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

The noise this group creates and the outward flowing negativity is seriously embarrassing. How can you all be OK with this? I literally wish there was a "Block/Mute PHP-Fig" button on the "Internet"; if only that's how it worked. This is doing nothing positive for the PHP community. The constan

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

Paul, I'm not sure what you're looking for here. You've asked repeatedly for someone to explain the role. It is defined in the bylaws here . There is no other secret definition that is being hidden. I don't know if it's your intention or

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

Thank you for making your position clear once again, can we stop now? On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:47 AM Paul Jones wrote: > > > On Sep 19, 2016, at 10:24, Matthew Weier O'Phinney < > mweierophin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Paul Jones > wrote: > >> > >> On Sep 15

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

> On Sep 19, 2016, at 10:24, Matthew Weier O'Phinney > wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Paul Jones wrote: >> >> On Sep 15, 2016, at 13:37, Matthew Weier O'Phinney >> wrote: >>> You're creating a false dichotomy, Paul. >> >> Not at all. It might be part assistant, part something

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

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Paul Jones wrote: > > On Sep 15, 2016, at 13:37, Matthew Weier O'Phinney > wrote: > > You're creating a false dichotomy, Paul. > > Not at all. It might be part assistant, part something else (or perhaps > multiple something else And now you're moving the goalpo

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

> I will say that it's too bad this discussion period was wasted It wasn't wasted as much as it was hijacked by Paul. > Is that what everyone who voted +1 on the secretary role understood the case to be? It doesn't matter, because FIG 3.0 doesn't change the bylaws regarding a secretary's role

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

Performing managerial tasks doesn't make someone a manager of people. I suggest we ask ourselves the question - does FIG 3.0's definition of the secretaries differ from the current bylaws definition of the secretaries? Does the current definition of secretaries (or someone's disagreement of the

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

Great job guys, I'm excited to see where this takes us and the php community at large. I will say that it's too bad this discussion period was wasted, it would've been nice to have an opportunity to talk about fig 3.0 at all. Thanks, Korvin On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:06 AM Paul Jones wrote: > >

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

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 13:37, Matthew Weier O'Phinney > wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Paul Jones wrote: >> So I still have no idea if the secretary role is intended as an "assistant" >> type of secretary, or some other type of secretary. Again, this should be a >> straightforwar

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

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Paul Jones wrote: > So I still have no idea if the secretary role is intended as an "assistant" > type of secretary, or some other type of secretary. Again, this should be a > straightforward thing to answer. You're creating a false dichotomy, Paul. The by-laws

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

Regardless of whether this is a problem or not, the entire section on "Secretaries" remains unchanged from the current bylaws (cf. http://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/membership/#fig-secretary). I think it would behove the FIG to primarily focus this thread on what *changes* would be introduced with FIG

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

On 15/09/2016 15:11, Paul Jones wrote: So I still have no idea if the secretary role is intended as an "assistant" type of secretary, or some other type of secretary. Again, this should be a straightforward thing to answer. If the role diverges so greatly from any kind of secretary anywhere e

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

Hi all, > On Sep 14, 2016, at 21:23, Bill Condo wrote: > > 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 > organizatio

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

I think that it's meant to advocate the whole of FIG, not a single PSR or a solution to some issue. Il giorno giovedì 15 settembre 2016 15:40:10 UTC+2, Glenn Eggleton ha scritto: > > From the 3.0 Docs. > https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/752/files#diff-b58538881047f8ede6b65a2ca2e012

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

>From the 3.0 Docs. https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/752/files#diff-b58538881047f8ede6b65a2ca2e01261R62 > Acting throughout their term essentially as Developer Advocates for the PHP FIG I have never heard the term "Developer Advocate"... Why exactly do we need "Advocates" as secr

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: [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][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,

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

A secretary is ... what defined in: http://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/membership/#fig-secretary. Asking again and again and again will not solve anything. Each person's point of view of the bylaw is subjective. It's not a matter of beating around the bush, it's a matter of giving a "correct subject

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? Seriously... Just explicitly answer his question. The secretary is an "assistive/record-keeping" or the secretary is fill_in_the_blank. You want the guy to stop asking, but nobody

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

Paul, I hope I speak for many when I say that your constant nitpicking is becoming increasingly tiresome. I understand that you feel that the secretaries are working outside of the boundaries of the tasks and duties that they were voting in to fulfil. Other voting members on this list disagree wit

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

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Paul Jones wrote: > > > On Sep 12, 2016, at 11:32, Pedro Cordeiro wrote: > > > > Paul, the role of a secretary is well described here, as I'm sure you > are aware: http://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/membership/#fig-secretary. > > Yes, it's *described* there, but nobo

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

> On Sep 12, 2016, at 11:32, Pedro Cordeiro wrote: > > Paul, the role of a secretary is well described here, as I'm sure you are > aware: http://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/membership/#fig-secretary. Yes, it's *described* there, but nobody seems to be able to say what *kind* of secretary is descri

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

Paul, the role of a secretary is well described here, as I'm sure you are aware: http://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/membership/#fig-secretary. Em segunda-feira, 12 de setembro de 2016 13:22:28 UTC-3, pmjones escreveu: > > > > On Sep 12, 2016, at 10:56, Michael Cullum > wrote: > > > > The Secretary

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

> On Sep 12, 2016, at 10:56, Michael Cullum wrote: > > The Secretary role is not changing in FIG 3.0 as previously stated. And what role is that, exactly? Assistive, or more along the lines of "Secretary-General" or "Secretary of (Parliament|State|etc)" ? -- Paul M. Jones http://paul-m-j

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

The Secretary role is not changing in FIG 3.0 as previously stated. -- Michael On 12 Sep 2016 4:51 p.m., "Paul Jones" wrote: > Hi all, > > Larry & Michael, is the "Secretary" role intended primarily as that of > "assistant", subordinate to the Voting Members, or is it intended more > along the

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

Hi all, Larry & Michael, is the "Secretary" role intended primarily as that of "assistant", subordinate to the Voting Members, or is it intended more along the lines of "Secretary-General" or "Secretary of (Parliament|State|etc)" ? Since they are very different things, the title should reflect

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

Thanks Larry, we had a good discussion off the list, I'd like to quickly summarise here for the rest of the list. 1. Mission Statement - I proposed alternate and that PR has been merged by MC - thank you, I think it's a good improvement. 2. Secretaries as Developer Advocates - you make a good po

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

Good job! I really like the edits on the opening statement, it's more short while retaining its meaning. -- 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,

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

Notice: Based on Gary's feedback, we've made a few small-ish changes to the FIG 3 PR: 1) Tightened up the language of the mission statement. It still says essentially the same thing but with fewer words. (Largely based on input from Gary off list.) https://github.com/michaelcullum/fig-stan

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

As I was directly addressed and asked to respond to some points, I'll respond here but as noted previously, I'm not speaking in a secretarial capacity. N.B When I refer to ‘FIG Member’ I mean people with voting rights essentially, so depending on the context either core committee members and membe

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

Michael, > On Aug 29, 2016, at 03:56, Michael Cullum wrote: > > The intention of the vote is that it will resolve contention, not create it; > and this should be the case so long as people don't intend to create drama as > a result of the vote. The proposal, and the vote, themselves create "d

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

On 08/29/2016 10:50 AM, GeeH wrote: I have a few points I'd like to raise here - thanks to all involved in pull vote this time around. Obviously, all of the below comments are my opinions, and should be taken as such. ## Mission Statement I really dislike it. I would prefer something short

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

I agree that maybe not restricting sponsorship to the core committee can be a good idea, at least to release them from an other burden: it's a heavy duty role as it is. I don't agree about the "secretaries" gettin more powers. The TLDR and the bylaw changes indicates more than once that the sec

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

I wholeheartedly agree with Garry. It seems like the main idea behind FIG 3.0 is just shaving off the member projects to leave the 12 most popular people ( yes, people, not projects). When voting for the core commitee people will be thinking primarily about which people they trust the most to

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

I have a few points I'd like to raise here - thanks to all involved in pull vote this time around. Obviously, all of the below comments are my opinions, and should be taken as such. ## Mission Statement I really dislike it. I would prefer something short and catchy than this statement which

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

Paul, The intention of the vote is that it will resolve contention, not create it; and this should be the case so long as people don't intend to create drama as a result of the vote. Right now there is contention of ideas as to what the FIG is about and FIG 3.0 is a proposal to resolve that, as ar

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

> On Aug 24, 2016, at 00:13, Michael Cullum wrote: > > Hi all, > > I pulled the vote for FIG 3.0 in order to give people a chance to provide > more feedback as people expressed a wish to give it a bit more time. The vote > will open on the 10th September. I'll say it again: this proposal is

[Review][Discuss] FIG 3.0 Upcoming Vote

Hi all, I pulled the vote for FIG 3.0 in order to give people a chance to provide more feedback as people expressed a wish to give it a bit more time. *The vote will open on the 10th September.* To quote from my previous post: Ultimately, if FIG 3.0 is to go through, it's going to be a huge chan