[PRE-VOTE DISCUSSION] Withdraw PSR-8

[Paul Jones]

Hi all,

Measure: "Withdraw PSR-8 from consideration as a PSR."

I presume that the editor is willing, based on other conversations.

And since Micheal Cullum (as secretarial assistant) seems to be in the habit now of reminding us when the two-week period of discussion is up, I look forward to his reminder when *this* two week period is up.


--

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

[Chris Tankersley]

As mentioned at the ZendCon 2015 FIG meeting, the consensus of the group was that PSRs can't really be withdrawn, as there are no rules for what happens to the number, or what that status even really is. That was what prompted the need for the additional bylaw, as it was an oversight on the part of FIG to not consider a PSR being fully retracted once it had a number.

With the current bylaws[1], we _can't_ withdraw a PSR, that's not a valid status. You just stop working on it, and it exists in whatever state it was in last.

With the additional bylaw regarding the new statuses that handle neglected and abandoned statuses, it would be easy to abandon the PSR. I think we need that first (with or without FIG 3.0) before we can properly withdraw a PSR.

[1] http://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/psr-workflow/

--
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/BD9E36DF-39F8-43D1-B634-46BFF117F4E4%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Chris Tankersley
http://ctankersley.com

[Samantha Quiñones]

Paul,

We all are aware of your opinion on this matter. Open antagonism towards other members or secretaries is unproductive, unprofessional, and unnecessary. Please restrain yourself when posting to the ML.

Thanks,

Samantha

[Navarr Barnier]

I would be disappointed to see PSR-8 disappear.

It would be a smooth move to schedule a vote such that, should it pass, PSR-8 is accepted on April 1, 2018.

It is not a bad thing to have a joke or two.

HTTP 418 exists, after all.

[Alessandro Lai]

Personally, I would agree on leaving it there. Anyhow, the FIG 3.0 vote is for coming up, I would wait it before doing anything about it: having those bylaws active would smooth this process a lot.

[Michiel Rook]

I'm a bit ambivalent about PSR-8. I voted against it, but I don't think withdrawing it is worth the effort.

Michiel

On 9-9-2016 17:15, Paul Jones wrote:

Hi all,

Measure: "Withdraw PSR-8 from consideration as a PSR."

I presume that the editor is willing, based on other conversations.

And since Micheal Cullum (as secretarial assistant) seems to be in the habit now of reminding us when the two-week period of discussion is up, I look forward to his reminder when *this* two week period is up.

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

[Hari K T]

I wonder why do we bother too much about PSR-8 now? 

If you all bother that much it should never have been introduced here.

Thank you

Hari K T

You can ring me : +91 9388 75 8821

http://harikt.com , https://github.com/harikt , http://www.linkedin.com/in/harikt , http://www.xing.com/profile/Hari_KT

Skype  : kthari85

Twitter : harikt

--
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/2ae67e42-04eb-be72-903f-eeda183f077b%40gmail.com.

[Lukas Smith]

> On 10 Sep 2016, at 12:47, Michiel Rook <michie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm a bit ambivalent about PSR-8. I voted against it, but I don't think withdrawing it is worth the effort.

same here

regards,
Lukas

[Adam Culp]

I will carry over my comments from another thread at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/YvHARo5G1w4/WhYbT0gNAgAJ

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.

Paul,

The additional commentary about Michael was not really needed. Poor form.

Regards,

Adam

[Paul Jones]

> On Sep 11, 2016, at 11:45, Adam Culp <thege...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The additional commentary about Michael was not really needed. Poor form.

I am duly chastised; I regret the poor form.

FWIW, my intent was to illustrate (which I clearly did not do well) that the secretaries, as neutral and unbiased assistants to this group, should afford exactly the same treatment to all votes and discussions. Giving reminders on one (the PSR-13 pre-vote discussion) but not on others gives the appearance of special treatment, which is something to be avoided. On the other hand, if this is in fact a new policy, I would expect it to be applied equally to all discussions. To my knowledge, Michael et al. have not yet given clarification on this point.

Again, my apologies for attempting to illustrate all that implicitly, instead of explicitly.

[Samantha Quiñones]

We are working on our processes to help normalize and regularize how we dispatch our administrative duties. We try to offer timely reminders about important events. If we miss one, please don't assume bias. It likely just means we missed one.

Thanks,

Samantha

[Michael Cullum]

On 12 September 2016 at 16:15, Paul Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 11, 2016, at 11:45, Adam Culp <thege...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The additional commentary about Michael was not really needed. Poor form.

I am duly chastised; I regret the poor form.

FWIW, my intent was to illustrate (which I clearly did not do well) that the secretaries, as neutral and unbiased assistants to this group, should afford exactly the same treatment to all votes and discussions. Giving reminders on one (the PSR-13 pre-vote discussion) but not on others gives the appearance of special treatment, which is something to be avoided. On the other hand, if this is in fact a new policy, I would expect it to be applied equally to all discussions. To my knowledge, Michael et al. have not yet given clarification on this point.

Apologies for this. It appears my reply to you had bounced due to some google groups bug. You can see it here. Should you wish to discuss this further, please start a new topic.

I think this topic in general has served it's purpose; if people would like to continue to comment on PSR-8, there is a thread for that, if people wish to discuss anything else that has come up here please start a topic to that effect.

--

Many Thanks,

Michael C

[Paul Jones]

Michael,

> On Sep 12, 2016, at 10:39, Michael Cullum <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote:
>
> Apologies for this. It appears my reply to you had bounced due to some google groups bug. You can see it here.

I think it would be good if you re-posted it to the list, on that thread, so that it's available for all to see in the future.

* * *

All,

I am still interested in entertaining discussion on a "withdraw PSR-8" vote in this thread. Please continue your feedback, if you have any!

[Matthew Weier O'Phinney]

As noted several times already in this thread, there is no current
by-law covering anything beyond abandonment of a PSR. If you are
interested in discussing withdrawal, please open a new thread
proposing a by-law for PSR withdrawal, and we can revisit if/when such
a by-law is approved.

Two further points on that subject before I bow out:

- As noted by several others on this thread, we discussed that very
topic at ZendCon last year, and one point that came up is that
withdrawal is tricky, because it may imply the number is made
available again; this would lead to difficulty down the road, as folks
may not know which version of the PSR (the withdrawn version or the
current) is being discussed. Abandonment is safer in that regard, as
it leaves an historical record, while keeping the placeholder.
- I would argue only the *editor* may request withdrawal of a PSR; the
coordinator and/or sponsor (in that order!) would only request it in
the absence of an editor. As such, until Larry has proposed
withdrawal, I see no reason to continue discussion at this point.

--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
mweiero...@gmail.com
https://mwop.net/