Re: [Review][Discuss] FIG 3.0 Upcoming Vote

The duties are well defined and provide more context than any word that could be added to the secretary title. There is zero benefit in trying to match apples and oranges for what this role would be titled at another organization. FIG picked the title of secretary and gave it a list of responsi

Re: Google groups spam detection

Hi Michael , i really need your help and will be grateful if you can help me.Having issue to connect SQL and PHP to server, Not sure how you can help me with that.Not coding issue .i think is set up issue. Thanks On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:33:36 AM UTC-7, Michael Cullum wrote: > > Hi a

Re: [REVIEW] PSR-13: Link definition interfaces

Hi All Am Montag, 12. September 2016 23:22:12 UTC+2 schrieb Larry Garfield: > > On 09/12/2016 09:40 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Andreas Heigl > wrote: > >> I have two things I'd like to mention regarding PSR-13: > >> > >> First, for me personally it

Re: [REVIEW] PSR-13: Link definition interfaces

First of all, Larry, thanks for taking the time to reply. Thanks also to Matthew for replying yesterday; I felt my response to Larry was sufficient to cover both emails which is why I haven't quoted you directly. > It sounds like this is another case of naming things (one of the 2 hard problems in

Re: [Review][Discuss] FIG 3.0 Upcoming Vote

> But why keep kicking a dead horse, it just brings strife and makes the group look ridiculous? Because then, this vote fails due to "people deliberately avoiding answering *crucial* questions, like 'what is the role of a secretary' on FIG 3.0". This is why everything apparently needs to be exp

Re: [REVIEW] PSR-13: Link definition interfaces

On 09/13/2016 09:28 AM, Josh Di Fabio wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:50 PM Larry Garfield > wrote: The standard example we've been using is a domain object of some sort that then is getting rendered to an HTTP Response. To wit: Thanks for taking the ti

Re: [Review][Discuss] FIG 3.0 Upcoming Vote

Can't you guys like "agree to disagree" and let the vote decide? Obviously nobody is getting convinced on either side, that's ok, compromises don't always happen, that's cool, then the majority wins. But why keep kicking a dead horse, it just brings strife and makes the group look ridiculous? F

Re: [Review][Discuss] FIG 3.0 Upcoming Vote

> Paul keeps asking the same question over and over again. Why are you all so reluctant to just answer his question? Because he has created a very false dichotomy and is insisting that people have to choose one side. People either have to be right (agree with him) or wrong. A secretary's duty,