Re: [FIG 3.0] Need clarifications about core committee

Understood, thanks for the clarification. Seeing the "old" bylaw, I suspect the same. Il giorno giovedì 25 agosto 2016 02:13:38 UTC+2, Michael Cullum ha scritto: > > Hi Alessandro, > > Larry asked me to just jump in and clarify this (the legalese part of the > spec was mostly from me and this

Re: [FIG 3.0] Need clarifications about core committee

Hi Alessandro, Larry asked me to just jump in and clarify this (the legalese part of the spec was mostly from me and this also relates to existing bylaws). It's based on the current wording (and rounding rules) in the current Voting Protocol where no tie is possible, the burden of proof, so to

Re: [FIG 3.0] Need clarifications about core committee

Larry, it think that the part about vote rounding is not clear enough; it's understandable through the examples, but the rule is somewhat "implicit" in there. Il giorno mercoledì 24 agosto 2016 15:51:27 UTC+2, Larry Garfield ha scritto: > > Can you note anything in particular that is clumsy to

Re: [FIG 3.0] Need clarifications about core committee

I'll try to re-read it and make a pull request with changes or at least a list of suggestions. On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 4:51:27 PM UTC+3, Larry Garfield wrote: > > Can you note anything in particular that is clumsy to read? We were > aiming for explicitness and lack of vagueness, which

Re: [FIG 3.0] Need clarifications about core committee

Can you note anything in particular that is clumsy to read? We were aiming for explicitness and lack of vagueness, which in prose does tend to lead to verbosity. To me it still reads fairly well, but as the author I am of course biased on that front. :-) --Larry Garfield On 08/24/2016

Re: [FIG 3.0] Need clarifications about core committee

Well, clarity of the document. It takes time to find what you need so maybe wording or structure could be improved for better comprehension, cross-linking introduced etc. On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 1:07:40 AM UTC+3, Alessandro Lai wrote: > > Well, the vote has now been canceled. I've just

Re: [FIG 3.0] Need clarifications about core committee

Well, the vote has now been canceled. I've just now finished reading again the full diff, and I've found clarifications about possible tie votes: majority must be +1 with 50%: https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/752/files#diff-a7e6254aa839471064951898e0ebb021R17 So basically no tie

Re: [FIG 3.0] Need clarifications about core committee

Great. Then it makes sense to me. The diff is quite big and info is a bit scattered there. I guess that's why there are negative votes on topic. On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 10:56:50 PM UTC+3, Larry Garfield wrote: > > On 08/22/2016 01:37 PM, Chris Tankersley wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016

Re: [FIG 3.0] Need clarifications about core committee

On 08/22/2016 01:37 PM, Chris Tankersley wrote: On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Alessandro Lai > wrote: So Larry, this also addresses the issue of the (12) even number of the core committee? Since votes requires always

Re: [FIG 3.0] Need clarifications about core committee

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Alessandro Lai wrote: > So Larry, this also addresses the issue of the (12) even number of the > core committee? Since votes requires always 2/3, no tie is possible? > That was my bad, yes. 2/3 would mean an even number of members

Re: [FIG 3.0] Need clarifications about core committee

So Larry, this also addresses the issue of the (12) even number of the core committee? Since votes requires always 2/3, no tie is possible? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group

Re: [FIG 3.0] Need clarifications about core committee

Thanks for more clarifications. What about 12 vs 13 and even number of votes issue? On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 8:11:27 PM UTC+3, Larry Garfield wrote: > > On 08/21/2016 04:30 PM, 'Alexander Makarov' via PHP Framework > Interoperability Group wrote: > > Voting on FIG 3.0 started. I've read

Re: [FIG 3.0] Need clarifications about core committee

Yeah, the point is exactely that. The core committee doesn't need to be experts on the field, they can relay that to the WG. They can (and must) however reject a PSR if they think that the WG ignored or didn't listen to experts or big players in the context of the PSR. Il giorno lunedì 22

Re: [FIG 3.0] Need clarifications about core committee

Chris Tankersley, thanks for info. I've somehow missed renewal terms. Members are elected for 2 years. That's probably a bit lengthy period. Do you know why the number of core committee members is exactly 12? I understood that after work is done, proposal is passed to core committee for final

Re: [FIG 3.0] Need clarifications about core committee

On Sunday, August 21, 2016, 'Alexander Makarov' via PHP Framework Interoperability Group wrote: > Voting on FIG 3.0 started. I've read diff of the changes (huge one), TLDR > at medium and searched ML but haven't found answers to some questions. > Please help me find the