--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
The final straw was what I will call the "mob" crying for tabs to be added in PSR-2.
On Thursday, 28 February 2013 04:49:38 UTC+10, pmjones wrote:The final straw was what I will call the "mob" crying for tabs to be added in PSR-2.I'll take that as a compliment. As a member of "the mob" (nice one), I'd just like to say after reading his blog, there has obviously been a lot of unwritten understanding of how things should be working. The fact that our current bylaws don't reflect what was intended to be done is a fundamental problem.
Regards,Andrew Eddie
--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/-/c3YfMCN9MvgJ.
Can we create a ML that only has the approved members?We could still take the opinions from everyone on this one during idea/feedback collection.
That would solve these issues...
--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
You can create as many bylaws as you like, but it doesn't change anything, when many ("the mob") simply ignore them (probably because they don't know them, because they didn't read them, because they aren't members ;)).
PHP community to follow, it would be a group of dictators *making up rules in secret* for the rest of the PHP community to follow.
On 28 February 2013 11:30, Sebastian Krebs <kreb...@gmail.com> wrote:
You can create as many bylaws as you like, but it doesn't change anything, when many ("the mob") simply ignore them (probably because they don't know them, because they didn't read them, because they aren't members ;)).There are always going to be people that make life difficult - short of becoming a hermit, that's life. Maybe I'm just used to dealing with them on a larger scale than most people. But if there's something in writing, at least I can give them a link to chew on - what they do with it then, I don't care about.
This is simply a lesson in being slack on i-dotting and t-crossing.
Regards,Andrew Eddie--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
Yeah, I dont think that this really solves anything. What could maybe work is to encourage people to create separate mailing list for specific topics (cache etc) with the assumption that this way people more genuinely interested in the topic will subscribe and discuss.
On Feb 28, 2013, at 5:55 , Paul Scott <psco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/02/2013 03:38, justin wrote:
>> I doubt it. Because the same misunderstanding would exist, but instead of a group of "dictators" making up rules for the rest of the PHP community to follow, it would be a group of dictators *making up rules in secret* for the rest of the PHP community to follow.
>>
>>
>
> This is a very bad idea. Secrecy is never a way to approach an open topic.
But in the grand scheme of things we are in the same boat as php-src .. or maybe even worse, since contrary to them we are even more dependent on consensus and our barrier to entry is even lower (ie. most PHP devs can come up with a PSR, the number of people that can code is much smaller).
That being said, we also need to get better at documenting why the PSRs we passed are the way they are. I noticed this especially with the Logger PSR, which within hours got lots of negative feedback about things that we explicitly had to do differently because as we were discussing it realized that the "naive" solution didnt work.
I think the process will continue to be painful, we will improve our workflow, we will learn how to avoid some issues, but even if within this group we manage to get back to a less aggressive tone and a more constructive POV, there will be enough people outside that will do their best to ensure that every PSR will be known for how many kittens it kills.
> With that being said, I agree mostly with Matthew's post, except for the interfaces bit. I too, have mostly distanced myself from discussions recently, as they are cyclic, redundant (for the most part) and I simply do not have the bandwidth to read all of it. I end up picking up snippets from the names that I recognise and respect, which sometimes is not enough to make an informed decision.
>
> I too had/have high hopes for this group. This, too, has been a dream of mine ever since the inception of my framework and PHP4 for that matter, so I really would like to see it work...
>
> With that being said, I think most of us have stuck through the growing pains. We need to now refocus and carry on into the next level. There are issues, but nothing that an entire group of intelligent people can't figure out!
regards,
Lukas
As a "non-member" who has worked on the caching proposal for over a year now, I find this offensive. Just because I'm not part of the ruling clique doesn't mean my voice shouldn't be heard.The problem with this group is simple- there's no actual leadership. There's no one who steps up and says "no, this was already voted on, I'm closing this conversation". There's no enforcement of the bylaws. That alone will help the problem.
The problem with this group is simple- there's no actual leadership. There's no one who steps up and says "no, this was already voted on, I'm closing this conversation". There's no enforcement of the bylaws. That alone will help the problem.
A members only list does not have to be private. It can be on world read, just no post rights for non-members. And, we could use it for voting without any spurious people voting/commenting.Regards,Drak