Ownership?

[Woody Gilk]

Hello League.

In light of two recent posts here regarding inclusion for membership,
I have some questions that I think need to be answered more clearly.

How do we decide things?

There have two separate projects that have asked for inclusion into
league: Searcher [1] and Zip [2]. Neither of these projects got much
response and to date there has been no decision either way.

What is the formal process for deciding how a package gets added to League?

This question needs to be answered so that people asking for
membership know what to expect and can have reasonable expectations in
terms of timeline.

Who has actual ownership over this organization?

I rarely see anyone post on this list. Of the last 15 threads, 11 of
them have been projects asking for inclusion and none of them have
been added. There are 31 active projects with about 20 authors. Very
few of these users have replied to the threads.

I think it is time for League to get a little more organized and
figure out how it wants to be perceived within the PHP ecosystem. My
own personal take is that the League should choose some kind of a
leadership council and decide on some formal rules regarding package
nominations. Without it, we look like a ship lost at sea without a
captain.

[1]: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/thephpleague/DPTJ3oRfut0/Z4SgcNQqBAAJ
[2]: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/thephpleague/4SdHybZkCCM/NH9v0S1wBAAJ

Regards,
--
Woody Gilk
http://about.me/shadowhand

[Alex Bilbie]

Hi Woody,

Your questions are fair.

Regarding ownership of the organisation, there is a steering group - myself, Graham Daniels, Ben Corlett, Frank de Jonge, Jonathan Reinink and Phil Sturgeon. The six of us speak regularly (we've got a private Slack group and some of us meet up on our travels or at conferences). However we all work full time and have busy personal lives which is partly why we may be come across as quiet most of the time.

As for your other two questions, I think it's probably best if the six people above perhaps speak amongst ourselves first and come back with a coherant set of answers so the record can be set straight. Please bear with us until then.

Best,

Alex

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "thephpleague" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to thephpleague...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to thephp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thephpleague/CAGOJM6JZVMLdi%2BR3xtN2cLN3zbr6Q%2BCSitWe7txgRU%3DwWvqB1g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Phil Sturgeon]

1.  Upload is waiting on further code from Brandon, and waiting on an answer as to how his differs from the existing upload package on the League which he is meant to be in control of already. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/thephpleague/c-typCuSIVY
   
2. ZIP is waiting for other people to reply after my last reply this morning adding a use case to it. The folks who said "im not sure about the use case" will likely reply saying "Oh yeah, thats a good one. In that case I'm +1" and we're all set. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/thephpleague/4SdHybZkCCM
3. Searcher was having a big chat between the author and Barry, and there's no point throwing a vote during a chat. The bump only happened 14 hours ago, so its somewhat premature to assume nobody is coming to answer that. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/thephpleague/DPTJ3oRfut0
4. Keylighter - Seems like the author didnt convince anyone of the use case https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/thephpleague/Ho31XgbLDkw
5. JSON Schema - Accepted https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/thephpleague/-fwXNRbV9u8
6. Manipultor - Nobody seemed too interested https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/thephpleague/Ho31XgbLDkw

Not to go through all of them here, but theres not as much of an activity problem as you're suggesting. 

The process isn't "We'll have a vote on every package somebody throws at us." It is more "If somebody is interested they'll kick off a vote and we'll talk about it in the leadership group, then if accepted we'll help them out."

I think that's perfectly ok.

There has been one that fell through cracks, php7cc, which I have bumped off. That was my suggestion and I'd like to see it in the league, so I'll take that under my wing. 

I would like folks to reply more, but we're not trying to make the new PEAR here, so there is a very human level to onboarding, and humans get busy. 

[Barry vd. Heuvel]

It's also not a 'recent' problem, the package I suggested in 2014 also didn't get any response ;)

Also, the recruitment statement has only been removed since May (https://github.com/thephpleague/thephpleague.github.io/commit/68b10e5728c40aa13e0c5841edf5aff5d2d96ef2), so I can imagine that people already read it before that and still thought that was how it went. Perhaps state it more clearly, to avoid getting peoples hope up?

Should the core group also be listed on the website?

Op maandag 8 augustus 2016 00:47:00 UTC+2 schreef Phil Sturgeon: