Resigning My Position ...

[Paul Jones]

Hi all,

I am resigning my position as sponsor of PSR-8, the "Huggable" Interface. This was a fun joke way-back-when, but its time has passed.

And if I may suggest it, perhaps the editor should voluntarily withdraw the PSR from consideration.

Thanks everyone!


--

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

[Korvin Szanto]

If only this had passed an acceptance vote, maybe we'd have a different environment today if we had a few more hugs.

--
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/4396B7B4-06CC-4E51-86E0-86E6BB8AEB5A%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Michael Cullum]

We [secretaries] discussed PSR-8 a while back and we've also been part of numerous conversations with Larry [PSR-8 Editor] and other folks and we came to the conclusion that it doesn't appear there is really a way to withdraw PSRs for the moment. We discussed a bylaw amendment to allow for withdrawing/abandoning PSRs but it has been solved in the FIG 3.0 changes (Abandonment vote) so we thought we'd leave it until after the FIG 3.0 vote. If FIG 3.0 goes through then it can be put up for a vote as per the new bylaws, if FIG 3.0 fails then we can consider a bylaw amendment specifically to address this.

In the meantime, we'll update the PSR index to remove you as a Sponsor as per your request.

--

Many thanks,

Michael Cullum

FIG Secretary

On 9 September 2016 at 15:57, Korvin Szanto <korvin...@gmail.com> wrote:

If only this had passed an acceptance vote, maybe we'd have a different environment today if we had a few more hugs.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:53 AM Paul Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

I am resigning my position as sponsor of PSR-8, the "Huggable" Interface. This was a fun joke way-back-when, but its time has passed.

And if I may suggest it, perhaps the editor should voluntarily withdraw the PSR from consideration.

Thanks everyone!


--

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

--
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/4396B7B4-06CC-4E51-86E0-86E6BB8AEB5A%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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/CANeXGWWc5q%2BmwEYeXvPzTot4ucuEWydBHQs%2BGyv-o_JLYEqzVw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Jones]

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 10:08, Michael Cullum <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote:
>
> We [secretaries] discussed PSR-8 a while back and we've also been part of numerous conversations with Larry [PSR-8 Editor] and other folks and we came to the conclusion that it doesn't appear there is really a way to withdraw PSRs for the moment.

Interesting; was that brought up as a discussion for the whole group to consider? And if not, why not? Seems like exactly the kind of thing voting members should be talking about, not the secretarial assistants among themselves.

[Chris Tankersley]

You were in the room at ZendCon 2015's FIG meeting when we brought up the whole abandonment issue and how we should handle it. The notes are here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/php-fig/FIG$20Zendcon%7Csort:relevance/php-fig/pxezV88Uk1I/eW3GvtPRCgAJ

It was then brought up a few months later:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/php-fig/abandonment%7Csort:relevance/php-fig/YBUtydtgm5A/LFb9Qt-RCAAJ

It was then rolled into FIG 3.0 as part of the larger reworking of the group. At least from my end, I was content for letting it simmer until we found out what was going on with FIG 3.0.

So at the very least, it was brought up to the list twice, and very few people cared to go any further than a discussion.

 

--

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

--
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/B77808E9-F408-40E0-B247-FBF41F1C44FD%40gmail.com.

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

--

Chris Tankersley
http://ctankersley.com

[Michael Cullum]

We were discussing the status of various PSRs so we could see what resources they needed and the like in one of our first monthly meetings and when PSR-8 came up, we were aware it was stuck in Limbo (because of it's nature) so we contacted the Editor [Larry] to discuss what he wanted to do regarding it. The discussion ensued there wasn't anything in the bylaws that allowed anyone to do anything about it due at the time but it would be covered in FIG 3.0 so therefore we determined there was no need for us (Secretaries) to start a discussion on the mailing list for (1) a bylaw change and (2) the abandonment vote as this process would take a minimum of 8 weeks (2 week discussion, 2 week vote on each occasion) and it would be wasting peoples time as it would potentially be solved in the near future anyway. It was also noted it had been raised with a number of FIG members at a FIG meeting (Zendcon which I believe you were even present for so you know this was discussed with the wider FIG) and briefly a number of times on the list. If it wasn't solved in FIG 3.0, we could always formally propose a bylaw change to introduce this new PSR 'state'.

Again, if you would like to discuss this, please start a new topic; commenting on secretary actions and what we can and cannot do (or should and shouldn't be doing) in almost every instance is just derailing topics of conversation. If you have feedback or suggestions for things we could do better then we'd love to hear them but I'd suggest reaching out to us in private in the first instance as it might be as simple as a 'Fair point, we will work on that/that sounds like something we could certainly do' and there is no need to bother all 3209 people subscribed to the mailing list with it. I believe you and I have even discussed this before and you agreed it made sense to first reach out to us in private in future instances when you thought we could do something better or wanted to express discontent at the way we'd done something.

--

Michael 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+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/B77808E9-F408-40E0-B247-FBF41F1C44FD%40gmail.com.

[Daniel Hunsaker]

> We [secretaries] discussed PSR-8 a while back and we've also been part of numerous conversations with Larry [PSR-8 Editor] and other folks and we came to the conclusion that it doesn't appear there is really a way to withdraw PSRs for the moment.

Interesting; was that brought up as a discussion for the whole group to consider? And if not, why not? Seems like exactly the kind of thing voting members should be talking about, not the secretarial assistants among themselves.

It was noted here on the mailing list when PSR-8 was awarded its number:

Yep, according to my bylaw this means that PSR-8 is now - and will always be - the huggable PSR.

(quoted from https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/pcCMC6Kpq74/S2xLhJoA1MsJ)

This was a known limitation of the current bylaws for at least as long as the PSR itself has existed.  The fact it hasn't been addressed (that is, fixed in the bylaws) in that time probably means something, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

[Paul Jones]

Hi Chris,

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 10:25, Chris Tankersley <ch...@ctankersley.com> wrote:
>
> You were in the room at ZendCon 2015's FIG meeting when we brought up the whole abandonment issue and how we should handle it. The notes are here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/php-fig/FIG$20Zendcon%7Csort:relevance/php-fig/pxezV88Uk1I/eW3GvtPRCgAJ

Ah, nice! Thanks for linking to those.

I note only that the summary mentions "abandonment" (as in "how to mark a PSR as abandoned due to inactivity") and not "voluntary withdrawal." They are two different things.

> It was then brought up a few months later:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/php-fig/abandonment%7Csort:relevance/php-fig/YBUtydtgm5A/LFb9Qt-RCAAJ

Same case here: that is, "abandonment" and not "voluntary withdrawal."

> So at the very least, it was brought up to the list twice, and very few people cared to go any further than a discussion.

(/me furrows brow) Not to reiterare it too much, only "abandonment" has been brought up.

So my original point stands: Michael, as secretarial assistant, stated that he and Larry and other "came to the conclusion that it doesn't appear there is really a way to withdraw PSRs for the moment."

And my original question to Michael (et al) also stands: "Was that brought up as a discussion for the whole group to consider? And if not, why not? Seems like exactly the kind of thing voting members should be talking about, not the secretarial assistants among themselves."

I see that Michael has attempted to answer that question in another missive, to which I will respond shortly.

[Chris Tankersley]

We could come up with a bylaw that handles both abandonment as well as a voluntary withdrawal. We just need to define that as a status for a PSR.

I'm not against enacting a bylaw for abandonment/withdrawal as I was very much behind the original abandonment rules, I'm just pointing out that it has come up both on-list and at in-person meetings. It's disingenuous to say that it was never brought to the list. 

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Paul Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Chris,

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 10:25, Chris Tankersley <ch...@ctankersley.com> wrote:
>
> You were in the room at ZendCon 2015's FIG meeting when we brought up the whole abandonment issue and how we should handle it. The notes are here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/php-fig/FIG$20Zendcon%7Csort:relevance/php-fig/pxezV88Uk1I/eW3GvtPRCgAJ

Ah, nice! Thanks for linking to those.

I note only that the summary mentions "abandonment" (as in "how to mark a PSR as abandoned due to inactivity") and not "voluntary withdrawal."  They are two different things.


> It was then brought up a few months later:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/php-fig/abandonment%7Csort:relevance/php-fig/YBUtydtgm5A/LFb9Qt-RCAAJ

Same case here: that is, "abandonment" and not "voluntary withdrawal."


> So at the very least, it was brought up to the list twice, and very few people cared to go any further than a discussion.

(/me furrows brow) Not to reiterare it too much, only "abandonment" has been brought up.

At the meeting, it was talked about. Once a PSR has been assigned a number, at best it can only be abandoned. Abandonment also covers when there were not the three required actors needed (Editor, Sponsor, and Coordinator), and no one was able to fill those positions. The alternative is that the entire PSR is withdrawn as if it never existed, which either introduces gaps in the numbering or allows re-use of the numbers. From what I remember, the IETF position was brought up (by MWOP I believe) as precedence in that numbers are not retracted, a PSR will always be PSR-[id].

So in this case with a new bylaw like the one above, if you want to withdraw it, you could voluntarily abandon it. 

 

So my original point stands:  Michael, as secretarial assistant, stated that he and Larry and other "came to the conclusion that it doesn't appear there is really a way to withdraw PSRs for the moment."

And my original question to Michael (et al) also stands: "Was that brought up as a discussion for the whole group to consider? And if not, why not? Seems like exactly the kind of thing voting members should be talking about, not the secretarial assistants among themselves."

I see that Michael has attempted to answer that question in another missive, to which I will respond shortly.

--

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

--
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/AD6E01D2-4D49-4ACE-89A5-DA65251940F3%40gmail.com.

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

[Samantha Quiñones]

Paul,

I already talked about this in the other thread. Continually antagonizing Michael is not an appropriate way of addressing whatever issues you may have with the way he conducts himself as a secretary of this organization. Likewise, attempting to press your definition of our role as secretaries by repeating it ad nauseum is not an appropriate way of addressing your disagreement with how it has been described and executed. You are a voting member of this organization and you are free to bring these matters up for a discussion and vote as you see fit. What you cannot do is abuse this mailing list, and your colleagues in the organization, to drive a personal agenda. It shouldn't be necessary for the secretaries to moderate your messages to this group. 

Please stop. 

Thanks,

Samantha

[Paul Jones]

Samantha,

> On Sep 10, 2016, at 20:42, Samantha Quiñones <ieatkil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> I already talked about this in the other thread. Continually antagonizing Michael is not an appropriate way of addressing whatever issues you may have with the way he conducts himself as a secretary of this organization.

If you're going to accuse me of something, you'll need to quote the specific language I used, to back up your accusation. I am conducting public oversight of the actions of a secretarial assistant, which as a Voting Member is my right and responsibility, and to which the secretarial assistants have all agreed to submit.

> Likewise, attempting to press your definition of our role as secretaries by repeating it ad nauseum is not an appropriate way of addressing your disagreement with how it has been described and executed. You are a voting member of this organization and you are free to bring these matters up for a discussion and vote as you see fit. What you cannot do is abuse this mailing list, and your colleagues in the organization, to drive a personal agenda. It shouldn't be necessary for the secretaries to moderate your messages to this group.

"Oversight" is not "abuse."

Further, I find it amazing that the secretarial assistants (and if they are something other than "assistants" it should be explicitly stated, because they were voted in as "assistants") begin hinting at using their moderation powers only when someone challenges the secretarial assistants. That's hardly an "unbiased" and "neutral" stand to take.

[Adam Culp]

Samantha,

I think you and Michael are applying a certain "tone", and taking offense, with Paul's question of whether the group was aware and involved in what could have been a decision making discussion, or if it was only the secretaries. This is a voting members right to ask. Paul, and others, have made it clear that secretary actions should be monitored, based on past incidences. Not only should secretaries properly moderate this list, as their duty, but members should also moderate the secretaries to ensure they do not overstep again.

While I do feel the PSR-8 discussion should have been posted to a broader audience I do not feel it was necessarily handled inappropriately this time, because no actual decisions were imposed. So let's move on, unless someone feels it should continue for some reason.

All,

This silly discussion of whether the secretaries over-stepped again really shouldn't be happening, in this case, because PSR-8 shouldn't exist. The topic of PSR-8 has come up many times over the past couple years. It was cute, but we need to move on. We should be able to shrug it off as the joke it was. Let's stop applying the rules of "serious" PSRs to such a thing and get rid of it.

Regards,

Adam

[Alexander Deruwe]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Adam Culp <thege...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's stop applying the rules of "serious" PSRs to such a thing and
> get rid of it.

This. It's so obvious, please.


A.

[Daniel Hunsaker]

It's also a very dangerous precedent to set.  What's the line between a "serious" PSR and one that can simply be thrown out?  Who has the power to make that call?  What's the process for it, to make sure the option isn't abused?

Yes, slippery slope is often a logical fallacy, but it's also a human failing, and with so much concern floating around about individuals overstepping their power (be those concerns founded or otherwise), it's a very real concern.  If the rules don't allow for something that needs to happen, the rules need to be updated to allow it to do so.  Making this stuff up on the fly just gets people angry and in trouble.

[Jason Judge]

On Friday, 9 September 2016 15:53:28 UTC+1, pmjones wrote:

Hi all,

I am resigning my position as sponsor of PSR-8, the "Huggable" Interface. This was a fun joke way-back-when, but its time has passed.

And if I may suggest it, perhaps the editor should voluntarily withdraw the PSR from consideration.

Thanks everyone!

 
Is this "voluntary withdrawal" even a thing? If the authors and sponsors want to walk away, then surely they can. The PSR is then out of their hands. Other people can take it on, or it is abandoned. The idea that someone can say that they no longer want to be involved in developing a PSR, and no-one else can either, seems a little dangerous to me.

-- Jason

[Alessandro Lai]

I totally agree with Jason. Also, it may conflict with the fact that the PSRs are released under MIT license.

[Larry Garfield]

Fellow FIG list members, we have been trolled.

PSR-8 is a non-issue, non-entity, with no activity.  It was an April Fools joke cum running gag, in which Paul was an active participant as Sponsor.  Why did Paul bring it up right now? Of all times? And with an obviously baiting subject line?  It's not at all possible that it has something to with the Editor of PSR-8 being me, and Paul and I being the strongest voices on each side on FIG 3?  Even though Paul was until a few days ago the Sponsor for PSR-8, meaning he was "in on the joke" from the beginning?

No, that couldn't possibly be the reason.  Not in the least.

That there is no way to withdraw/abandon a PSR right now isn't even a question.  A simple look at the bylaws will tell you that, and Paul was at the meeting at ZendCon last year where we discussed that.  We even wrote up a proposed abandonment process in the same writeup that included the initial secretaries proposal.  You can find that here, towards the end:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/pxezV88Uk1I/eW3GvtPRCgAJ

That never turned into a bylaw, so no, there's no current PSR abandonment process.  The Secretaries apparently looked at each other at some point and went "yep, there isn't."  This hardly requires a public vote; it's acknowledging what was already public knowledge, written up on the list, and discussed at the ZendCon meeting.

FIG 3 included an abandonment process based on that discussion.  (I believe the time-frames are a bit different, but it's the same spirit.)  While working on FIG 3, Michael and I noticed that the odds of PSR-8 being able to field a 5 person working group and show activity every few months were small, so it would almost certainly get abandoned automatically.  We basically said ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. 

That doesn't mean we should have a vote for something the bylaws don't currently allow for anyway.  And no, as Editor of PSR-8 I do not support such a vote.

Adam, the "tone" to which you refer is Paul's repeated paranoid delusions that the Secretaries have formed some sort of cabal to steal power from voting reps such as himself.  It's been a refrain of his since May and the Pixie vote (where the secretaries did goof and corrected themselves and apologized within hours), and as far as this voting representative sees it constitutes continual ongoing harassment.  The secretaries, and Michael in particular, can barely breathe without Paul demanding that they somehow bow to his account.  And now they're not "Secretaries" (their proper title), but "secretarial assistants", a verbal demotion that serves no purpose other than to further undermine them.

"This silly discussion of whether the secretaries over-stepped again", as you describe it, exists precisely because the person who is so fond of declaring there's too much "drama", and that a serious bylaws proposal to adapt FIG to modern reality constitutes "drama", himself has made a habit of causing "drama" every time the secretaries do, well, anything other than merge a PR.  No, the secretaries didn't "over-step" here, because they didn't do anything at all!  This is a 100% manufactured non-issue that itself serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever except to cause more discord, strife, and heartburn from an open hypocrite.

If anything, Michael and Samantha have been saintly in their restraint in the face of this harassment campaign.

This entire thread, and the would-be "pre-vote" thread, is pure noise serving no purpose whatsoever other than to troll the rest of the list, create strife, and goad Paul's opponents into saying something he can pounce on.  Again.

If you want to know why people are getting fed up with FIG of late, this thread is exhibit A.

--Larry Garfield

--

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/5f6f0dfe-9b0a-4b44-b71d-51ca3c07a88d%40googlegroups.com.

[Jordi Boggiano]

As a person that has spent the last couple weeks looking at this thread
and others, feeling I should call Paul's BS many times, and not doing it
because frankly I don't have the energy and rather spend it on other
stuff, I can indeed confirm all this shit is driving people away.

Paul seems bent on destruction at this point, since as he put it "treat
me bad, I'll treat you worse" [1]. Yes people were fed up with you Paul
and tried to send you a sign. If all you take out of that is escalate it
to the next level then we might as well all pack our bags and go home,
save ourselves some trouble. Or maybe you pack yours and leave the rest
of us to do work here, and come back when you feel you can contribute
without pooping all over the playground.

Regardless, thanks Larry. *hug*

Best,
Jordi

P.S: I don't have Larry's patience, and I am sure this is more
inflammatory than necessary, but frankly I don't feel like I have to put
on silky gloves to respond to such behavior.

[1] https://twitter.com/pmjones/status/762097547334684672

>> <mailto:php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com>.

>> To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:php...@googlegroups.com>.

>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/5f6f0dfe-9b0a-4b44-b71d-51ca3c07a88d%40googlegroups.com

>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/5f6f0dfe-9b0a-4b44-b71d-51ca3c07a88d%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

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

> --
> 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

> <mailto:php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com>.

> To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:php...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/68ea8819-8e73-7b8c-913e-87a797420154%40garfieldtech.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/68ea8819-8e73-7b8c-913e-87a797420154%40garfieldtech.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

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

--
Jordi Boggiano
@seldaek - http://seld.be

[Korvin Szanto]

Hi All,

First of all, I want to apologize to everyone for the content of this email. My hope is that it won't seemtoo  critical and instead will read how I intended.

Here's a list of my positions:

1. This thread is depressing

2. People on every side need to take a step back and chill

3. PSR-8 is great, I'm -1 on removing it and +1 on voting it in officially 

4. We as representatives should have the right to call a vote for anything what-so-ever as long as there is no bylaw prohibiting it regardless of discussion period.

A lot of people look to us for answers and depend on the things we produce, so our discussions are certainly very serious, but I think we should all take a second to examine who we are and what we are doing and perhaps realize:

1. Sometimes we're all wrong and sometimes we are all a little overzealous

2. A joke is a joke, we can have a joke it's not a big deal

3. We don't need the secretaries to hold our hands. They do not need to remind anyone of anything, I'd rather they focus on better things if that's an issue. (Super happy that they do remind us though)

4. We are all just people trying to do the best we can, lets all jump on the "benefit of the doubt" train instead of the demoralizing back and forth we continually have.

To all parties in all of these dramatic encounters, it takes two to tango. If someone is drumming up drama, reply in a reasonable way affording some benefit of the doubt and set the issue to rest. No need to get upset, no need for hostility, we're all people fighting our own battles trying to make this organization into the best organization it can be. I wouldn't say I know everyone here but I feel like over the past couple years I've come to know a lot of you personally, and I know that each and every one of you is better than throwing in anecdotal attacks and bringing up drama from the past to argue something as simple as "Should we have this april fools joke still".

Thanks for reading Love you all,

Korvin