnFPcA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Glenn Eggleton]

Hey Phil:
Yep :) That clears it up.

I'm fine with FIG transitioning into a standards body. 

So why don't the members of FIG try and figure out a way to transition it?

I realize FIG 3.0 is a large part of it... but I don't think 3.0 covers 
enough to be called a "Standards Body".

I guess this would likely be the focus of the new secretaries.


On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 5:41:47 PM UTC-4, Phil Sturgeon wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 4:17:04 PM UTC-4, Glenn Eggleton wrote:
>>
>> If FIG is the standards body why has the FIG not formally changed it's 
>> name?
>>
>
> Sorry for double, but let me take this one!
>
> Glenn: The FIG is not currently a standards body, but the goals of FIG 3.0 
> is moving to become one. Seeing as it is becoming a new thing, Joe is 
> suggesting a name change to reflect that, along with the structural changes 
> + mission statement changes.
>
> Does that clear it up?
>

-- 
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/df11720d-432d-448e-b70b-f275b65a5ac6%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Alessandro Pellizzari]

On 09/08/2016 17:17, Joe Ferguson wrote:


By “standards for the language” I mean an official (or as close to official as 
it can get)  Standards for the PHP language. PHP has never (as far as I’m 
aware) had a Standards Body. FIG is as close as we’ve come. My observation is 
that FIG 3.0 should skip FIG and become that standards body.


If, by this, you mean FIG (or the new standards group) should become an 
alternative to php-internal (to discuss the future of the language), I 
disagree. That kind of group should come from php-internal itself.


I think FIG should just broaden its horizon and not think of just 
frameworks anymore, but I also think it's the way it is already going. 
We just need to find the correct formula.


Changing the meaning of the acronym would be easier than changing the 
whole system around it. Just make it recursive: FIG = FIG 
Interoperability Group and call it done.


I think Paul's idea is not bad, and it's probably very similar to FIG 3.0.

I'd like to see much less burocracy.

I think FIG should become some kind of hub for PSRs, but also that a 
-interop group should present itself to FIG in its infancy or before 
beginning the works, both to inform FIG it's working on standardising 
something and to inform the community at large, if they want to contribute.


And then periodically inform of progress on the standard definition.

What I would NOT like to see is a -interop group working in the dark for 
months and then coming here asking for a badge of approval (a PSR 
number) on something already decided.


An idea could be to have a thin infrastructure defining:

1- when and how a -interop group should present the project to FIG
2- when and how a -interop group should give updates
3- how and who will vote on the final proposal when -interop asks for it

And a set of guidelines for the -interop group to adopt while discussing 
the standard (could be similar to the current guidelines).


Bye.

--
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/1025c359-ed52-e2bc-b973-03a4d6bd5fda%40amiran.it.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Navarr Barnier]

I agree on the principal, but disagree on actually moving forward with a new 
name (and website? And mailing list?). 

I think PHP-FIG is a very well recognized name.  If anything like this were to 
be done it'd be best to just swap from Framework Interoperability Group to 
"fig".

Very good idea in principal, but at the end of the day it's just bikeshedding 
that would result in a lot of effort for little to no gain.

-- 
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/a7e2850e-06b9-4ee9-ac3d-297585709f74%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

['Brian Teeman' via PHP Framework Interoperability Group]

Reading this it feels like I am stuck in a time loop

-- 
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/7ae8610e-b9d5-4762-b1c4-709db66685c0%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Paul Jones]

Hi all,

> On Aug 9, 2016, at 11:54, Larry Garfield  wrote:
> 
> But FIG can and should evolve along with PHP.  We've done it before.  The FIG 
> of 2009 is not at all what we are today.

To be clear, those changes were not the result of "evolution" in any natural 
sense.  Those changes are the result of "people writing specific rules with 
specific goals in mind" (i.e., "creationism").  I assert that those creations 
have not always been for the better.


> When the entirely cowboy-free-for-all way of working on specs broke down, we 
> changed the process and added more formality.  (FIG 2.0, which added the 
> formal Editor, Sponsor, and Coordinator.)

I think "broke down" qualifies as an overstatement.

I recall that Phil Sturgeon's impatience got the better of him during the 
discussions over my work on what would become known as PSR-4, which drove the 
building of the workflow bylaw.  (I find that somewhat amusing, since Phil was 
caused the first cancelled vote on that PSR by editing the text under vote, and 
he himself pulled the vote again a second time later after the workflow bylaw 
was in place.) So the only thing that "broke down" were some of the 
participants, not the process.

Larry probably remembers the writing of the bylaw, since he was part of it, as 
was I. Here's one related link:

  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/qHOrincccWk/rra3DpRD9f4J

That's not "breaking down" so much as "someone pushing a change."  I recall 
being mostly OK with the state of the PSR process before that, but memories do 
fade.


-- 

Paul M. Jones
http://paul-m-jones.com

-- 
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/4E5B845F-D927-4D4F-9E68-13B072267B12%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Paul Dragoonis]

On 9 Aug 2016 9:22 p.m., "Samantha Quiñones" 
wrote:
>
> As Gary said, please let's keep this on-topic and not personal. I advise
you to please assume that others are contributing constructively unless
it's been shown otherwise.

I want to aplogise for the personal nature of my reply, i didn't mean it
like that. I mean nothing personal and was opposing the general idea
proposed

>
> --S
>
> --
> 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/c91cead9-a79a-419c-a662-de5271fc5d7b%40googlegroups.com
.
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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/CAKxcST_DGLWAgRug9%3DkhZNQVvPYwdYP-8QwVA5%2Bw1znBmqCGWg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Samantha Quiñones]

As Gary said, please let's keep this on-topic and not personal. I advise 
you to please assume that others are contributing constructively unless 
it's been shown otherwise. 

--S

-- 
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/c91cead9-a79a-419c-a662-de5271fc5d7b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Glenn Eggleton]

If FIG is the standards body why has the FIG not formally changed it's name?

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 12:54:04 PM UTC-4, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> Given that there's ~9 specs being worked on currently in various stages, 
> the idea that FIG's work is "done" seems completely unsupportable. 
>
> FIG is already the de facto PHP Standards Body.  That much is very 
> clear; some here don't want to admit that, but that's very clear from 
> the Reddit thread on the subject, talks at conferences, impacts on 
> projects and tooling (PSR-2 preset in PHPStorm?) and general zeitgeist. 
>
> As Michael noted previously, if a "new" body were to form one of two 
> things would happen: 
>
> 1) FIG would continue, there'd be 2 competing standards bodies, and thus 
> no actual standards.  This is the worst possible outcome for 
> interoperability and collaboration. 
>
> 2) FIG would die off, either quickly or slowly, and the new group would 
> try to fill its ecological niche.  That would be a very messy and 
> complicated process with an ugly, confusing transition period, which 
> benefits no one.  The only way to minimize that would be for FIG to 
> actively shut itself down completely as soon as the new group is setup, 
> and publicly say "they're replacing us, kthxbye".  Which... would have 
> the same net effect as FIG just evolving, but would be more logistically 
> complicated and confuse a bunch of people needlessly. 
>
> FIG isn't "done".  It's not "dead."  It's just evolving.  That's OK.   
> Really!  We should be accustomed to this by now.  PHP as a language and 
> community is one of the fastest evolving around.  PHP has reinvented 
> itself in the last 6-7 years, and FIG has been a part of that.  That's 
> something we should be proud of. 
>
> But FIG can and should evolve along with PHP.  We've done it before.   
> The FIG of 2009 is not at all what we are today.  When the entirely 
> cowboy-free-for-all way of working on specs broke down, we changed the 
> process and added more formality.  (FIG 2.0, which added the formal 
> Editor, Sponsor, and Coordinator.)  It was an improvement.  Now, we're 
> still growing and see a need to evolve our structure further.  That 
> doesn't mean FIG is "done", just that we're evolving to improve 
> ourselves.  In a few years, might the situation have changed further and 
> we need to tack again, with a FIG 4?  Quite possibly!  And when that 
> time comes we should be prepared to evolve with it. 
>
> We, as a community and as FIG, should be looking forwards, how we can 
> continue to help PHP into the future.  Not closing up shop because 
> "whelp, autoloading and coding standards are done, peace out." 
>
> Closing up shop or turning into just a passive rubber-stamp for people 
> we refuse to let collaborate in our space is short-sighted and 
> ultimately self-defeating. 
>
> The fact that there are 9 groups trying to build additional 
> collaborative standards within FIG should be a sign that people do see 
> value in FIG, and we're nowhere close to "done".  If anything, it's a 
> sign of a potentially bright future for FIG and PHP, if we approach it 
> properly. 
>
> --Larry Garfield 
>
> On 08/09/2016 11:17 AM, Joe Ferguson wrote: 
> > By “standards for the language” I mean an official (or as close to 
> official as it can get)  Standards for the PHP language. PHP has never (as 
> far as I’m aware) had a Standards Body. FIG is as close as we’ve come. My 
> observation is that FIG 3.0 should skip FIG and become that standards body. 
> > 
> >> On Aug 9, 2016, at 11:10, Alessandro Pellizzari  > wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 09/08/2016 16:37, Joe Ferguson wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> I would rather see FIG marked complete, and those leaders interested 
> in 
> >>> moving forward start a new PHP Standards Body that would adopt (not 
> >>> claim) the previous PSRs from FIG and begin work on more standards for 
> >>> the language, not frameworks or packages. 
> >> I partly agree with what you say, but what do you mean by "standards 
> for the language"? Could you give some examples? 
> >> 
> >> Bye. 
>
>

-- 
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/65213942-a24d-4fa0-bf9e-02a27fd8%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[GeeH]

I don't feel that questioning the person who opened the topic is conducive to a 
topic that deserves discussion. Please keep comments on topic and not personal.

G

-- 
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/831809ce-07fa-4944-a8a8-0c3e7b70a732%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Paul Dragoonis]

On 9 Aug 2016 17:54, "Larry Garfield"  wrote:
>
> Given that there's ~9 specs being worked on currently in various stages,
the idea that FIG's work is "done" seems completely unsupportable.
>
> FIG is already the de facto PHP Standards Body.  That much is very clear;
some here don't want to admit that, but that's very clear from the Reddit
thread on the subject, talks at conferences, impacts on projects and
tooling (PSR-2 preset in PHPStorm?) and general zeitgeist.
>
> As Michael noted previously, if a "new" body were to form one of two
things would happen:
>
> 1) FIG would continue, there'd be 2 competing standards bodies, and thus
no actual standards.  This is the worst possible outcome for
interoperability and collaboration.
>
> 2) FIG would die off, either quickly or slowly, and the new group would
try to fill its ecological niche.  That would be a very messy and
complicated process with an ugly, confusing transition period, which
benefits no one.  The only way to minimize that would be for FIG to
actively shut itself down completely as soon as the new group is setup, and
publicly say "they're replacing us, kthxbye".  Which... would have the same
net effect as FIG just evolving, but would be more logistically complicated
and confuse a bunch of people needlessly.
>
> FIG isn't "done".  It's not "dead."  It's just evolving.  That's OK.
Really!  We should be accustomed to this by now.  PHP as a language and
community is one of the fastest evolving around.  PHP has reinvented itself
in the last 6-7 years, and FIG has been a part of that.  That's something
we should be proud of.
>
> But FIG can and should evolve along with PHP.  We've done it before.  The
FIG of 2009 is not at all what we are today.  When the entirely
cowboy-free-for-all way of working on specs broke down, we changed the
process and added more formality.  (FIG 2.0, which added the formal Editor,
Sponsor, and Coordinator.)  It was an improvement.  Now, we're still
growing and see a need to evolve our structure further.  That doesn't mean
FIG is "done", just that we're evolving to improve ourselves.  In a few
years, might the situation have changed further and we need to tack again,
with a FIG 4?  Quite possibly!  And when that time comes we should be
prepared to evolve with it.
>
> We, as a community and as FIG, should be looking forwards, how we can
continue to help PHP into the future.  Not closing up shop because "whelp,
autoloading and coding standards are done, peace out."
>
> Closing up shop or turning into just a passive rubber-stamp for people we
refuse to let collaborate in our space is short-sighted and ultimately
self-defeating.
>
> The fact that there are 9 groups trying to build additional collaborative
standards within FIG should be a sign that people do see value in FIG, and
we're nowhere close to "done".  If anything, it's a sign of a potentially
bright future for FIG and PHP, if we approach it properly.
>
> --Larry Garfield

Well said Larry.

Seriously Joe ?

I've been contributing to all iterations of FIG for years now, and I'm not
impressed by people wanting to shut it down. Not one bit.

Seriously folks, can we stop feeding the dragon and instead focus on the
task at hand ?

Thanks.

>
>
> On 08/09/2016 11:17 AM, Joe Ferguson wrote:
>>
>> By “standards for the language” I mean an official (or as close to
official as it can get)  Standards for the PHP language. PHP has never (as
far as I’m aware) had a Standards Body. FIG is as close as we’ve come. My
observation is that FIG 3.0 should skip FIG and become that standards body.
>>
>>> On Aug 9, 2016, at 11:10, Alessandro Pellizzari  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/08/2016 16:37, Joe Ferguson wrote:
>>>
 I would rather see FIG marked complete, and those leaders interested in
 moving forward start a new PHP Standards Body that would adopt (not
 claim) the previous PSRs from FIG and begin work on more standards for
 the language, not frameworks or packages.
>>>
>>> I partly agree with what you say, but what do you mean by "standards
for the language"? Could you give some examples?
>>>
>>> Bye.
>
>
> --
> 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/779690d4-8d55-90d3-2849-013f16947732%40garfieldtech.com
.
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

[Larry Garfield]

Given that there's ~9 specs being worked on currently in various stages, 
the idea that FIG's work is "done" seems completely unsupportable.


FIG is already the de facto PHP Standards Body.  That much is very 
clear; some here don't want to admit that, but that's very clear from 
the Reddit thread on the subject, talks at conferences, impacts on 
projects and tooling (PSR-2 preset in PHPStorm?) and general zeitgeist.


As Michael noted previously, if a "new" body were to form one of two 
things would happen:


1) FIG would continue, there'd be 2 competing standards bodies, and thus 
no actual standards.  This is the worst possible outcome for 
interoperability and collaboration.


2) FIG would die off, either quickly or slowly, and the new group would 
try to fill its ecological niche.  That would be a very messy and 
complicated process with an ugly, confusing transition period, which 
benefits no one.  The only way to minimize that would be for FIG to 
actively shut itself down completely as soon as the new group is setup, 
and publicly say "they're replacing us, kthxbye".  Which... would have 
the same net effect as FIG just evolving, but would be more logistically 
complicated and confuse a bunch of people needlessly.


FIG isn't "done".  It's not "dead."  It's just evolving.  That's OK.  
Really!  We should be accustomed to this by now.  PHP as a language and 
community is one of the fastest evolving around.  PHP has reinvented 
itself in the last 6-7 years, and FIG has been a part of that.  That's 
something we should be proud of.


But FIG can and should evolve along with PHP.  We've done it before.  
The FIG of 2009 is not at all what we are today.  When the entirely 
cowboy-free-for-all way of working on specs broke down, we changed the 
process and added more formality.  (FIG 2.0, which added the formal 
Editor, Sponsor, and Coordinator.)  It was an improvement.  Now, we're 
still growing and see a need to evolve our structure further.  That 
doesn't mean FIG is "done", just that we're evolving to improve 
ourselves.  In a few years, might the situation have changed further and 
we need to tack again, with a FIG 4?  Quite possibly!  And when that 
time comes we should be prepared to evolve with it.


We, as a community and as FIG, should be looking forwards, how we can 
continue to help PHP into the future.  Not closing up shop because 
"whelp, autoloading and coding standards are done, peace out."


Closing up shop or turning into just a passive rubber-stamp for people 
we refuse to let collaborate in our space is short-sighted and 
ultimately self-defeating.


The fact that there are 9 groups trying to build additional 
collaborative standards within FIG should be a sign that people do see 
value in FIG, and we're nowhere close to "done".  If anything, it's a 
sign of a potentially bright future for FIG and PHP, if we approach it 
properly.


--Larry Garfield

On 08/09/2016 11:17 AM, Joe Ferguson wrote:

By “standards for the language” I mean an official (or as close to official as 
it can get)  Standards for the PHP language. PHP has never (as far as I’m 
aware) had a Standards Body. FIG is as close as we’ve come. My observation is 
that FIG 3.0 should skip FIG and become that standards body.


On Aug 9, 2016, at 11:10, Alessandro Pellizzari  wrote:

On 09/08/2016 16:37, Joe Ferguson wrote:


I would rather see FIG marked complete, and those leaders interested in
moving forward start a new PHP Standards Body that would adopt (not
claim) the previous PSRs from FIG and begin work on more standards for
the language, not frameworks or packages.

I partly agree with what you say, but what do you mean by "standards for the 
language"? Could you give some examples?

Bye.


--
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/779690d4-8d55-90d3-2849-013f16947732%40garfieldtech.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.