Membership Request: Beau Simensen (Silex)

[Beau Simensen]

Hello all,

I would like to request that Silex be added as a member project with Beau Simensen as the voting representative. Larry Garfield is sponsoring this membership request.

Silex is a micro-framework built on the Symfony 2 components and the Pimple micro service container.

Silex maintains a mailing list ( http://groups.google.com/group/silex-php ) and it has an active community on IRC ( #silex-php on Freenode ).

http://silex.sensiolabs.org/

https://github.com/fabpot/silex

As for me, I've been active in the PHP-FIG community for the last year or so as framework interoperability is of great interest to me. My vendor is dflydev and I am a proponent of writing framework agnostic code; hence my desire to be involved in discussions on framework interop.

You can find me as simensen on Freenode in #phpfig, #silex-php, #composer, and #dflydev. If you want to know more about me you can start digging here:

https://twitter.com/beausimensen

https://github.com/simensen

https://github.com/dflydev

[Jordi Boggiano]

+1

--
Jordi Boggiano
@seldaek - http://nelm.io/jordi

[Evert Pot]

+1 from me

> --
> 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/msgid/php-fig/51F94C39.9070505%40seld.be.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[Drak]

+1

--

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/msgid/php-fig/9e6d9516-474b-4b05-aba4-8111ba3c0944%40googlegroups.com.

[Larry Garfield]

+1

--Larry Garfield, Drupal (duh)

[Larry Garfield]

Also, to clarify (since a few people have asked me off-list), Fabien is
the project lead for Silex but is already representing Symfony. I spoke
with Fabien by email and he had no object to Beau as the Silex
representative, especially as he was already active in the group.

--Larry Garfield

[Mike van Riel]

Thank you, that is important information to add.

+1 from phpDocumentor

[Karsten Dambekalns]

Hi.

Beau Simensen wrote:
> I would like to request that Silex be added as a member project with
> Beau Simensen as the voting representative.

+1 from TYPO3 Flow.

Regards,
Karsten
--
Karsten Dambekalns - Creative Code Engineer
TYPO3 Neos & Flow Developer
http://karsten.dambekalns.de

TYPO3 .... inspiring people to share!
Get involved: typo3.org

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

+1 from Jackalope

> --
> 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/msgid/php-fig/9e6d9516-474b-4b05-aba4-8111ba3c0944%40googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
sm...@pooteeweet.org

[Cal Evans]

+1

=C=

--

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/msgid/php-fig/9e6d9516-474b-4b05-aba4-8111ba3c0944%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
Read this book before you hire a 

developer to build your website.

Avoiding a Goat Rodeo

[Ryan Parman]

AWS votes +1.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CAPf%3DPy%2BrEKrk9%2BuG0bcFLx8yRW_YiLxYHKLyfx56ivkXxROAxQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
Ryan Parman
Hacker. User advocate. Entrepreneur.
http://ryanparman.com

"If you don't have passion for what you do, you won't be very good at it."

[Paul M. Jones]

On Jul 31, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:

> Also, to clarify (since a few people have asked me off-list), Fabien is the project lead for Silex but is already representing Symfony. I spoke with Fabien by email and he had no object to Beau as the Silex representative, especially as he was already active in the group.

Well that seem strange to me; are we saying that Beau doesn't actually have control over the project, but represents it? Nothing against Beau, but doesn't that make him just a proxy for Fabien?


-- pmj

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

Larry is also not the lead of Drupal. I fear we cannot protect ourselves from evilness .. at least not until we have proof of it.

[Paul M. Jones]

True, but Drupal's a bit of a different bird. They don't have a person who is central to the project. The Symfony ecosystem does, and that's Fabien.


-- pmj

[Paul M. Jones]

I mean, if that's the route we want to go, I could appoint a representative for each of the independent Aura libraries.


-- pmj

[Robert Lemke]

I think a good measure can be that only those (sub) projects can become a voting member if they represent its own dedicated community.

Just as an example: the TYPO3 project probably has a handful of sub communities, especially considering that TYPO3 CMS and TYPO3 Flow / TYPO3 Neos are completely separate code bases. If we consider Silex, Swiftmailer etc. to be communities on their own, we'll very easily run into desires by other projects to send more voting members.

Just my 2ct …

Robert

[Donald Gilbert]

As Symfony and Silex are separate projects, I would find it beneficial for them both to be represented. Just as I'm the representative for Joomla, even though I don't control the project.

However, the thing to consider though is that they are both "Sensio" projects, and will probably follow each other very closely in all matters pertaining to this list, I would assume. If that effects whether or not to allow the project, I don't know, just putting it up for consideration.

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

Silex in terms of code is essentially like Laravel. Now the difference is indeed that Silex has the same project lead as Symfony, while Laravel has Taylor. However this is still far far away from individual libraries hosted within the same organization.

I guess if we would say that Silex cannot be a member unless the project lead is not the lead of another member project, then we should maybe allow Silex still to be a member but represented via Symfony and for this I would expect it to be voted in. The point being: It communicates the intention of Silex to follow decisions made here and it also means that if Fabien ever hands over project lead to someone else, appointing a voting member would be handled by our normal rules for handing over (which would indeed then mean that suddenly there is one more voter).

[Paul M. Jones]

On Jul 31, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Donald Gilbert wrote:

> As Symfony and Silex are separate projects

Are they separate in anything but name only? Is the lead on each one a different person, with the authority to defy the other? If the same person has final authority over each one, I don't see how they can be separate in terms of voting. If that's how we're going to play it, then Solar and Aura should get separate representation (and of course they'll both vote the same way, won't they).


-- pmj

[William DURAND]

Why not Igor Wiedler? Just asking..

[Paul M. Jones]

On Jul 31, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

> if Fabien ever hands over project lead to someone else, appointing a voting member would be handled by our normal rules for handing over (which would indeed then mean that suddenly there is one more voter).

If Fabien hands it over to someone else, then that someone else can become the representative of the project. As it stands now, Fabien can represent it quite nicely under his existing Symfony vote.



-- pmj

[Drak]

On 31 July 2013 20:08, Paul M. Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Larry is also not the lead of Drupal. I fear we cannot protect ourselves from evilness .. at least not until we have proof of it.
>
> True, but Drupal's a bit of a different bird.  They don't have a person who is central to the project.  The Symfony ecosystem does, and that's Fabien.

I mean, if that's the route we want to go, I could appoint a representative for each of the independent Aura libraries.

Silex is truly a separate project that just happens to have Fabien as the project lead. But Fabien is a special case anyway, you do realise one of the P's in PHP actually stands for Fabien's surname?  But fun aside, Fabien is just a very prolific OSS contributor who has energised a lot of projects. Silex and Sf  are truly separate projects - hugely popular projects with massive userbase, communities and ecosystems - not libraries of the same root project or sub-projects. Sorry pmj, but your comment here is quite frivolous.

Drak

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

They are separate in the sense that they have totally different target audiences resulting in providing alternative implementations for similar features. Afaik its also going to move to a proper github organization rather than sitting underneath Fabien's github account.

[Paul M. Jones]

On Jul 31, 2013, at 2:19 PM, William DURAND wrote:

> Why not Igor Wiedler? Just asking..

Is Igor the lead/architect/authority over the project? It seems to me that Fabien is the one who has final say there; if he wants to spin it off and give authority to someone else, then maybe we have a case for separate representation, but right now it strikes me that Silex falls under the Symfony umbrella, and thus is already represented.


-- pmj

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

Well I think the question is legitimate. I think Silex should have a way to be an official member either way. I personally think its ok to have this via an additional voting member as the target audiences and potential use cases (and therefore user base) is sufficiently separate. But I would also not be up in arms if we use this as the precedent of where we set the limits of close affiliation between member projects.

[Paul M. Jones]

On Jul 31, 2013, at 2:22 PM, Drak wrote:

> On 31 July 2013 20:08, Paul M. Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Larry is also not the lead of Drupal. I fear we cannot protect ourselves from evilness .. at least not until we have proof of it.
> >
> > True, but Drupal's a bit of a different bird. They don't have a person who is central to the project. The Symfony ecosystem does, and that's Fabien.
>
> I mean, if that's the route we want to go, I could appoint a representative for each of the independent Aura libraries.
>
> Silex is truly a separate project that just happens to have Fabien as the project lead.

If that's the case then Silex is already represented here by Fabien under the Symfony umbrella and does not deserve a second vote.


-- pmj

[Drak]

It's quite clear cut - the project is huge, separate eco system, separate community. Fabien isnt the main contributor there even if he holds veto, the project is very much maintained and guided by others. It's got nothing to do with where the repo is hosted, that's bs imo.

Drak

[Paul M. Jones]

On Jul 31, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

> Well I think the question is legitimate. I think Silex should have a way to be an official member either way.

It is one; its lead developer, Fabien, already votes here. Add it to the list of his represented projects.

> I personally think its ok to have this via an additional voting member as the target audiences and potential use cases (and therefore user base) is sufficiently separate. But I would also not be up in arms if we use this as the precedent of where we set the limits of close affiliation between member projects.

It sets a terrible precedent. It means that one person, prolific or not, can then be the power-behind-the-votes of what should otherwise be independent members.


-- pmj

[Donald Gilbert]

I would tend to agree with you Paul. The Joomla CMS and Joomla Framework that I represent are in the same way separate projects, but each influences the other. They both follow the same code style and carry similar views (where possible, considering the CMS isn't namespaced) on all existing PSR's.

In fact, Joomla as a whole would have preferred to have 2 separate representatives, one for each child project.

So bringing it back full circle. Sensio is the parent project behind Silex and Symfony, just as Joomla is the parent project behind the Framework and CMS. I don't think we want to open the floodgates of what allowing Silex in as it's own project would bring.

[Paul M. Jones]

On Jul 31, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Drak wrote:

> It's quite clear cut - the project is huge, separate eco system, separate community. Fabien isnt the main contributor there even if he holds veto, the project is very much maintained and guided by others. It's got nothing to do with where the repo is hosted, that's bs imo.

Then he can take his name off it, release his veto, let it be hosted separately, etc. Until that time, Silex must be considered as being under the Symfony umbrella.


-- pmj

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

You misunderstood me .. or I wasnt clear. With precent and limit I meant I would not have a problem if we say that Silex gets membership but no additional vote.

[Donald Gilbert]

"its ok to have this via an additional voting member "

Is it ok for Joomla or Solar to have an additional voting member? Probably not, by most accounts.

[Drak]

Absolute none-sense. Silex must re-organise itself according to php-fig's demands? poppycock.

-- pmj

--
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/msgid/php-fig/72A90D9F-A98E-4A83-B240-AFA0928106A7%40gmail.com.

[Paul M. Jones]

I did misunderstand; my apologies. Under that view, though, Silex is already a member, under the Symfony umbrella. It's easy enough to add "Silex" to the projects listed next to Fabien's name.


-- pmj

[Paul M. Jones]

On Jul 31, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Drak wrote:

> Absolute none-sense. Silex must re-organise itself according to php-fig's demands? poppycock.

Silex doesn't have to do anything. But for it to be regarded as a *separate project* then it has to actually be a separate project, and currently it's not.


-- pmj

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

On Jul 31, 2013, at 21:32 , Donald Gilbert <dilber...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "its ok to have this via an additional voting member "
>
> Is it ok for Joomla or Solar to have an additional voting member? Probably not, by most accounts.

For Joomla I might be inclined to follow the argument if you can demonstrate that the framework is infact something that is used in its own right and not just a building block for the CMS. For Solar I would vote against membership that while the project is established and probably has somewhat of a user base, it seems like its not actively being developed anymore and so I do not see the sense in the project being a member project that aims to steer future development.

[Donald Gilbert]

Maybe Composer and Packagist should have separate voting reps as well?

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

It is most certainly a separate project of Symfony, there can be no doubt about this. You can however make the argument that its control is so tightly held by the same person and therefore you are uncomfortable with each project being represented by a separate vote.

Anyway, I am not familiar with our bylaws to know for sure .. but is there even anything prohibiting this, or even projects submitting each library separately. I think as long as the project has a sponsor and enough votes, it goes in.

[Mike van Riel]

As far as I am concerned is Silex a separate project for all intents and
purposes, the only thing
that is not 'separate' is that its lead developer is already a voting
member.

Is the criteria that you are suggesting that projects whose lead
developer is an existing voting
member may not be represented by anyone other than that voting member?

[Paul M. Jones]

Solar was the original entrant, and so is not under question. Aura would be the new member; clearly, it's a separate project under the intuitions on display here.

To be clear, I am not asking for additional votes; I am attempting to point out that defining Silex as a separate project, when it proceeds in lockstep under the same lead developer as Symfony and other related projects, is not sensible. Add it to the list of projects represented by Fabien? Fine. Give it a separate vote when it's not subject to independent decision-making authority? No way.


-- pmj

[Drak]

On 31 July 2013 20:39, Lukas Kahwe Smith <sm...@pooteeweet.org> wrote:

It is most certainly a separate project of Symfony, there can be no doubt about this. You can however make the argument that its control is so tightly held by the same person and therefore you are uncomfortable with each project being represented by a separate vote.

Anyway, I am not familiar with our bylaws to know for sure .. but is there even anything prohibiting this, or even projects submitting each library separately. I think as long as the project has a sponsor and enough votes, it goes in.

Well said... and remember Silex isnt a library (component of Symfony), and neither are the voting member dumb enough to vote +1 for an obvious sham (ie someone scamming a way to get multiple votes on PHP-FIG). Deliberately changing the leadership of Silex would just be a bureaucratic slight of hand to satisfy pmj. Now way. We as voting members are intelligent enough not to allow voting shams without any more ado or talk. 

Drak

[Paul M. Jones]

On Jul 31, 2013, at 2:41 PM, Mike van Riel wrote:

> As far as I am concerned is Silex a separate project for all intents and purposes, the only thing
> that is not 'separate' is that its lead developer is already a voting member.

Thus, it already has representation here, and no additional vote for it is needed.

> Is the criteria that you are suggesting that projects whose lead developer is an existing voting
> member may not be represented by anyone other than that voting member?

That's a fair approximation, yes.


-- pmj

[Paul M. Jones]

This is in fact a voting sham. I don't think I've ever voted -1 on any member application, but I do so now. -1 for Silex, as it is already represented by Fabien under the Symfony umbrella. It needs no additional representation.


-- pmj

[Mike van Riel]

Then perhaps a better angle to approach this issue is, and was, to
attempt to discuss how we
can resolve a potential conflict of interest instead of, what I consider
to be, jumping the gun
and using absolutes such as 'no way'.

It is clear that you have reservations, and that some other share those
with you, lets discuss
those reservations and try to resolve them instead of bikeshedding what
constitutes a true
project and whether this is generically a desirable situation.
> -- pmj
>

[Larry Garfield]

The bylaw we passed a few months ago is very clear: We do not admit
people. We admit projects. The people represent the project, but do not
have to be the project lead. The project can change who the voting rep
is when they feel like (as has just happened, twice).

We don't have Sensio as a member project, because Sensio isn't a
project. We have the Symfony project as a member project. As I've been
corrected before, we don't have Zend as a member organization we have
Zend Framework.

Silex is built on the same components, but so is Drupal 8. Fabien has
commits in Drupal 8, too. PHPBB is rebuilding on Symfony, but they're a
member. Laravel and Zikula are built on Symfony components. Big deal. :-)

There are a number of projects that are affiliated with Symfony that are
represented on this list, either because they're built on Symfony
components or because they're almost universally used along-side
Symfony. That's irrelevant, though, because they're separate projects.

So really, the only argument here is "because fabpot", which I think is
silly. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Beau would just be
parroting Fabien. (If anything, Beau's been about 187x as active as
Fabien on the list to date; Fabien would be parroting him. <g>)

The fact that we have some reps who are currently listed as representing
multiple projects is, actually, a violation of bylaw 3, IMO. That's
something we should fix.

The relevant question isn't the person; it's is the project a distinct
community and governance. I don't believe "because fabpot" is a valid
argument in that case.

Disclaimer: I actually approached Igor W. first about representing
Silex, as he's the Silex #2 person, effectively. He declined, but we
discussed a few possible alternatives, including Beau. I then emailed
Fabien to get his thought and said he had no objection but didn't want
to push anyone into the role if they didn't want it. I spoke to Beau
and he clearly wanted it, so here we are. :-)

Also: May I remind people about self-throttling! Please!

--Larry Garfield

[Phil Sturgeon]

PyroCMS is also -1

Only because of the tricky conflict of ownership of the two projects, I know that Beau is a smart guy who has helped out in a lot of conversations.

To me, while Silex and Symfony are seperate projects, the ownership is the issue. The voting member does not need to be the project lead, but if they are not they need to go back to the leader and talk about what should be done. The lead then gives the answer (based on votes of BDFL coin-toss) and the voting member has their answer for the group.

If the voting member is going off to their project lead to ask for a decision, and that project lead is already a voting member of another project, we've essentially got a puppet leader and one member with a double vote.

If somebody else was named as project lead and the repo was hosted under its own organisation, I would be ok to vote for this. If the voting member applying was the new project lead then I would be even happier.

[Phil Sturgeon]

On Wednesday, 31 July 2013 15:59:33 UTC-4, Phil Sturgeon wrote:

 (based on votes of BDFL coin-toss) 

"or" 

[Larry Garfield]

I have not personally gone back to Dries about a single vote we've had
since I became the Drupal representative in 2009. I don't know that any
non-lead rep besides Guillermo actively solicits feedback from their dev
team for each vote before making one.

The voting reps should be able to speak on behalf of their projects
without just being a mouthpiece for an otherwise-busy BDFL.

--Larry Garfield

[Phil Sturgeon]

On Wednesday, 31 July 2013 16:07:40 UTC-4, Larry Garfield wrote:

I have not personally gone back to Dries about a single vote we've had
since I became the Drupal representative in 2009.  I don't know that any
non-lead rep besides Guillermo actively solicits feedback from their dev
team for each vote before making one.

The voting reps should be able to speak on behalf of their projects
without just being a mouthpiece for an otherwise-busy BDFL.

--Larry Garfield

A non-lead making decisions that could effect the future of their represented project sounds terrible for a multitude of reasons, but this is probably the wrong place to discuss it. 

[Donald Gilbert]

I actively solicit feedback from the Joomla Framework Team as well as from the internal Joomla CMS FIG rep (unofficial, but I get his thoughts on how the CMS views things).

So, I would assume, since we're all reps for projects, that the majority of us go back to the project to ask feedback and input on any given FIG item. Like I said I do, and Andrew Eddie did the same before me.

[Zachary King]

Just my two cents, but I would think "A Member Project may not have more than one Voting Representative at a time." (from the membership bylaw) could be construed as disallowing this, but I don't know. Personally, from watching the list and irc I think Beau would be a great member, but I think php-fig should be clear as to what they allow.

Either way I think you should amend your bylaws to be explicit either way.

-Zach

-- pmj

--
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+unsubscribe@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/msgid/php-fig/51F96ABF.5050606%40gmail.com.

[Paul M. Jones]

On Jul 31, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Phil Sturgeon wrote:

> If somebody else was named as project lead and the repo was hosted under its own organisation, I would be ok to vote for this. If the voting member applying was the new project lead then I would be even happier.

As would I.


-- pmj

[Hari K T]

As this became a thread I am writing, else I would have not written here .

No issues with Beau and with full respect to Fabien .

I don't think it is nice to have Silex being represented other than Fabien himself.

https://github.com/fabpot/Silex/graphs/contributors

and the votes from Symfony and Silex will not change as the lead has same point of view though we say we include member projects, but the last word is from the lead developer .

I know there are some projects that discuss things inside community and vote, but majority of them vote is by their project leads for they have more clear vision than the people who contribute.

I will ask Beau to represent https://github.com/sculpin/sculpin .

And if Silex really need or think the votes will differ other than Symfony then Beau can represent , but it is good to see Igrow for he is having second with the commits.

And many of you are friends and may be having hard feeling to give -1 . Please don't do so. Please think once again is Silex really needed to vote or does it can implement the ideas of fig ? Else we will see a huge list of github projects included soon in fig .

Hari K T

http://harikt.com , https://github.com/auraphp

--
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/msgid/php-fig/CFC6E801-3979-4F45-8B2F-7D2931B987A1%40gmail.com.

[Karsten Dambekalns]

Hi.

Larry Garfield wrote:
> So really, the only argument here is "because fabpot", which I think is
> silly. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Beau would just be
> parroting Fabien.

Indeed. The bylaws say the voting rep does not have to be the project
lead. Now saying that because a project lead is already representing a
different project makes those two projects "the same" unconditionally is
wrong. For Flow we ask the project team for any far reaching decisions,
and yes, the team has changed Roberts-the-project-lead-Lemkes mind in
the past quite a few times.

It boils down to this:

a) Silex is a dictatorship and Fabien has absolute power
-> no separate vote
b) Silex is governed by the team/community behind it
-> a separate vote makes sense
c) b) is true but it is policy to stick to whatever Symfony does
-> no separate vote

I do believe b) is the case.

Regards,
Karsten
--
Karsten Dambekalns - Creative Code Engineer
TYPO3 Neos & Flow Developer
http://karsten.dambekalns.de

TYPO3 .... inspiring people to share!
Get involved: typo3.org

[Paul Dragoonis]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Phil Sturgeon <em...@philsturgeon.co.uk> wrote:

PyroCMS is also -1

PPI Framework votes -1.

This is due to the mixed reactions of it joining the group with as a voting project. 

I'm only going to vote +1 for projects that people unanimously are happy being a member project.

 

--

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/msgid/php-fig/a42fe686-8e52-4b0c-9ec1-52346926a39f%40googlegroups.com.

[Michael C]

Larry isn't the biggest contributor in Drupal, nor 2nd, nor 3rd. It's about who can represent them the best, not who has the most commits.

--

Michael C

-------- Original message --------
From: Hari K T <ktha...@gmail.com>
Date: 01/08/2013 2:24 AM (GMT+00:00)
To: php...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Membership Request: Beau Simensen (Silex)

As this became a thread I am writing, else I would have not written here .

No issues with Beau and with full respect to Fabien .

I don't think it is nice to have Silex being represented other than Fabien himself.

https://github.com/fabpot/Silex/graphs/contributors

and the votes from Symfony and Silex will not change as the lead has same point of view though we say we include member projects, but the last word is from the lead developer .

I know there are some projects that discuss things inside community and vote, but majority of them vote is by their project leads for they have more clear vision than the people who contribute.

I will ask Beau to represent https://github.com/sculpin/sculpin .

And if Silex really need or think the votes will differ other than Symfony then Beau can represent , but it is good to see Igrow for he is having second with the commits.

And many of you are friends and may be having hard feeling to give -1 . Please don't do so. Please think once again is Silex really needed to vote or does it can implement the ideas of fig ? Else we will see a huge list of github projects included soon in fig .

Hari K T

http://harikt.com , https://github.com/auraphp

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Paul M. Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 31, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Phil Sturgeon wrote:

> If somebody else was named as project lead and the repo was hosted under its own organisation, I would be ok to vote for this. If the voting member applying was the new project lead then I would be even happier.

As would I.


-- pmj

--
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/msgid/php-fig/CFC6E801-3979-4F45-8B2F-7D2931B987A1%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
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/msgid/php-fig/CAESZFtKn%3DQKv%3Dw8eFRn6yjvB%2B0qjOxKsFa6xPMCzdhjReOLoww%40mail.gmail.com.

[Evert Pot]

On Aug 1, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Michael C <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote:

> Larry isn't the biggest contributor in Drupal, nor 2nd, nor 3rd. It's about who can represent them the best, not who has the most commits.

Not wanting to add oil to the fire, but looking at the contributions I saw exactly 1 commit from Beau in the history of silex.

So while I agree that 'biggest committer' is not a good measure for involvement, or should even be required, it would perhaps be helpful if Beau could comment on his exact involvement with Silex.

Evert

[Moisa Teodor]

Is it required that a project representative have a certain number of commits, or stuff like that ?

I find it very strange that you guys pick on stuff like number of commits. For what I've seen, Beau had quite a lot of quality feedback in this group - more than some group members that represent one or more projects, some of which are incredibly silent (even during the votes).

IMHO, the fact that Beau has been active in the discussions should be what matters; but the decision is not mine to take.

--
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/msgid/php-fig/0B7E4A78-BB90-4C55-A775-1629321AD65A%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Doru Moisa
web: http;//moisadoru.wordpress.com
tel: +40 720 861 922
Bucharest, Romania

[Evert Pot]

On Aug 1, 2013, at 1:55 PM, Moisa Teodor <mois...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it required that a project representative have a certain number of commits, or stuff like that ?
>
> I find it very strange that you guys pick on stuff like number of commits. For what I've seen, Beau had quite a lot of quality feedback in this group - more than some group members that represent one or more projects, some of which are incredibly silent (even during the votes).
>
> IMHO, the fact that Beau has been active in the discussions should be what matters; but the decision is not mine to take.

Like I said.. I know it's not a good measure, and I was actually the first to +1 Beau because I feel that he's been a valuable contributor here.. and it's been my long-time opinion that projects should not be members, but individuals... Especially the ones that have already proven to constructively aid to the effort. For that reason my +1 stands.

But given the fact that people are apparently concerned of a take-over of the symfony camp, and feel that fabpot is already well represented under a different moniker, it may aid to Beau's case to elaborate on his role within Silex.

Evert

[William Durand]

If I remember correctly, projects *should* do their best to implement PSRs,

even if they still can decide to not follow some of them (I am looking at you

PSR-1, and PSR-2).

Anyway, let's say we have a PSR-N. What would happen if Symfony voted

-1, but Silex voted +1? Would it possible for Silex to implement that PSR

even if Symfony does not? I don't know the answer, these are just two open

questions.

Note that Propel would vote +1 to get Beau on board.

William

--

William Durand | http://www.williamdurand.fr

Evert

--
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/msgid/php-fig/5BF1C51D-0EE6-4D9D-B91D-4704410FCC2D%40gmail.com.

[Ryan Parman]

On Aug 1, 2013, at 6:34 AM, William Durand <william...@gmail.com> wrote:

If I remember correctly, projects *should* do their best to implement PSRs,

even if they still can decide to not follow some of them (I am looking at you

PSR-1, and PSR-2).

Actually, the opposite is true. I don't ever plan to write a logger, so I'll never implement PSR-3. I also never plan to write another autoloader for as long as I live, so PSR-0 doesn't really come into play except for how I name my classes — but I've always named them that way, so it isn't a big deal.

But I digress…

I'm a fan of Beau's, but FIG has always been about projects. I'm only vaguely aware of the relationship between SIlex and Symfony, other than Silex is made up of Symfony Components (but then again, how many projects *aren't* these days?).

If FIG is about projects, then we need to understand the role that Fabien plays in both Symfony and Silex, since that's obviously in question. If they're sufficiently separate/independent, then I have no issue with this.

[Pádraic Brady]

Zend Framework votes -1. We can of course change votes within the two
week period if the debate leads that way.

Common sense, however, dictates that if we have two projects with a
shared dominant decision maker then there should be any way on this
Earth that they can unduly influence two votes. I'm aware that can put
the Silex community (as distinct from Symfony's) at a disadvantage but
that neglects that they already have a voting member at the helm - if
Fabien's Symfony votes disagree with Silex developer sentiment then
that's their own issue to resolve outside of PHP-FIG.

This isn't PHP-FIG dictating project organisation - which is none of
our business. If Apple and Google joined a standards group and someone
realised they had the same board of directors and CEO, you can imagine
the problems. Apple actually DID try this at a EU group by getting
votes for its related and subsidiary groups.

The precedent here is that I could have Dave Marshall apply on behalf
of Mockery (which I nominally lead though Dave does most of the
maintenance these days).

> --
> 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/msgid/php-fig/9D3C569C-9AD7-44C8-BA31-B0F030B5FB1F%40ryanparman.com.

>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

--

--
Pádraic Brady

http://blog.astrumfutura.com
http://www.survivethedeepend.com
Zend Framework Community Review Team
Zend Framework PHP-FIG Representative

[John Mertic]

+1

On Wednesday, 31 July 2013 13:38:13 UTC-4, Beau Simensen wrote:

Hello all,

I would like to request that Silex be added as a member project with Beau Simensen as the voting representative. Larry Garfield is sponsoring this membership request.

Silex is a micro-framework built on the Symfony 2 components and the Pimple micro service container.

Silex maintains a mailing list ( http://groups.google.com/group/silex-php ) and it has an active community on IRC ( #silex-php on Freenode ).

http://silex.sensiolabs.org/

https://github.com/fabpot/silex

As for me, I've been active in the PHP-FIG community for the last year or so as framework interoperability is of great interest to me. My vendor is dflydev and I am a proponent of writing framework agnostic code; hence my desire to be involved in discussions on framework interop.

You can find me as simensen on Freenode in #phpfig, #silex-php, #composer, and #dflydev. If you want to know more about me you can start digging here:

https://twitter.com/beausimensen

https://github.com/simensen

https://github.com/dflydev

[Donald Gilbert]

-1 from Joomla for bringing in Silex as an independent project.

I believe that voting representatives for a project should go back to their project lead (or project appointed group) for feedback on any item brought up for a vote within the PHP-FIG, rather than acting independently of the project. Otherwise, it's not the project that's being represented, but rather the ideals of the representative. With that in mind, since the project lead for Silex is already a voting member of the PHP-FIG, I believe that the Silex already receives it's proper representation.

That said, I believe Beau should be a member under Sculpin, rather than Silex. He has been the voice of reason in many of the discussions here, and has provided valuable feedback to nearly every thread. Plus he has a lot of good ideas. :)

[Moisa Teodor]

Guys, I'm not sure you are right; the php-fig website states that Fabien is the representative for Symfony2 only - so, technically Silex is not represented here, even though it's project lead is a member.

There are people that represent more than one project though, but what projects they represent is clearly specified:

 - Assetic, Buzz - Kriss Wallsmith

 - Aura, Solar - Paul M. Jones

 - Composer, Packagist - Jordi Boggiano

Just my $0.02.

--

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/msgid/php-fig/9a9df64d-7be7-4d37-aa51-f8159b0ba6ce%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

[Paul M. Jones]

On Aug 5, 2013, at 1:01 AM, Moisa Teodor wrote:

> Guys, I'm not sure you are right; the php-fig website states that Fabien is the representative for Symfony2 only - so, technically Silex is not represented here, even though it's project lead is a member.

Easy enough to add Silex to his list.


-- pmj

[Larry Garfield]

We had this discussion already, and standardized the bylaw on Projects,
not People. Adding Silex to Fabien would not be appropriate. If
anything, we need to fix the current 3 "double reps", since that's
technically not allowed by the bylaw.

--Larry Garfield

[Paul M. Jones]

Not only is it appropriate, it is the most in-the-spirit of the available options.

Yes, we admit "projects not people" but let's recall what the driving forces were behind that phrasing.

First off, we needed some level of "barrier to entry" (if you will) to say they equivalent of "a voting member should be representative of something more than just himself."

Second, we wanted a *diversity of practice* to be present, so that this group did not just become a rubber-stamp for a particular set of ideas; it is more like a Senate than a House of Representatives.

Thus, we have persons who represent multiple projects, but still have only one vote. Cf. Composer/Packagist, Aura/Solar, et al.

Allowing Silex a vote *in addition to* Symfony is antithetical to those underlying principles. In contrast, adding Silex on to the list of projects represented by Fabien is in very much in line with them.


-- pmj

[Drak]

Paul, You are wrong here. I think you've given your -1, so that should be enough on this vote please.

--
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/msgid/php-fig/9F33B6CA-1291-42F7-9A6A-14F8261F7323%40gmail.com.

[Donald Gilbert]

And you've given your +1, Drak, so that should be enough on this vote from you as well.

It's very hypocritical to get on someones case about continuing the discussion, while at the same time you are, yourself, continuing the discussion.

This thread has morphed from a vote into a discussion, and since voting is still open, allowance should be left for those of such a mind to voice a dissenting opinion. I don't hear you asking for Larry (no offense Larry) to stop his continued discussion on this matter.

[Drak]

You have a twisted view of things and have evidently not followed this thread. At every turn Paul is stamping his feet despite several vocal rebuttals of his points. Yes, if there is to be discussion it should go into a separate thread, but, no, I am not wrong for calling Paul out on this. It's his usual pattern of behaviour and someone needs to call it. I dont care if you flame me or castigate me. Larry is pointing out the facts, and Paul is trying to wriggle out of it. Now we will have to suffer another round of painful bylaw discussions I am sure.

--
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/msgid/php-fig/89f5d02b-98b5-4806-9585-da517aff5266%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul M. Jones]

On Aug 5, 2013, at 3:20 PM, Drak wrote:

> You have a twisted view of things and have evidently not followed this thread. At every turn Paul is stamping his feet despite several vocal rebuttals of his points. Yes, if there is to be discussion it should go into a separate thread, but, no, I am not wrong for calling Paul out on this. It's his usual pattern of behaviour and someone needs to call it. I dont care if you flame me or castigate me. Larry is pointing out the facts, and Paul is trying to wriggle out of it. Now we will have to suffer another round of painful bylaw discussions I am sure.

Drak, you yourself helped establish a precedent here with your original "PSR-X" voting activity. You even went so far as to explicitly urge others to vote -1. "Pot, this is kettle -- you're black!"


-- pmj

[Phil Sturgeon]

Paul/Drak, take this elsewhere. Start a new thread discussing this, or get on IRC.

[Beau Simensen]

Hey all,

After discussing the issues raised in this thread with Fabien, Igor, and Larry, I am withdrawing the membership request for Silex.

Nobody on the Silex side thinks that it is worth pursuing Silex membership under such contentious conditions even though the majority currently seems to support it. Larry supports this assessment and decision.

Silex may decide to request membership again if the membership rules change in such a way that nobody will object on the grounds brought up in this thread.

On a personal note, I never expected any friction with getting Silex voted in as a member project. When I was approached to represent Silex my first thought was, "of course Silex should be a FIG member project! Why didn't Silex request to join earlier?"

Conflict of interest never entered the equation for me. I think that is true for everyone involved prior to sending the membership request.

I enjoy working with FIG and I would be lying if I said that I would not like to be a voting representative someday. I was excited that I was recommended to represent Silex but I am very disappointed in how this all went down. So it goes. :)

Let's go build things together and put this behind us.

[Phil Sturgeon]

I meant to send you an email privately saying "no hard feelings dude", but completely forgot.

You've been helping out a shitload around here, so I hope you keep doing that. If things change I look forward to voting for you, but that shouldn't stop you from helping out the way you already have been. 

[Paul M. Jones]

On Aug 13, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Phil Sturgeon <em...@philsturgeon.co.uk> wrote:

> I meant to send you an email privately saying "no hard feelings dude", but completely forgot.
>
> You've been helping out a shitload around here, so I hope you keep doing that. If things change I look forward to voting for you, but that shouldn't stop you from helping out the way you already have been.

Hear hear.



--
Paul M. Jones
pmjo...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

[Gaelan (Not A Member, From the Drupal World)]

This seems to conflict with the bylaws, but the FAQ (under "Who gets the vote — the individual or the framework/project?") says this:

Multiple members can represent a single project, but that project will only get one vote. A member can represent multiple projects, but that member will still only get one vote.

[Phil Sturgeon]

On Sunday, 18 August 2013 01:07:41 UTC-4, Gaelan (Not A Member, From the Drupal World) wrote:

This seems to conflict with the bylaws, but the FAQ (under "Who gets the vote — the individual or the framework/project?") says this:

Multiple members can represent a single project, but that project will only get one vote. A member can represent multiple projects, but that member will still only get one vote.

I'm not sure what you think the conflict is, but to summarise this: 

• Silex and Symfony are different projects.
• Beau (representing Silex) would have a vote.
  
• Fabian (representing Symfony) already has a vote.
• Fabian is technically in charge of the Beau is representing.
• Fabian ends up with two votes, because he obviously plays a role in deciding the future of his projects.

That is of course hypothetical and I have no reason to assume that is what would happen, but its the conflict of interests a few of us were voting against. There is nothing in any bylaw that says anything about this specific situation and I figure its just best we avoid it.

[Amy Stephen]

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:54:20 PM UTC-5, Larry Garfield wrote:

The bylaw we passed a few months ago is very clear: We do not admit
people. We admit projects.  The people represent the project, but do not
have to be the project lead.  The project can change who the voting rep
is when they feel like (as has just happened, twice).

There is also an "at large" representative.  Given the size of the PHP community, it seems like more than one might be appropriate in that role. Can't think of anyone more appropriate than Beau.

[Phil Sturgeon]

It was decided that no more "community at large" type things were going to happen.

This is not about trying to wangle somebody into the voting group as some sort of merit badge for being a nice guy who comes up with good ideas. The membership bylaws are what they are. 

[Amy Stephen]

On Monday, August 19, 2013 9:20:42 PM UTC-5, Phil Sturgeon wrote:

It was decided that no more "community at large" type things were going to happen.

Thanks. I was not aware that the "community at large" was gone.

[Beau Simensen]

It is not so much "gone" as "there can be only one." :) 

[Amy Stephen]

If so, then, my point stands. I think a community this size could have more than one "at large" representative.

For what it's worth.

[Michael C]

The matter of non-project reps is a very controversial subject and to be honest I think FIG has more important things to discuss at the moment.

 

I would like to propose another ‘informal agreement’ that we try to avoid topics that will be very controversial and unlikely to pass by a considerable margin (We only require 50% of voters for a vote to pass but for it to get to a vote it should have the general atmosphere that 80% would vote +1). This group has seen enough politics lately and Beau withdrew in order to stop arguments, now another one is being brought up. In the specific case of Beau, if he wishes he can apply for the project Sculpin to become a member project.

 

The point of this group is to have a bunch of projects working together, not learning to hate each other and continually argue about internal politics. By all means debate about different caching interfaces and whether an autoloader should do X or should do Y,  but do we really need to spend so much time arguing about internal politics such as who should be a member.

 

At the very least I think everyone should try and leave internal stuff until we have a few more PSRs through. I have a series of bylaw amendments that have come up on IRC/ML recently and a few typos or changes that we’ve made that need changes to other bylaws, a proposal for a voting system and an IRC logging bot, but FIG doesn’t need bylaw amendments and large website changes right now. It needs it’s members to work together to produce PSRs, not trying to (and failing to a lot of the time) work together to find out how to work together.

 

Thanks,

Michael C

 

P.S. For what it’s worth, I agree with non-project reps as I believe individuals who don’t lead specific projects still have a lot to offer. However in my opinion, it’s more important to have less internal bickering than to discuss things like non-project reps which will undoubtedly cause arguments. This email is not me trying to shut down discussions because I disagree with them.

 

--

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/msgid/php-fig/e3478732-ac4e-404d-9ba2-736509643a22%40googlegroups.com.

[Phil Sturgeon]

On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 18:45:50 UTC-4, Michael Cullum wrote:

The matter of non-project reps is a very controversial subject and to be honest I think FIG has more important things to discuss at the moment.

 

I would like to propose another ‘informal agreement’ that we try to avoid topics that will be very controversial and unlikely to pass by a considerable margin (We only require 50% of voters for a vote to pass but for it to get to a vote it should have the general atmosphere that 80% would vote +1). This group has seen enough politics lately and Beau withdrew in order to stop arguments, now another one is being brought up. In the specific case of Beau, if he wishes he can apply for the project Sculpin to become a member project.

 

The point of this group is to have a bunch of projects working together, not learning to hate each other and continually argue about internal politics. By all means debate about different caching interfaces and whether an autoloader should do X or should do Y,  but do we really need to spend so much time arguing about internal politics such as who should be a member.

 

At the very least I think everyone should try and leave internal stuff until we have a few more PSRs through. I have a series of bylaw amendments that have come up on IRC/ML recently and a few typos or changes that we’ve made that need changes to other bylaws, a proposal for a voting system and an IRC logging bot, but FIG doesn’t need bylaw amendments and large website changes right now. It needs it’s members to work together to produce PSRs, not trying to (and failing to a lot of the time) work together to find out how to work together.

 

Thanks,

Michael C

P.S. For what it’s worth, I agree with non-project reps as I believe individuals who don’t lead specific projects still have a lot to offer. However in my opinion, it’s more important to have less internal bickering than to discuss things like non-project reps which will undoubtedly cause arguments. This email is not me trying to shut down discussions because I disagree with them.

Here here. The important thing for us to do is to discuss PSRs. The autoloader PSR is going to pass its entrance vote tomorrow so we're going to get to work on that, and I hope everyone is busy with feedback not trying to work out a way to jam somebody in as a member after he was withdrawn his request, or discuss non-voting members for a second time after everybody agreed it was a bad idea, just because it was mentioned at the bottom of a thread that has already reached its conclusion.

Let's focus on priorities here.

Beau, I'll see you on IRC on Thursday to discuss the autoloader stuff. Tomorrow I'm all jammed up. I'll try and make sure Paul is around too.

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

Beau if you are still interested, I guess the reasons for opposition are now no longer valid. Or do people still have concerns because Fabien is the lead maintainer of both Symfony and Silex?

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
sm...@pooteeweet.org

[Paul M. Jones]

On Sep 17, 2013, at 10:19 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith <sm...@pooteeweet.org> wrote:

> Beau if you are still interested, I guess the reasons for opposition are now no longer valid. Or do people still have concerns because Fabien is the lead maintainer of both Symfony and Silex?

My original reasoning was that while a particular person is a member, he represents all his projects.

My further reasoning based on that stand, obviously not official policy although I believe it makes sense:

- Since Fabien is leaving, he "takes" his projects with him. He is appointing someone else to represent only one of them (Symfony in this case).

- If Bernhard is in a leadership position on other projects, he "brings" them with him as well. That means if he's in a leadership position over Silex, then he brings that with him too. I suspect this is not the case.

- If indeed Bernhard is not in a leadership position over Silex, that means the Fabien's departure opens up a space for Silex. (Alternatively, Fabien may have meant to appoint Bernhard to represent all of Fabien's projects, but I don't think that was Fabien's intent; happy to be corrected here.)

- For Beau to represent Silex, I would argue that needs to be in a leadership or other recognized position over Silex. I don't know if that's the case or not.

This is only my view, of course, and open to discussion.

[Bernhard Schussek]

Hi Paul,

2013/9/17 Paul M. Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com>

- If Bernhard is in a leadership position on other projects, he "brings" them with him as well.

I am not in a leadership position over Silex, I'm not even actively involved in its development.

- If indeed Bernhard is not in a leadership position over Silex, that means the Fabien's departure opens up a space for Silex.  (Alternatively, Fabien may have meant to appoint Bernhard to represent all of Fabien's projects, but I don't think that was Fabien's intent; happy to be corrected here.)

Fabien was only officially representing Symfony here, so that's the only project he can appoint a representative for. Any other project and a corresponding representative need to be voted in.

Cheers,

Bernhard

--

Bernhard Schussek
Blog: http://webmozarts.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/webmozart

[Paul M. Jones]

On Sep 17, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Bernhard Schussek <bsch...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> 2013/9/17 Paul M. Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com>
>> - If Bernhard is in a leadership position on other projects, he "brings" them with him as well.
>
> I am not in a leadership position over Silex, I'm not even actively involved in its development.

That's about what I figured; I pointed it out only for completeness.

>> - If indeed Bernhard is not in a leadership position over Silex, that means the Fabien's departure opens up a space for Silex. (Alternatively, Fabien may have meant to appoint Bernhard to represent all of Fabien's projects, but I don't think that was Fabien's intent; happy to be corrected here.)
>
> Fabien was only officially representing Symfony here, so that's the only project he can appoint a representative for. Any other project and a corresponding representative need to be voted in.

I concur with this assessment; again, I brought it up only for completeness. (To reiterate an earlier point, Fabien may only have "officially" represented Symfony, but as the leader of various other projects, his vote was representative of those projects as well, much in the same way mine is representative not only of Solar but its descendant project Aura, as well as any other projects I may start up in the future.)

[Drak]

I would like to see Beau voted on again now.

--
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/msgid/php-fig/0CAF7DA7-1FC0-47D9-9B95-CD09BC6542A2%40gmail.com.

[Jordi Boggiano]

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 6:25:07 PM UTC+2, Drak wrote:

I would like to see Beau voted on again now.

Let's all hop on Beau and vote +1 :p 

[Drak]

We need a fresh vote though to comply with the bylaws. If he'd not withdrawn, he WOULD have been appointed anyway. 

--

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/msgid/php-fig/18318cca-3c06-4d77-9195-093d1979747c%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul M. Jones]

On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Drak <dr...@zikula.org> wrote:

> We need a fresh vote though to comply with the bylaws. If he'd not withdrawn, he WOULD have been appointed anyway.

Remember, though: he needs a new vote, a sponsor for that vote, and he needs to actually be representative of the project (I would argue this means being in a leadership or decision-making position). I recall others voting against an OWASP applicant for similar reasons.

[Drak]

On 17 September 2013 17:30, Paul M. Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Drak <dr...@zikula.org> wrote:

> We need a fresh vote though to comply with the bylaws. If he'd not withdrawn, he WOULD have been appointed anyway.

Remember, though: he needs a new vote, a sponsor for that vote, and he needs to actually be representative of the project (I would argue this means being in a leadership or decision-making position).  

that's exactly what I am saying. He needs a fresh vote according to the bylaws.

[Paul M. Jones]

Agreed, but note also that "he needs to actually be representative of the project." Is he? (I claim no knowledge either way.)

[Michael C]

Not everyone is in a leadership position but they are still representatives
of the project. Off the top of my head I can think of 2 but I'm sure there
are more (Larry and Padriac).

--
Thanks,
Michael Cullum

> -----Original Message-----
> From: php...@googlegroups.com [mailto:php...@googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Paul M. Jones
> Sent: 17 September 2013 17:30
> To: php...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Membership Request: Beau Simensen (Silex)
>
>

> --
> 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/msgid/php-fig/928992D1-95CA-40E4-8AA5-
> D99AC0A0B01C%40gmail.com.

[Paul M. Jones]

On Sep 17, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Michael C <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote:

> Not everyone is in a leadership position but they are still representatives
> of the project. Off the top of my head I can think of 2 but I'm sure there
> are more (Larry and Padriac).

Padraic was appointed

Drupal, as usual, is a special case. (Hi Larry! :-) Is it your position that Beau occupies a spot in the Silex community similar to the one Larry does in Drupal?

[Phil Sturgeon]

Guys please stop any discussion on this thread.

Beau has withdrawn his request, and this vote is over. Therefore this vote is over, and we can't just start bumping it.

If Beau would like to apply (and can prove he has some sort of capability to either "make" or "represent" decisions being made by Silex) then he can do so in a new thread, suffixed ": Take 2" or something obvious. 

Let's leave this one to history, and wait for him to make his move (if he does indeed plan to make one).

[Fabien Potencier]

To be very clear, I don't want any of my other projects to be
represented in the FIG group.

>
>

[Paul M. Jones]

/me nods

Thanks for the clarification.