[Vote][Entrance] Huggable Interface

[Larry Garfield]

Greetings, FIG.

One of the goals of this group is to further and foster communication
and collaboration between PHP projects. When we are able to collaborate
and solve common problems we all benefit.

Part of that, though, is allowing projects to more easily support each
other and each other's communities. That extends from the code to the
people who write it. We want it to be easy to support other projects,
particularly in ways that have been shown to work well in the past.

To that end, I would like to call for an Entrance vote on a standard
support mechanism that has had enormous success over the years in the
Drupal community. We have already begun sharing this technique with the
Symfony project, and while Fabien himself doesn't generally make use of
it a number of other members of that community do.

Cal Evans is Coordinating this proposal and Paul Jones is Sponsoring.

The Pull Request is here:
https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/266

And the general proposal and meta doc can be found here:

https://github.com/Crell/fig-standards/blob/psr-hug/proposed/psr-8-hug/psr-8-hug.md
https://github.com/Crell/fig-standards/blob/psr-hug/proposed/psr-8-hug/PSR-8-hug-meta.md

Naturally the implementation details can be refined once the general
proposal is accepted.

--Larry Garfield

[Larry Garfield]

Naturally...

+1

--Larry Garfield, Drupal

[Don Gilbert]

Sorry to flood a voting thread with talk, but I must have missed the pre-vote discussion on this one.

I don't see the need for this. I mean, what are the use cases? Even if you could enumerate them I'm sure most are invalid. Whey can't you just use Anthony's Hugs as a Service? Are there really that many projects out there looking for hug interoperability? There are really only so many implementations out there (Bear Hug, Group Hug, Side Hug), and most implementations do it the same way already. Not sure we need to codify the interface.

[Jeremy Lindblom]

I can't remember, but can non-voting members vote on PSRs? If so, I vote +1, as long as we can resolve some of the apparent issues like there not being a way to limit the number of hug iterations.

--
Jeremy Lindblom
PHP Software Engineer at Amazon Web Services

Co-author of the AWS SDK for PHP

Co-organizer of the Seattle PHP User Group

@jeremeamia | http://webjeremy.com | https://github.com/jeremeamia

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Don Gilbert <dilber...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry to flood a voting thread with talk, but I must have missed the pre-vote discussion on this one.

I don't see the need for this. I mean, what are the use cases? Even if you could enumerate them I'm sure most are invalid. Whey can't you just use Anthony's Hugs as a Service? Are there really that many projects out there looking for hug interoperability? There are really only so many implementations out there (Bear Hug, Group Hug, Side Hug), and most implementations do it the same way already. Not sure we need to codify the interface.

--
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/msgid/php-fig/bfcf2373-826f-40fa-9d0b-982d1231811e%40googlegroups.com.

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

[Karsten Dambekalns]

Hi.

+1 from Flow.

On 01.04.2014, at 08:00, Don Gilbert <dilber...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't see the need for this. I mean, what are the use cases? Even if you could enumerate them I'm sure most are invalid. Whey can't you just use Anthony's Hugs as a Service?

Just assume HAAS changes their API at some point… what would the internet community at large do? I think adding an interface is due urgently.

Regards,

Karsten

[guilher...@gmail.com]

+1 from Doctrine

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

[Mike van Riel]

+1 from phpDocumentor; there are not enough hugs, so yes: more hugs are better!

--
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/msgid/php-fig/CAFp73Xt4%3Ddwixi9Qt8NgCb5GML_xof3Z-%3DdW%2BRQ9uEii%2B_eo%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul M. Jones]

On Apr 1, 2014, at 8:50 AM, Mike van Riel <draco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 from phpDocumentor; there are not enough hugs, so yes: more hugs are better!

+1 from from the sponsor, obviously.


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

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
http://mlaphp.com

[Larry Garfield]

Hugs As A Service was an inspiration for this proposal, yes. But that
works only between two RESTful applications. The goal here is a level
down, allowing code within a single application to hug freely without
needing adapters.

There is prior art, too. For instance, here's Drupal training company
Drupalize.me providing some technical examples:

http://drupalize.me/videos/how-give-hug

And I also did some ad hoc hug training at Symfony Live Paris a while back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPOZTtvG7Bk

The goal is to make it less ad hoc, and therefor easier to exchange hugs.

--Larry Garfield

On 4/1/14, 1:00 AM, Don Gilbert wrote:
> Sorry to flood a voting thread with talk, but I must have missed the
> pre-vote discussion on this one.
>
> I don't see the need for this. I mean, what are the use cases? Even if
> you could enumerate them I'm sure most are invalid. Whey can't you just

> use Anthony's Hugs as a Service <http://hugsasaservice.appspot.com>? Are

> there really that many projects out there looking for hug
> interoperability? There are really only so many implementations out
> there (Bear Hug, Group Hug, Side Hug), and most implementations do it
> the same way already. Not sure we need to codify the interface.
>

> --
> 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

> <mailto:php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com>.

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

> <mailto:php...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/bfcf2373-826f-40fa-9d0b-982d1231811e%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/bfcf2373-826f-40fa-9d0b-982d1231811e%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Beau Simensen]

I still have some concerns about the GroupHuggable interface but in spirit of cooperation and keeping the object hugging in line with KISS I think that this is an acceptable compromise.

+1 from Sculpin

[Don Gilbert]

Ok. +1 then. It makes sense now.

[Taylor Otwell]

+1

Though for broad adoption perhaps we need SideHuggable for the more introverted implementors?

On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 12:13:22 AM UTC-5, Larry Garfield wrote:

[Rafael Dohms]

I can't really vote, but I must say that the community REALLY needs this.

If you do not vote yes on this one you are surely out of touch with the community and no good, like Phil Sturgeon, that bastard.

[Larry Garfield]

This is just an Entrance Vote, so that could be added during discussion.

--Larry Garfield

> <https://github.com/Crell/fig-standards/blob/psr-hug/proposed/psr-8-hug/psr-8-hug.md>
>
> https://github.com/Crell/fig-standards/blob/psr-hug/proposed/psr-8-hug/PSR-8-hug-meta.md

> <https://github.com/Crell/fig-standards/blob/psr-hug/proposed/psr-8-hug/PSR-8-hug-meta.md>
>
>
> Naturally the implementation details can be refined once the general
> proposal is accepted.
>
> --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+u...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:php...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/8d1b01a6-cdc9-4c76-8b8c-5cb6fe3dc15c%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/8d1b01a6-cdc9-4c76-8b8c-5cb6fe3dc15c%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Kris Wallsmith]

Now we're getting somewhere!

+1 from Assetic

an email to php-fig+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

<mailto:php-fig+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.

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

<mailto:php-fig@googlegroups.com>.

To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/8d1b01a6-cdc9-4c76-8b8c-5cb6fe3dc15c%40googlegroups.com

<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/8d1b01a6-cdc9-4c76-8b8c-5cb6fe3dc15c%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

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

--
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/533ADA28.7060509%40garfieldtech.com.

[Andres Gutierrez]

+1 from Phalcon, this is amazing :)

[Paul Dragoonis]

+1 from PPI Framework

--

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/msgid/php-fig/ad9ae368-2b8e-48d1-b258-220990a085c8%40googlegroups.com.

[Rémi Gaillard]

Of course, +1 from PrestaShop!

Best Regards,

Rémi Gaillard

[Michiel Rook]

-1 from Phing

--
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/533E79FD.1080407%40prestashop.com.

[Paul M. Jones]

On Apr 4, 2014, at 1:50 PM, Michiel Rook <michie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> -1 from Phing

NO HUGS FOR YOU

[Michiel Rook]

Phil will give me a hug!

--
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/msgid/php-fig/56947B73-04B8-4951-B3E4-BCABAA665207%40gmail.com.

[Paul M. Jones]

On Apr 4, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Michiel Rook <michie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Phil will give me a hug!

Assuming you would want one from him. (Actually, now that I think about it, not-wanting one might be the surest way to make him give you one.)

[Filipe Guerra]

+ 1 from SugarCRM

I see a lot of use cases where this would benefit us, since our customers/partners do a lot of integrations with other projects.

Thanks for this!

[Larry Garfield]

On 04/01/2014 12:13 AM, Larry Garfield wrote:

The final tally:

+1: 13
-1: 1
Quorum threshold: 18

Quorum not met. :-(

Oh well. I guess the PHP community will have to go on giving
incompatible hugs for another year.

I'd hug everyone who supported this effort, but you wouldn't be able to
receive it. Sad panda.

--Larry Garfield

[Hari K T]

35 voters in fig.

There may be chances you are busy, but it is not so good that you stay away for not to cast -1 . This is the reason 0 is there .

If you are here only to cast +1 , then your presence is not really needed for +1 will always win.

I would like to bring this into discussion, and how the Quorum is done now.

Eg : In India we do vote, there are people who don't vote. This is same for fig.

So the Quorum should be taken from the number of voters vote casted without including those who have not. So

Quorum threshold should be taken as : 14

Hari K T

You can ring me : +91 9388 75 8821

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

Skype  : kthari85

Twitter : harikt

--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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/5352D0A2.8080403%40garfieldtech.com.

[justin]

The point of the quorum is that if a vote doesn't have enough interest to get a quorum, it probably shouldn't pass (at least in its current state). This also keeps people from pushing something through with a really small group over a holiday or something, when people aren't paying enough attention to the list :)

ᐧ

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/msgid/php-fig/CAESZFtJAvf9S6v0uLkBmobrR40w%3DMxbfSrV3t3FGddjEUZVu0w%40mail.gmail.com.

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

--
http://justinhileman.com

[Phil Sturgeon]

I am definitely not going to have any sort of serious conversation about vote reform because this April fools joke ahead not progressed further than it needed to for the joke to be made.

Lololol. We did it.

Next.

If I wasn't busy traveling, conferencing, climbing mountains and enjoying myself I would have battled the awful wifi in South Africa and Turkey to get a -1 in earlier, but this was definitely not a vote I considered to be important. I don't even want my name associated with it.

Hugs to everyone involved of course, but we don't need this PSR or any sort of conversation about a re-definition of the word quorum.

[Larry Garfield]

Aw, Phil doesn't want a hug. :-(

[Hari K T]

I am definitely not going to have any sort of serious conversation about vote reform because this April fools joke ahead not progressed further than it needed to for the joke to be made.

Lololol. We did it.

good to hear it is an april fools joke :-) .

 

If I wasn't busy traveling, conferencing, climbing mountains and enjoying myself I would have battled the awful wifi in South Africa and Turkey to get a -1 in earlier, but this was definitely not a vote I considered to be important. I don't even want my name associated with it.

Hugs to everyone involved of course, but we don't need this PSR or any sort of conversation about a re-definition of the word quorum.

Sorry to bother again on the quorum. If a group of people who are close stay away from a proposal ( intentionally ) then we never have the vote pass.

The quorum to me is : it should always be considered from the people who voted. And we never ever ask why you stay away and people don't like to say itself why they voted +1 or -1 . So there is no feedback other than +1, -1, 0 . So quorum should be taken from those who have voted for the proposal.

I don't like to quarrel for this again it is up to the members to decide.

[Michiel Rook]

Hi,

> The quorum to me is : it should always be considered from the people
> who voted. And we never ever ask why you stay away and people don't
> like to say itself why they voted +1 or -1 . So there is no feedback
> other than +1, -1, 0 . So quorum should be taken from those who have
> voted for the proposal.

A quorum is always (or should be) based on the real number of members,
not the number
of members partaking in a particular vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum

regards,

Michiel

[Phil Sturgeon]

I really liked this bit:

Abraham Lincoln leapt out of a first story window (the doors of the Capitol had been locked to prevent legislators from fleeing) in a failed attempt to prevent a quorum from being present.

AMURICA!

[Don Gilbert]

Hari, a quorum means x amount of members present and voting out of the total number of members.

If a vote doesn't reach the minimum required (1/3) of members interested in it enough to vote, then it cannot and should not be passed. Quorum is pre-filter for votes - if you don't meet it then it's not important enough to pass. Once quorum is met, THEN the votes are counted. It wouldn't have mattered if there was 100% support amongst the members who voted - if quorum isn't met, then it doesn't pass.

This is to prevent a small group from pushing a change all by themselves - that's the whole purpose of the quorum. Checks and balances.

[Larry Garfield]

I am a total idiot.  The voting protocol clearly states:

"One-third or more of the voting members must vote within the time limit for the vote to be valid. This is the equivalent of establishing a quorum."

We have 35 voting members, thus quorum threshold is 11.6 (aka 12), not 18 (which is 50%).  There were 14 votes cast.  Thus this vote *did actually pass*.

Which means we have a PSR-8. :-)

--Larry Garfield

[Don Gilbert]

I sincerely hope this will end here. The joke was funny, but to keep pushing it to the point of "Hey we have a PSR-8 now..." is a bit extreme. Does this mean we have to skip having an actual PSR-8 now?

Not to be the party pooper around here, but I think we can all better spend our time on things like getting Cache finalized after nearly 3 years on the docket.

[Phil Sturgeon]

Yep, according to my bylaw this means that PSR-8 is now - and will always be - the huggable PSR.

People wanted to skip the vote and just make it PSR-8 straight away. I thought making it a vote would give it a chance to get denied whilst allowing the joke to happen. Apparently that wasn't enough of a barrier. 

Ahh well, I guess we're permanently funny now!

Please, let's keep this at Draft.

[Aaron Scherer]

If we stop talking about it, it will go away...

—
Sent from Mailbox

--

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/msgid/php-fig/600b7c71-3a4f-48e6-a44d-3425b1fc2f2d%40googlegroups.com.

[Philip Sturgeon]

This thread had a No and then a Yes, which lead to much confusion for me and a few others who didn't re-read the whole damn thing. 

PSR-8 is Huggable Interface

PSR-9 is Security Disclosure

https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/blob/master/index.md

That document is official, so thats the end of it!