I'm sorry, but I do not feel this nomination should be recognized. Not
because Graham is not capable, because he is very capable. But rather
because of the personal relationship between Graham and Samantha, a current
Secretary. See further comment
at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/jFNM
I respectfully disagree with Samantha. While I have the utmost of respect
for her and Graham I think she under-recognizes the influence they have on
each other from daily contact. Yes, of course two other people are also
capable of this level of colluding, but in relationships it is much more
l
Marc, thank you very much. I happily accept.
To address Chris's point, I'm not sure why my relationship with Graham
would preclude us both from serving on the core committee. With all due
respect (and affection), I reject the notion that two spouses are unable to
act independently in a professiona
I was going to address this once Samantha had accepted the nomination
however it appears pertinent now. The bylaws say Secretaries can stand in
CC elections but they must resign if they are successful.
--
Thanks,
Michael C
On 5 Nov 2016 8:18 p.m., "Christopher Pitt" wrote:
> The only concern I
The only concern I have* here is that Graham has also been nominated, and
that I don't think it's best for the committee for spouses to be on it
together.
* I love both these people, and I think they're both qualified and
fantastic humans. I'd be saying the same thing if any other couple were
I hereby nominate Samantha Quiñones for a position on the Core Committee.
She is a well-known speaker and has excellent experience and knowledge in
various fields that will enable her to do a great job in the Core Committee
and advance the FIG as a whole.
During her duty as a FIG secretary, she
> A situation of "if your child container throws exception X, you're
required to catch it and turn it into anything that's not X but is still Y"
seems needlessly convoluted
You did it by introducing "child container", Container contract doesn't
have any child containers, this contract is very s
Hi Chuck, good point I've opened a PR to fix
that: https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/832
For those not aware I just wanted to point out that topics in this thread
are being discussed in separate threads on the mailing list. That helps to
keep up with each discussion. If a topic was
Small point: should the has() section in 1.1 say that the entry identifier
MUST be a string, similar to how it does so for get()?
On Oct 26, 2016 8:28 AM, "Matthew Weier O'Phinney"
wrote:
> Hello, everyone!
>
> PSR-11, Container Interface (née container-interop) has been in incubation
> for a
>
Sorry, and I hope I'm not beating a dead horse, but when did the
Secretaries gain power to nominate? This would indicate they are no longer
overseeing the process, but are part of the process. Do they now get to
vote as well?
Seriously not trying to cause trouble, just looking for clarity.
Reg
+1 IBMiToolkit
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 5:15:59 PM UTC-4, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
wrote:
>
> Per the by-laws, the required review period has passed for the
> proposed standard PSR-13 (Link Definition Interfaces). No changes have
> been made in the past two weeks since re-opening the revie
+1 from PEAR
On Oct 31, 2016 4:15 PM, "Matthew Weier O'Phinney"
wrote:
> Per the by-laws, the required review period has passed for the
> proposed standard PSR-13 (Link Definition Interfaces). No changes have
> been made in the past two weeks since re-opening the review period.
>
> The specifica
12 matches
Mail list logo
