FIG 3.0 Discussion Period

143 views
Skip to first unread message

GeeH

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 10:35:35 AM8/22/16
to PHP Framework Interoperability Group
I may be wrong here (I usually am), but I can't find a formal 2-week discussion thread for the FIG 3.0 vote that is currently ongoing. Did the required 2-week discussion formally happen, or did the discussion informally happen on the other threads?

G

Matt Trask

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 10:38:52 AM8/22/16
to PHP Framework Interoperability Group
Gary, this is the closest I could find. It wasn't marked [DISCUSSION] or anything, so may be an un-official discussion thread. 

Paul Jones

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 10:54:02 AM8/22/16
to php...@googlegroups.com

> On Aug 22, 2016, at 09:35, GeeH <ga...@hock.in> wrote:
>
> I may be wrong here (I usually am), but I can't find a formal 2-week discussion thread for the FIG 3.0 vote that is currently ongoing. Did the required 2-week discussion formally happen, or did the discussion informally happen on the other threads?

I suppose one could say that the discussion has been going off-and-on for months at this point.

Even so, I think your observation is correct: it does not seem that an explicit "going to call a vote in 2 weeks, final call for discussion" notice was ever announced.


--

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



Christopher Pitt

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 11:19:11 AM8/22/16
to PHP Framework Interoperability Group
I suppose one could say that the discussion has been going off-and-on for months at this point. 

Whether or not officially announced; I can count roughly 14 threads discussion various aspects of it. The earliest one seems to have been started around April 28th. That's at least 3½ months of discussion relating to the proposal currently being voted on. 

I see this thread going one of two ways:
  1. None of the discussion threads included the text "this begins the customary 2 weeks of discussion before a vote can take place". The vote should therefore be considered invalid.
  2. The topic has been discussed enough to satisfy the 2 weeks bylaw, and the vote should continue. Whether or not the outcome will be in favour of the restructure (and it doesn't look likely at this stage) or not is not part of the consideration. Whether or not the concerns with the current state are valid (and to me they seem to be) are not part of the consideration. 
Do we railroad the vote because nobody said "there's a vote in 2 weeks", or let it be seen that there are real concerns which should be addressed, by letting it go to completion? I personally feel like it would be supremely pedantic to argue in favour of #1 at this point. It detracts from the technical arguments against the restructure to say; this is why the vote should not pass.

My read on the situation may be flawed, and I'm not a voting member. Bear these in mind as you think about what is mostly my personal opinion.

Kind regards
Chris

Gary Hockin

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 11:27:55 AM8/22/16
to php...@googlegroups.com
Hi Chris,

It's certainly not my intention to be pedantic or nitpicky. I was waiting for the formal 2-week discussion thread to completely read the entire proposal (not just the various summaries) and raise any points. Because this didn't happen, I only read and digested the entire proposal when the voting thread was posted, and now I feel that I've missed the boat somewhat. It's not a huge deal, Matthew has been keeping up with discussion and will ultimately cast the ZF vote and arguably it's my fault for not spending time earlier to read thoroughly and digest the proposals. I tend to spend the time to read carefully and understand a proposal when the 2-week discussion thread appears, but if that's only something that I do then I don't want to rock the boat.

I don't think it's a case of nobody actually saying those words, but a generally we get a thread with [discussion] in the title that warns us there will be a vote coming soon. This is possibly the most important vote of the FIGs history, and it's a shame that usual step was missed.

--
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/7GZnw81ltNY/unsubscribe.
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/c937b38d-e5d1-435a-9b45-b0b99febd89a%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Christopher Pitt

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 11:31:49 AM8/22/16
to PHP Framework Interoperability Group
I understand your concern - few have time to read entire proposals before a vote starts. I think the summary thread you were looking for can be found here. Perhaps apart from "TL;DR" the thread title should have included "[discussion]"...

Robert Hafner

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 12:26:18 PM8/22/16
to php...@googlegroups.com
Honestly, enough people are already voting -1 on it due to there not being a discussion that I think it's going to go back to the drawing board for a bit. 

While the bylaws have been followed and the vote may be legitimate, the lack of a formal discussion period is clearing hurting the chances of this passing. Oftentimes people aren't going to follow every conversation in the draft phase due to the fact that we occasionally have draft phases that last years, so letting people know that we're close to the final form is going to get more eyes on the docs.

People should just take this as a lesson when pushing though new topics- your proposals are more likely to pass if you give people the chance to read it.

Rob
--
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.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages