[POLL] Focus of FIG

[Larry Garfield]

I've not caught up with the last 2 days' worth of posts; I may not, as
usually when a list gets this busy nothing useful gets said. :-)
However, something I keep noticing over and over and over and over is
that lots of different people have different views about what sorts of
things this group is "supposed" to do. Everyone seems to remember the
group's guiding purpose to be... what they wish it were. PSR-2 and
PSR-3 are extremely different goals for this group to be tackling, but
we do not have a clear shared vision for which one we are "supposed" to
be doing. (Note: I did not say agreement, I did not say consensus, I
said shared vision. That's a very different thing.)

So, to try and add some level of sanity to the discussion, I am putting
forth a simple poll. I would ask everyone to reply to the poll *but do
not comment on the question at hand*. Please. Just answer the poll.
Please. In a week or so I'll collect responses and try to make some
semblance of pattern out of it. FTLOG (For The Love Of God) let's get
data before we start discussing it.

1) On a scale of 1-10, what SHOULD BE (not is, SHOULD BE) the focus of FIG:

1: Specs along the lines of PSR-2 that affect humans, but not machines.
PSR-3-esque specs are a waste of time.
5: PSR-2-esque and PSR-3-esque specs are both important, and we should
embrace both.
10: Specs along the lines of PSR-3 that affect code-level interop.
PSR-2-esque specs are a waste of time.

2) Are you a voting member, and if so what project do you represent.

3) If you are NOT a voting member, do you consider yourself principally
aligned with one project anyway? (You define what this means.)

Again, please please please don't discuss which we should be doing. Just
answer the poll. Please.

--Larry Garfield

[Larry Garfield]

Larry Garfield, Drupal representative: 8

[Andreas Möller]

> Again, please please please don't discuss which we should be doing. Just answer the poll. Please.

Process fail.

You said it, when a list gets busy . . .


Best,

Andreas

[Tim Otten]

Good topic for a poll. The group has chosen to handle votes/polls using the mailing-list medium before, so I don't see why that medium would be a problem now. To help facilitate parsing the message, I'll reply at the top and forgo the normal in-line replies.

1: 7
2: No
3: Aligned with non-member project CiviCRM, which has deep integrations or dependencies with Drupal, Joomla, WordPress, PEAR, and (nascently) Symfony. In non-technical terms, my project's community has an historical Drupal bias.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[Paul Scott]

Paul Scott, Chisimba, C4, 7

-- Paul

[FGM at GMail]

10, Non-voting, mostly Drupal

2013/3/1 Paul Scott <psco...@gmail.com>:

[justin]

6, non-member, nope.

--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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
http://justinhileman.com

[Alexander Deruwe]

7, non-voting, mostly Symfony

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Jeremy Lindblom]

5, non-voting, AWS SDK for PHP

-- Jeremy Lindblom

PHP Software Engineer, AWS

[Andreas Möller]

1, non-voting, ZF


Best,

Andreas

[Johannes Schmitt]

5, non-voting, FOS projects

[Marco Pivetta]

5, non-voting, doctrine/zf

Marco Pivetta

http://twitter.com/Ocramius     

http://ocramius.github.com/

[Florin Patan]

9, non-voting member, aligned to Symfony2

I've been tracking Symfony2 progress since early 2011, I've tried to contribute to it as much as my spare time allowed me to do so and I've successfully implemented a large web shop on it since it was a beta version. I'm now working at another company and help them to do things the 'Symfony2' way.

[Evert Pot]

1: 9
2: Voting member, SabreDAV
3: N/A

[Mike van Riel]

1) 7

2) Yes, phpDocumentor

3) N/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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[William Durand]

1: 7
2: Voting member, Propel
3: N/A

--

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

[Paul Dragoonis]

1: 8

2: Voting member: PPI Framework representative

3: N/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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Moisa Teodor]

1: 9

2: non-voting

3: Doctrine, Aura

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

[Christian Jul Jensen]

1: 9
2: non-voting
3: TYPO3 Flow & Neos

2 cents: Maybe there could be some sense in splitting up 'standards'
into 'interoperabilty contracts' and 'best practices for coding'

cheers
-julle

-- Christian Jul Jensen ju...@typo3.org TYPO3 - Inspiring people to
share! http://typo3.org

--
Christian Jul Jensen

chri...@jul.net

[Christian Müller]

1) 9

2) Not a voting member.

3) Yes, TYPO3 Flow

Cheers,

Christian

Am Freitag, 1. März 2013 07:49:05 UTC+1 schrieb Larry Garfield:

1) On a scale of 1-10, what SHOULD BE (not is, SHOULD BE) the focus of FIG:

10: Specs along the lines of PSR-3 that affect code-level interop.
PSR-2-esque specs are a waste of time.

2) Are you a voting member, and if so what project do you represent.

3) If you are NOT a voting member, do you consider yourself principally
aligned with one project anyway?  (You define what this means.)

--Larry Garfield

[Micah Breedlove]

3, non-voting member aligned to Symfony

-mb

--
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.

[Jordi Boggiano]

Composer says 8

Cheers

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

[John Mertic]

1) 10

2) voting member SugarCRM

I'd actually like to see the group position itself in more of a thought leadership way of PHP interface design, embracing how not only existing concepts, but emerging patterns and technologies should be integrated into PHP.

John

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
John Mertic
jme...@gmail.com | http://jmertic.wordpress.com

[Jason Judge]

1. 7.5 (I know, sorry)
2. Non-voting
3. Customisation and integration of applications, mainly SugarCRM, WordPress/WooCommerce, Vanilla Forum, FuelPHP, Drupal, composer packages. I tend to do custom plugins and "the glue" to join them all together, so interoperability is central to most of what I do.

-- Jason

[Larry E. Masters]

1) 10

2) Voting Member - CakePHP

Suggestion rename PSR-2  to PSS-0 or whatever and make it recommended practice but not specific to PSR which should only be about interop and not a coding style guide. Start a new PHP Style Standard group to focus on people who are concerned how others format their code and less about interop.

--

Larry E. Masters

--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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Amy Stephen]

1) 5 (but clarify "real" PSRs, like 0,1,2, from FIG efforts like 3, which should have a different name, sorry Larry, couldn't resist ;-) )

2) Not voting

3) Independent PHP dev

[Ian MacLennan]

1) 10

2) No

3) Yes - Joomla Platform Maintainer

I agree with Larry's comments below.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.

[James Watts]

1) 10

2) Non-voting

3) CakePHP

I second Larry Master's suggestion outlined below.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Alexandre Gaigalas]

1) 10

2) Non-voting

3) Independent

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/-/7AFdpkXcG_IJ.

[Daniel Ribeiro]

1) 5

2) Non-voting

3) Independent but happy

Daniel Ribeiro Gomes Pereira

Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn

iPhone: +55 (48) 9111-0931

2013/3/1 Alexandre Gaigalas <alex...@gaigalas.net>

[Paul Jones]

On Mar 1, 2013, at 1:49 AM, Larry Garfield wrote:

> 1) On a scale of 1-10, what SHOULD BE (not is, SHOULD BE) the focus of FIG:

10: Finding commonalities between member projects and codifying them. This is what we've said since the beginning.

> 2) Are you a voting member, and if so what project do you represent.

Yes, Solar/Aura.


-- pmj

[Kinn Julião]

1) 5
2) Non-voting
3) PPI Fan and In touch with Doctrine+SF2 @my daily work.

2013/3/1 Paul Jones <pmjo...@gmail.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+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>



--

---------------------------------------------------------
Kinn Coelho Julião

kinncj.com.br
About.me/kinncj
---------------------------------------------------------

[Ryan McCue]

1) 9
2) No
3) Mainly involved with WordPress, developer of SimplePie and Requests
for PHP.

--
Ryan McCue
<http://ryanmccue.info/>

[Pádraic Brady]

1) 6
2) Not yet
3) Zend Framework

Paddy

On Friday, 1 March 2013 06:49:05 UTC, Larry Garfield wrote:

I've not caught up with the last 2 days' worth of posts; I may not, as
usually when a list gets this busy nothing useful gets said. :-)
However, something I keep noticing over and over and over and over is
that lots of different people have different views about what sorts of
things this group is "supposed" to do.  Everyone seems to remember the
group's guiding purpose to be... what they wish it were.  PSR-2 and
PSR-3 are extremely different goals for this group to be tackling, but
we do not have a clear shared vision for which one we are "supposed" to
be doing.  (Note: I did not say agreement, I did not say consensus, I
said shared vision.  That's a very different thing.)

So, to try and add some level of sanity to the discussion, I am putting
forth a simple poll.  I would ask everyone to reply to the poll *but do
not comment on the question at hand*.  Please.  Just answer the poll.  
Please.  In a week or so I'll collect responses and try to make some
semblance of pattern out of it.  FTLOG (For The Love Of God) let's get
data before we start discussing it.

1) On a scale of 1-10, what SHOULD BE (not is, SHOULD BE) the focus of FIG:

1: Specs along the lines of PSR-2 that affect humans, but not machines.
PSR-3-esque specs are a waste of time.
5: PSR-2-esque and PSR-3-esque specs are both important, and we should
embrace both.
10: Specs along the lines of PSR-3 that affect code-level interop.
PSR-2-esque specs are a waste of time.

2) Are you a voting member, and if so what project do you represent.

[Donald Gilbert]

1) 8
2) non-voting
3) Joomla Platform Maintainer (and driving force for PSR 0 & 1 on the new Joomla Framework)

[Andreas Möller]

10: Finding commonalities between member projects and codifying them.  This is what we've said since the beginning.

+1 concerning the dimensions of the options from 1 to 10

Best,

Andreas

[Michael C]

1) 8
2) No
3) phpBB

Thanks,
Michael Cullum

[Ryan Parman]

1. 9
2. Yes, AWS SDK for PHP
3. (Formerly SimplePie along with Ryan McCue)

--
Ryan Parman

[Chuck Burgess]

5, no, phpDocumentor

CRB
about.me/ashnazg

[Phil Sturgeon]

1) 5 

2) Voting, PyroCMS

[Niels Braczek]

1) 5
2) no
3) Joomla!

ad 1) PSR-3-esque specs should be backed up by unit tests; otherwise,
they render useless and are waste of time. So, if no unit tests are /
will be provided, the answer is 1.

--
| http://barcamp-wk.de · 2. Barcamp Westküste 15./16. März 2013 |
| http://www.bsds.de · BSDS Braczek Software- und DatenSysteme |
| Webdesign · Webhosting · e-Commerce · Joomla! Content Management |
------------------------------------------------------------------

[Stefano Zoffoli]

1) 10

2) non-voting

3) CakePHP

--
Dott. Stefano Zoffoli
Co-Founder and CTO

Librasoft Snc

Strategie di comunicazione digitale e web marketing
http://www.LibrasoftSnc.it
Via della Luna, 13
47034 Forlimpopoli (FC)
Tel. +39 0543 424612
Fax +39 0543 424612

2013/3/1 Niels Braczek <nbra...@bsds.de>

--
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.

[Ivan Habunek]

6, voting, Apache log4php

Regards,
Ivan

[Hari K T]

There is a confusion for me . So I answer inline .
 

1: Specs along the lines of PSR-2 that affect humans, but not machines. PSR-3-esque specs are a waste of time.

 

5: PSR-2-esque and PSR-3-esque specs are both important, and we should embrace both.

I will rate 10 for the 5 th point . Both are important and we should embrace both .
 

10: Specs along the lines of PSR-3 that affect code-level interop. PSR-2-esque specs are a waste of time.

2) Are you a voting member, and if so what project do you represent.

no
 

3) If you are NOT a voting member, do you consider yourself principally aligned with one project anyway?  (You define what this means.)

Yes, I contribute to Aura , Symfony, Zend, Phly Mustache, probably more in future.
 

Again, please please please don't discuss which we should be doing. Just answer the poll.  Please.

--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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Paul Jones]

On Mar 1, 2013, at 9:50 AM, Paul Jones wrote:

>
> On Mar 1, 2013, at 1:49 AM, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
>> 1) On a scale of 1-10, what SHOULD BE (not is, SHOULD BE) the focus of FIG:
>
> 10: Finding commonalities between member projects and codifying them. This is what we've said since the beginning.

OK, I misread this somehow. Score that as a 5. My comment stands: "Finding commonalities between member projects and codifying them" is the true focus of FIG. Generating PSRs is a consequence of that focus.



-- pmj

[Pádraic Brady]

I figure I should amend my response to 2) as Yes (Zend Framework) :P

Paddy

[Peter Cowburn]

8, non-voting, PHP (boo!)

[Andrew Eddie]

On Friday, 1 March 2013 16:49:05 UTC+10, Larry Garfield wrote:

FTLOG (For The Love Of God)

Careful, some people do take that seriously, Let's have a chat about what it means to one someday ;)

 

1) On a scale of 1-10, what SHOULD BE (not is, SHOULD BE) the focus of FIG:

5: PSR-2-esque and PSR-3-esque specs are both important, and we should
embrace both.

I've got to vote "5" in terms of what this group SHOUD BE doing as you have defined the question.

BUT, I'd add we have to "fix" the deference between PSR's that affect interoperability (PSR-0,1,3) and those that don't (PSR-2, future DocBlocks PSR's, etc).

 

2) Are you a voting member, and if so what project do you represent.

Yes. Joomla. 

 

Regards,

Andrew Eddie

[Sebastian Krebs]

2013/3/2 Andrew Eddie <mamb...@gmail.com>

On Friday, 1 March 2013 16:49:05 UTC+10, Larry Garfield wrote:

FTLOG (For The Love Of God)

Careful, some people do take that seriously, Let's have a chat about what it means to one someday ;)

 

1) On a scale of 1-10, what SHOULD BE (not is, SHOULD BE) the focus of FIG:

5: PSR-2-esque and PSR-3-esque specs are both important, and we should
embrace both.

I've got to vote "5" in terms of what this group SHOUD BE doing as you have defined the question.

BUT, I'd add we have to "fix" the deference between PSR's that affect interoperability (PSR-0,1,3) and those that don't (PSR-2, future DocBlocks PSR's, etc).

Just to throw that in: DocBlock-standards _can_ affect interoperability (namely that of doc-generators). :)

 

 

2) Are you a voting member, and if so what project do you represent.

Yes. Joomla. 

 

Regards,

Andrew Eddie

--

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/-/X3lseern4CoJ.

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

--
github.com/KingCrunch

[Andrew Eddie]

On Saturday, 2 March 2013 09:42:54 UTC+10, Sebastian Krebs wrote:

Just to throw that in: DocBlock-standards _can_ affect interoperability (namely that of doc-generators). :)

I know, but it's out of scope to talk about in this thread.

Regards,

Andrew Eddie 

[Rouven Weßling]

1) 9
2) No
3) Joomla! Platform Maintainer

[Greg Sherwood]

1) 5
2) No
3) PHP_CodeSniffer maintainer

[Andrew (@phpAndy)]

5, no, independent developer

On Friday, March 1, 2013 1:49:05 AM UTC-5, Larry Garfield wrote:

I've not caught up with the last 2 days' worth of posts; I may not, as
usually when a list gets this busy nothing useful gets said. :-)
However, something I keep noticing over and over and over and over is
that lots of different people have different views about what sorts of
things this group is "supposed" to do.  Everyone seems to remember the
group's guiding purpose to be... what they wish it were.  PSR-2 and
PSR-3 are extremely different goals for this group to be tackling, but
we do not have a clear shared vision for which one we are "supposed" to
be doing.  (Note: I did not say agreement, I did not say consensus, I
said shared vision.  That's a very different thing.)

So, to try and add some level of sanity to the discussion, I am putting
forth a simple poll.  I would ask everyone to reply to the poll *but do
not comment on the question at hand*.  Please.  Just answer the poll.  
Please.  In a week or so I'll collect responses and try to make some
semblance of pattern out of it.  FTLOG (For The Love Of God) let's get
data before we start discussing it.

1) On a scale of 1-10, what SHOULD BE (not is, SHOULD BE) the focus of FIG:

1: Specs along the lines of PSR-2 that affect humans, but not machines.
PSR-3-esque specs are a waste of time.

5: PSR-2-esque and PSR-3-esque specs are both important, and we should
embrace both.

10: Specs along the lines of PSR-3 that affect code-level interop.
PSR-2-esque specs are a waste of time.

2) Are you a voting member, and if so what project do you represent.

3) If you are NOT a voting member, do you consider yourself principally
aligned with one project anyway?  (You define what this means.)

[Rachman Chavik]

1. 10
2. No
3. CakePhp and Croogo

[Graham Weldon]

1. 10

2. I think a voting member, its been a while since anything useful was posted here, so I kinda stagnated.

3. CakePHP

[Larry Garfield]

On 03/01/2013 12:24 PM, Hari K T wrote:

There is a confusion for me . So I answer inline .
 

1: Specs along the lines of PSR-2 that affect humans, but not machines. PSR-3-esque specs are a waste of time.

 

5: PSR-2-esque and PSR-3-esque specs are both important, and we should embrace both.

I will rate 10 for the 5 th point . Both are important and we should embrace both .

It's a linear scale. There's no 5th point.  I have no idea what you mean. :-)

--Larry Garfield

[Larry Garfield]

Nope, you're not a voting member. :-) Larry Masters is the Cake PHP
voting representative. See:

http://www.php-fig.org/

I put you down as Cake-affiliated.

--Larry Garfield

[Graham Weldon]

Fair enough.

Cheers,

Graham Weldon

http://grahamweldon.com

e. gra...@grahamweldon.com

p. (+61) 0407 017 293

Skype: grahamweldon

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.

To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/php-fig/wNICVGwjE9s/unsubscribe?hl=en.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.

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

[Mark Trapp]

1) 10

2) Non-voting

3) Drupal

[Jason Judge]

There is a confusion for me . So I answer inline .

 

1: Specs along the lines of PSR-2 that affect humans, but not machines. PSR-3-esque specs are a waste of time.

 

5: PSR-2-esque and PSR-3-esque specs are both important, and we should embrace both.

I will rate 10 for the 5 th point . Both are important and we should embrace both .

It's a linear scale. There's no 5th point.  I have no idea what you mean. :-)

I believe the intent was "I give my full backing to the text you have written next to number 5". In order words "5".

If English is not a first language then it would be easy to miss the "sliding scale" bit. Can you imagine tackling this question without an imaginary slider widget in your head? :-)

-- JJ

[Gábor Fási]

1, 9
2, non-voting
3, Symfony and doctrine

On 1 March 2013 07:49, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
> I've not caught up with the last 2 days' worth of posts; I may not, as
> usually when a list gets this busy nothing useful gets said. :-) However,
> something I keep noticing over and over and over and over is that lots of
> different people have different views about what sorts of things this group
> is "supposed" to do. Everyone seems to remember the group's guiding purpose
> to be... what they wish it were. PSR-2 and PSR-3 are extremely different
> goals for this group to be tackling, but we do not have a clear shared
> vision for which one we are "supposed" to be doing. (Note: I did not say
> agreement, I did not say consensus, I said shared vision. That's a very
> different thing.)
>
> So, to try and add some level of sanity to the discussion, I am putting
> forth a simple poll. I would ask everyone to reply to the poll *but do not
> comment on the question at hand*. Please. Just answer the poll. Please.
> In a week or so I'll collect responses and try to make some semblance of
> pattern out of it. FTLOG (For The Love Of God) let's get data before we
> start discussing it.
>
> 1) On a scale of 1-10, what SHOULD BE (not is, SHOULD BE) the focus of FIG:
>

> 1: Specs along the lines of PSR-2 that affect humans, but not machines.
> PSR-3-esque specs are a waste of time.
> 5: PSR-2-esque and PSR-3-esque specs are both important, and we should
> embrace both.

> 10: Specs along the lines of PSR-3 that affect code-level interop.
> PSR-2-esque specs are a waste of time.
>
> 2) Are you a voting member, and if so what project do you represent.
>
> 3) If you are NOT a voting member, do you consider yourself principally
> aligned with one project anyway? (You define what this means.)
>
> Again, please please please don't discuss which we should be doing. Just
> answer the poll. Please.
>

> --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

[Christian Koch]

1) 8
2) non voting
3) Independent

[Matthieu Napoli]

- 6

- Non voting

- Doctrine, Symfony

[David Négrier]

1) 9
2) Non-voting
3) Mouf-PHP (graphical dependency injection framework, therefore, I am very enthousiastic to the idea of sharing a set of common interfaces)

[guilher...@gmail.com]

1) 8

2) Voting member

3) Doctrine umbrella 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/msg/php-fig/-/cxTkOLanqnQJ.

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

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

[Miklós Márton]

8, nope, nope

[Beau Simensen]

1) 10

2) No

3) Use and/or contribute to Symfony, Composer, Silex, Pimple, and Doctrine in addition to maintaining many of my own projects.

[Drak]

8

Yes - Zikula

--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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

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

[Lukas Smith]

On Mar 1, 2013, at 7:49 , Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote:

> 1) On a scale of 1-10, what SHOULD BE (not is, SHOULD BE) the focus of FIG:
>
> 1: Specs along the lines of PSR-2 that affect humans, but not machines. PSR-3-esque specs are a waste of time.
> 5: PSR-2-esque and PSR-3-esque specs are both important, and we should embrace both.
> 10: Specs along the lines of PSR-3 that affect code-level interop. PSR-2-esque specs are a waste of time.

6

> 2) Are you a voting member, and if so what project do you represent.

Jackalope

> 3) If you are NOT a voting member, do you consider yourself principally aligned with one project anyway? (You define what this means.)

- (though I guess I am known to be closely aligned with Symfony and Doctrine)

[Richard Turner]

On Friday, 1 March 2013 06:49:05 UTC, Larry Garfield wrote:

1) On a scale of 1-10, what SHOULD BE (not is, SHOULD BE) the focus of FIG:

4

2) Are you a voting member, and if so what project do you represent.

 
Nope

3) If you are NOT a voting member, do you consider yourself principally
aligned with one project anyway?  (You define what this means.)

None. Heavy ZF1 user reassessing framework options now that ZF2 is the new kid on the block.

[John Patrick Gerdeman]

1) On a scale of 1-10, what SHOULD BE (not is, SHOULD BE) the focus of FIG:

9. Normative and Informative Specifications are needed. PSR2 is neither.

2) Are you a voting member, and if so what project do you represent. 

N/A 

3) If you are NOT a voting member, do you consider yourself principally
aligned with one project anyway?  (You define what this means.)

 

N/A

[Chris Wilkinson]

8. Nope. Heavily use Symfony2/Doctrine, but also some Drupal.

[shama]

1. 10

2. No

3. CakePHP, Composer/Installers

[Anthony Winwood]

1) 6
2) non-voting
3) independent

[Max Roeleveld]

5
No
Not at this moment, we're mostly rolling custom stuff where I work.

[Er Galvao Abbott]

5, non-voting, been using ZF for about 4 years, so I feel "aligned" with it.

Er Galvão Abbott
http://www.galvao.eti.br/

On 03/01/2013 03:49 AM, Larry Garfield wrote:

I've not caught up with the last 2 days' worth of posts; I may not, as usually when a list gets this busy nothing useful gets said. :-) However, something I keep noticing over and over and over and over is that lots of different people have different views about what sorts of things this group is "supposed" to do.  Everyone seems to remember the group's guiding purpose to be... what they wish it were.  PSR-2 and PSR-3 are extremely different goals for this group to be tackling, but we do not have a clear shared vision for which one we are "supposed" to be doing.  (Note: I did not say agreement, I did not say consensus, I said shared vision.  That's a very different thing.)

So, to try and add some level of sanity to the discussion, I am putting forth a simple poll.  I would ask everyone to reply to the poll *but do not comment on the question at hand*.  Please.  Just answer the poll.  Please.  In a week or so I'll collect responses and try to make some semblance of pattern out of it.  FTLOG (For The Love Of God) let's get data before we start discussing it.

1) On a scale of 1-10, what SHOULD BE (not is, SHOULD BE) the focus of FIG:

1: Specs along the lines of PSR-2 that affect humans, but not machines. PSR-3-esque specs are a waste of time.
5: PSR-2-esque and PSR-3-esque specs are both important, and we should embrace both.
10: Specs along the lines of PSR-3 that affect code-level interop. PSR-2-esque specs are a waste of time.

2) Are you a voting member, and if so what project do you represent.

3) If you are NOT a voting member, do you consider yourself principally aligned with one project anyway?  (You define what this means.)

[Robert Burkhead]

8

No

Zikula

[kyl...@gmail.com]

7, no, Zikula

[Robert Gasch]

1) 9

2) No

3) Zikula

[Paul Stewart]

On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:49:05 AM UTC-6, Larry Garfield wrote:

1) On a scale of 1-10, what SHOULD BE (not is, SHOULD BE) the focus of FIG: 

 

5: PSR-2-esque and PSR-3-esque specs are both important, and we should
embrace both.

 

5

2) Are you a voting member, and if so what project do you represent.

No

3) If you are NOT a voting member, do you consider yourself principally
aligned with one project anyway?  (You define what this means.)

Zikula 

[rbr...@botany.org]

9, no, Zikula

[ra...@future500.nl]

1: 7

2: No

3: Symfony2