Membership Request: Harro Verton

[Harro Verton]

Hello,

My name is Harro Verton (aka "WanWizard"), and project manager for the FuelPHP project.

It it's ok with you guys I will be representing the FuelPHP Framework, now that Phil Sturgeon has opted to represent PyroCMS.

To open with a bit of good news: we had already decided to support PSR-0, and today we've announced that for the next major release we will support PSR-1 as well: http://fuelphp.com/blog/2012/05/adopting-psr-1-for-2-0.

We'll keep an eye on how it develops, to make sure it stays focused on interoperability.

Regards,
Harro

[Hari K T]

Hi Harro Verton ,

First of all I am not a voting member . But I wished to express something .

A voting member can represent as many projects as they can . But a member can only have one vote .

If Phil Sturgeon and you have the same role for Fuel PHP, its good that Phil Sturgeon itself can represent FuelPHP .

Else this will impact in the vote count .

I hope the voting members can discuss regarding this .

Thank you

Hari K T
M: +91-9388758821 | W: http://harikt.com/blog

[Handrus Nogueira]

Hari, Phil is going to represent PyroCMS as he said in his membership request.

There is nothing wrong with this, if Phil is more focused in Pyro than Fuel, than it makes all sense to have different persons as voting members. 

2012/5/29 Hari K T <ktha...@gmail.com>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Standards Working Group" group.

To post to this group, send email to php-st...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to php-standard...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/php-standards?hl=en.

--
Handrus Stephan Nogueira

[Harro Verton]

Phil is indeed representing PyroCMS, and, as indicated, he proposed to pass the FuelPHP membership on to someone else from the team.

We had a chat within the team, and they thought that I, as project lead, would be the best candidate.

Regards,
Harro

[Paul M. Jones]

I vote +1 on Harro's request.

-- pmj

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Standards Working Group" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-standards/-/TrpiiDgi8tgJ.

[Paul M. Jones]

I vote +1 for Harro as the FulePHP representative.

-- pmj



On May 29, 2012, at 8:15 AM, Harro Verton wrote:

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Standards Working Group" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-standards/-/TrpiiDgi8tgJ.

[guilher...@gmail.com]

Doctrine voted -1 for FuelPHP

--
Guilherme Blanco
MSN: guilher...@hotmail.com
GTalk: guilhermeblanco
Toronto - ON/Canada

[Harro Verton]

Guilherme,

Care to explain why you think FuelPHP should not be represented?

[Marco Pivetta]

@Harro: we voted internally and simply decided that FuelPHP is not yet influencing enough for the PHP world.

Marco Pivetta

http://twitter.com/Ocramius     

http://marco-pivetta.com    

On 5 June 2012 12:51, Harro Verton <wanw...@fuelphp.com> wrote:

Guilherme,

Care to explain why you think FuelPHP should not be represented?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Standards Working Group" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-standards/-/bFZzEAUBiI8J.

[Phil Sturgeon]

HappyCog are fans, phpdeveloper.org loves the project, and FuelPHP is only 5 places behind Doctrine2 on the GitHub most watched list. 

What are the metrics being used for measure influence?

[Marco Pivetta]

I am looking at `fuel/core`, plus I am not a fan. Both are personal considerations that may not be shared by the rest of the doctrine folks. That's at least my part of the vote :)
My personal thoughts may well change once the blogpost above becomes reality :)

I understand you may not like that, but voting isn't intended for upsetting anyone and we've just been asked for a vote, which you had. If the rest of the group wants fuel in the voting members you still just got a single -1 :)

Marco Pivetta

http://twitter.com/Ocramius     

http://marco-pivetta.com    

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Standards Working Group" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-standards/-/edhP1Nn_mjoJ.

[Harro Verton]

I have to say this reaction disappoints me, and doesn't show the
professional behaviour I expect from members of this group.

I am under the impression that this group is about trying to define
interoperability standards for PHP frameworks (and perhaps a wider PHP
audience), and if that is the case, whether or not you are a personal
fan of the product the aspiring member is representing is totally
irrelevant. But at least this explains the other -1's you given.

I am expecting a more mature reaction from the other voting members.

[Phil Sturgeon]

I am not trying to fight a vote - that is the point of votes - I just want to make sure they are based on facts. There are over a thousand people watching the GitHub repo, which is only about 250 short the Doctrine2 project!

https://github.com/fuel/fuel

If you don't like the project then that is up to you, and you can of course vote however you wish for any reason you wish, but please evaluate things based on the available facts. If your opinion stays the same then that is fine with me.

[guilher...@gmail.com]

Hi Harro,

Marco has his personal thoughts, but he only has 1 vote inside of Doctrine team.
I shouldn't expose this to FIG, but the final score was 3x2, so you got also other 2 votes from our internal team that were against FuelPHP. Marco exposed his reasons as personal, but others may have different opinion.
I think we're not here to point fingers, and even contest group decisions. It's a democracy and none goes to you after you voted in your country's election to ask you why you voted for candidate A or B.

Maybe other users may have considered:
- Project not big enough
- Not a large php community
- No such large-scale apps built
- ...

I exposed internally to the group and they made their votes. Please don't try to find individual answers because it would start generating hate between projects, which is not the subject of this group.


Thanks,
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Standards Working Group" group.

To post to this group, send email to php-st...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to php-standard...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/php-standards?hl=en.

[William Durand]

Yes, that's what I wanted to write. Doctrine has a core team with a few members, and Guilherme is the voice for all of them here. Marco just exposed his personal point of view.

That said, I didn't vote yet, like a lot of other voting members, so be patient :)

William

2012/6/5 guilher...@gmail.com <guilher...@gmail.com>

[omissis]

Even though I understand and share some of Marco's concerns and opinions, I believe that a project such as Fuel should not be left out of this group, because -IMHO- it would benefit from the interoperability efforts that are being made and in turn can help widening the group's POV on some issues that users of that framework might rise. Moreover not having them on board would leave a consistent number of php developers unable to benefit from/contribute to the purposes(as far as I understand them) of this group.

jm2c

William

2012/6/5 guilher...@gmail.com <guilher...@gmail.com>

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to php-standards+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/php-standards?hl=en.

--
Guilherme Blanco
MSN: guilher...@hotmail.com
GTalk: guilhermeblanco
Toronto - ON/Canada

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Standards Working Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to php-st...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to php-standards+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Paul Dragoonis]

+1

We need fuel to adopt PSR1 - failure to do so will result in more code
igniter-like projects with their own coding standards.

Could other voting members please rise above the other threads and
consider this.

- Paul.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PHP Standards Working Group" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-standards/-/kiE02JYNz70J.

> To post to this group, send email to php-st...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> php-standard...@googlegroups.com.

[Drak]

I dont see how agreeing to adopt a PSR has any relevance. We have already established that membership is not binding on projects.

I am going to vote -1 because I have not seen any previous participation.

Drak

[flexor]

I have nothing to do with Fuel, but this decision is total and utter nonsense. Are you trying to encourage interoperability in the PHP frameworks world, or trying to act like elitist jerks? Right now, it looks a lot more like the latter.

[Harro Verton]

Drak,

I am going to vote -1 because I have not seen any previous participation.

I'd like to comment on that.

Phil is the (onofficial) spokesperson for FuelPHP, the one that brought the FIG to our attention, and started the discussion within the FuelPHP team about the need for interoperability standards.

He also initially applied for membership of the FIG on behalf of FuelPHP. It was only when his application fell through due to the "one project - one vote" rule that it was discussed in the team who would apply instead of him. As current project lead, my name popped up, and I applied.

As I am new to the FIG, I'm currently still trying to figure out what's going on, who is who, what is being discussed, and why. I just don't want to fly in and drop my 2 cents on the table.

In the mean time, I've been discussing the FIG elsewhere (such as here), and FuelPHP has implemented PSR-0 and PSR-1 for v2.0 (see our repo).

The FuelPHP team absolutely sees the need for interoperability, and we are in full support of the FIG's filosophy to achieve that.

[Andreas Möller]

The FuelPHP team absolutely sees the need for interoperability, and we are in full support of the FIG's filosophy to achieve that. 

I like that a lot - especially since what kept me from giving FuelPHP a spin is the current state of the project in terms of adoption of coding standards. Thus, I think it will serve FuelPHP well to adopt the proposed standards, although I believe they should consider the not-yet-finalized PSR-2, too.

Even if FuelPHP doesn't believe it will adopt PSR-2 *today*, I would consider their request for membership as an attempt to move into a certain direction. 

(For those who don't know HappyCog, it has been founded by Jeffrey Zeldman, the web standards evangelist.)

Regards,

Andreas

[Harro Verton]

Andreas,

I like that a lot - especially since what kept me from giving FuelPHP a spin is the current state of the project in terms of adoption of coding standards. Thus, I think it will serve FuelPHP well to adopt the proposed standards, although I believe they should consider the not-yet-finalized PSR-2, too.

Even if FuelPHP doesn't believe it will adopt PSR-2 *today*, I would consider their request for membership as an attempt to move into a certain direction.

Thanks for your support.

We absolutely see the need to support PSR-0 and PSR-1, and the benefits it will bring in terms of interoperability. And we are willing to deal with the flame wars that will follow (and have already started in our IRC channel), especially concerning the snake_case vs CamelCase  debate.

As to PSR-2, as it stands at the moment there are no plans to implement that. As it is proposed atm it is a style guide, and style is always a personal thing. Whatever style you adopt should and in fact does not impact interoperability, so it's not in the way of the philosophy of this group with regards to that. It might be a (small) hurdle towards project contributions (having to adopt different styles for different projects), but in the end that is the projects decision, which does have no impact whatsover on anything outside the project.

We believe that a style guide should ensure the code is written in a consistent, clear and easy to read manner. In our opinion adopting PSR-1 already makes the code less readable (snake_case is easier for the eyes than CamelCase, especially if the method names are longer), and some elements in PSR-2 (like the not-aligned bracket positioning, which is why we prefer Allman ove K&R) make the code more compact, and therefore less readable.

Now I understand that quite a few of the members have a history in projects that code using standards that are quite close to what PSR-2 is proposing, and as it is clearly their preference, it is quite logical that the proposal turned out the way it did, and most members agree to it.

Some however feel that within the group there should be a clear distinction between standards that are geared towards interoperability, and standards that are not. And I second that. This appoach will make it easier for a project to adopt the interoperability standards without getting into the "personal preference" debate. And I think this is a common goal we should all work towards.

[Andreas Möller]

> We absolutely see the need to support PSR-0 and PSR-1, and the benefits it will bring in terms of interoperability. And we are willing to deal with the flame wars that will follow (and have already started in our IRC channel), especially concerning the snake_case vs CamelCase debate.
>
> As to PSR-2, as it stands at the moment there are no plans to implement that. As it is proposed atm it is a style guide, and style is always a personal thing. Whatever style you adopt should and in fact does not impact interoperability, so it's not in the way of the philosophy of this group with regards to that. It might be a (small) hurdle towards project contributions (having to adopt different styles for different projects), but in the end that is the projects decision, which does have no impact whatsover on anything outside the project.

I'm not so sure where the border for interoperability is actually set out.

If it's black box type of thing, then surely I don't care what's in
the box as long as I'm able to lift it up (PSR-0) and don't encounter
problems when plugging in into and out of the box (PSR-1).

However, in the light of white boxes, as a user I'm interested about
the inner workings, too, and I can clearly see them and I believe the
quality of the box to gain a greater value if its interior is laid out
well, and in a style that's consistent with what you think the box is
like from its outer appearance.

> We believe that a style guide should ensure the code is written in a consistent, clear and easy to read manner. In our opinion adopting PSR-1 already makes the code less readable (snake_case is easier for the eyes than CamelCase, especially if the method names are longer), and some elements in PSR-2 (like the not-aligned bracket positioning, which is why we prefer Allman ove K&R) make the code more compact, and therefore less readable.

Maybe your and the opinion of other members of this group changes
through the process, as do the opinions of those contributing to the
project.

> Now I understand that quite a few of the members have a history in projects that code using standards that are quite close to what PSR-2 is proposing, and as it is clearly their preference, it is quite logical that the proposal turned out the way it did, and most members agree to it.
>
> Some however feel that within the group there should be a clear distinction between standards that are geared towards interoperability, and standards that are not. And I second that. This appoach will make it easier for a project to adopt the interoperability standards without getting into the "personal preference" debate. And I think this is a common goal we should all work towards.

A goal I see would be that people choose or choose not to use a
framework or a project because of it's coding style or standards, but
because of the quality of the code *apart* from these aspects, because
everyone's using the same standards.


Best regards,

Andreas

[Handrus Nogueira]

Hey guys, we have a rule here that we try to follow,  no discussions on voting threads, or at least as low discussions as possible. I understand why the subjects being discussed came in, and they're really interesting but lets try to open another threads to this....

So far we have:

+1: pmj, dragoonis

-1: doctrine

Lets try to keep this thread clear for votes.

2012/6/9 Andreas Möller <a...@softe.is>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Standards Working Group" group.

To post to this group, send email to php-st...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to php-standard...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/php-standards?hl=en.

--
Handrus Stephan Nogueira

[Fabien POTENCIER]

On 5/29/12 1:46 PM, Harro Verton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My name is Harro Verton (aka "WanWizard"), and project manager for the
> FuelPHP project.
>
> It it's ok with you guys I will be representing the FuelPHP Framework,
> now that Phil Sturgeon has opted to represent PyroCMS.

+1

> To open with a bit of good news: we had already decided to support
> PSR-0, and today we've announced that for the next major release we will
> support PSR-1 as well:
> http://fuelphp.com/blog/2012/05/adopting-psr-1-for-2-0

> <http://fuelphp.com/blog/2012/05/adopting-psr-1-for-2-0>.

>
> We'll keep an eye on how it develops, to make sure it stays focused on
> interoperability.
>
> Regards,
> Harro
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "PHP Standards Working Group" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-standards/-/kiE02JYNz70J.

[Paul M. Jones]

Hi all,

(An administrative note: voting threads are for voting only. Please feel free to discuss the subject matter of votes on separate threads.)

This vote started on Tue 29 May and will end on Tue 12 Jun.

Currently, the votes are:

+1: Paul M. Jones, Paul Dragoonis, Fabien Potencier
~0: (none)
-1: Guilherme Blanco, Karma Dordrak

As it stands, we do not have a quorum of voters present (7 votes will produce a quorum).

Note that you are not allowed to vote on this measure if you were not a member when the vote started.


-- pmj

[jae lee]

I'm surprised and disappointed at the same time at the down votes.

I personally like how FuelPHP is. Less bloat, less clunky, and generally easier all around.

What PHP community needs is more people like them, thinking leaner/simpler.

The problem I see with PHP is how codes are getting more complex, trying to fix problems where there really aren't, and slow / bloated codes ...

If guys like FuelPHP aren't in the voting committee, I have no respect for this group. I've seen some really bad codes, even from some guys in this committee, it's foolish to turn other member down due to their personal taste.

- J

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Standards Working Group" group.

[Paul M. Jones]

On Jun 9, 2012, at 4:15 PM, jae lee wrote:

> I'm surprised and disappointed at the same time at the down votes.

Please, keep discussion about this vote on a different thread, not on the voting thread.


-- pmj

[Paul M. Jones]

On Jun 9, 2012, at 5:55 AM, Harro Verton wrote:

[regarding PSR-2]

> As it is proposed atm it is a style guide, and style is always a personal thing.

One should be careful of allowing oneself to believe that PSR-2 is "a personal style guide" that can therefore be dismissed as "merely personal." I understand it is tempting to do so, especially when the points of style conflict with one's own.

Style is *not* "always a personal thing." To call PSR-2 "personal" is as accurate as calling the MLA Handbook, or the Harbrace Handbook, or any style guide for professional publications, "personal."

PSR-2, as proposed and accepted, is *im*personal. There is no one person who put it together. There is no one person who thinks it matches their preferences perfectly. Each person here who voted on it, even persons who voted in favor of it, found at least one point in it to be objectionable to them personally.

There was no respect given to individual persons (per se) in putting together the points of style. The points of style in PSR-2 are based on input from different projects with different leads, with different backgrounds, with different approaches, and different fine-grained preferences. Even with their differences, there were common points of style between most of them. It is these points that were adopted, and then only after an quantitative survey of the member projects.


-- pmj

[Kris Wallsmith]

+1

[Klaus Silveira]

I second Paul's statement. PSR-2 has come a long way since it was just a part of PSR-1, as initially proposed. I have witnessed the whole process and been part of it and i can assure that PSR-1 and PSR-2 have nothing to do with "personal". When i built the initial PSR-1 proposal, i have considered the standards of many projects, both PHP and non-PHP. Shortly after, the proposal got suggestions and criticisms from Paul and a few other interested individuals. As the group started participating more and more, Paul pushed this forward and, eventually, PSR-1 and PSR-2 were created to facilitate adoption. 

PSR-1 and PSR-2 is a wonderful, honest, even poetic, work of community. A result of many hands working together towards one goal. There is no creator of PSR-1 or PSR-2, therefore, it's impossible to consider this a "personal style".

-- pmj

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Standards Working Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to php-st...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to php-standard...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/php-standards?hl=en.

--
Klaus Silveira
(011) 8564-2492
www.klaussilveira.com

[Harro Verton]

Paul,

One should be careful of allowing oneself to believe that PSR-2 is "a personal style guide" that can therefore be dismissed as "merely personal."  I understand it is tempting to do so, especially when the points of style conflict with one's own.

Style is *not* "always a personal thing." To call PSR-2 "personal" is as accurate as calling the MLA Handbook, or the Harbrace Handbook, or any style guide for professional publications, "personal."

PSR-2, as proposed and accepted, is *im*personal. There is no one person who put it together. There is no one person who thinks it matches their preferences perfectly. Each person here who voted on it, even persons who voted in favor of it, found at least one point in it to be objectionable to them personally.

I don't think I've wrote anywhere that I believe PSR-2 is the brainchild of one single person.

If you look at the codebase of some of the voting members (for example Drupal, Joomla,Typo 3, Symphony), you'll see that they all are a pretty close match to what's been defined in PSR-1 and PSR-2. So it's quite logical, given the small number of voting members, that those two PSR's ended up the way they did.

Ihmo that doesn't make it the holy grail of coding.

As said, a coding style is a personal preference. What works for you might not work for me. For me what it boils down to is the question whether or not a coding style has to be adopted in order to produce interoperable code. And the answer is no.

[Nick Rawe]

Harro,

I would challenge that- at my current employer we have what's called "Team Style". It is a style that every developer working on our applications is expected to follow and covers much of the same ground as PSR-2 and, like this standard, there are elements which conflict with individual styles of writing. 

We all follow these rules though because what it gives us is consistency and that is more important than individual style: if you have to start reading code that is not your own and formatted in a way that your eyes are not adjusted to read, it takes more time to get a job done. When you consider that in light of what this group is trying to achieve it becomes more important, even if it is not essentially "required" to make interoperability possible. 

Nick

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Standards Working Group" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-standards/-/8O5iaM0odaEJ.

[Harro Verton]

Nick,

I would challenge that- at my current employer we have what's called "Team Style". It is a style that every developer working on our applications is expected to follow and covers much of the same ground as PSR-2 and, like this standard, there are elements which conflict with individual styles of writing. 

We all follow these rules though because what it gives us is consistency and that is more important than individual style: if you have to start reading code that is not your own and formatted in a way that your eyes are not adjusted to read, it takes more time to get a job done. When you consider that in light of what this group is trying to achieve it becomes more important, even if it is not essentially "required" to make interoperability possible.

I have a feeling this is becoming a discussion about semantics, possibly because as a non-native english speaker I'm phrasing it wrong. Everyone is hammering on the word "personal".

With "personal preference" I mean exactly what you write, it doesn't really make a difference wether it's a sole developer that has developed his personal preferred coding style, or a team that jointly define their coding style. One given coding style, adopted by a person or a group of persons, may differ from what another person or group have done.

This is all not really relevant.

My point is that I question whether or not the differences styles adopted by your employer, by the FuelPHP team, and the people adopting PSR-2 will have any impact on framework interoperability, both on the level of PSR-0 and PSR-1, and one future work like Http/Cache.


I is my opinion that there isn't. If I want to write everything in one-liners, then that's my standard, and it wouldn't affect the operation and interoperability of a Cache class one single bit.

And therefore I think there should be a clear distinction between interoperability standards produced by this group (for which the group should strive to get them adopted as widely as possible) and other "standards" that are nice to have if you're looking for some guidance, but are (in the scope of this groups goal to inprove interoperability) otherwise irrelevant.

[Phil Sturgeon]

Pease guys, spin this off into another thread. That goes for you too Paul! :p

[Robin Winslow]

I've created a new thread for the 'Regarding "Personal" Style and PSR-2' discussion.

Please use this thread for anything other than voting.

[Paul Jones]

Harro Verton, Fuel PHP
----------------------

Starting: 29 May 2012
Ending: 13 Jun 2012
Members: 23
Quorum: 8

Votes:

+1: Paul M. Jones, Paul Dragoonis, Fabien Potencier, Kris Wallsmith

~0: (none)

-1: Guilherme Blanco

Totals: +4, -1

Result: Quorum not established.