>> If we collectively decide to shift our focus towards the community, what does that mean? I think it could mean soliciting more community participation when it comes to deciding how standards are defined and when they are acceptable. Giving everybody a vote would be chaos, but perhaps we can poll/discuss things more with the community and refine how the working group operates to allow for more transparency and greater community awareness.
> This will lead only to endless discussion with people who have no "skin in the game" on which to base their opinions. Skin in the game acts as a natural guide both to better decision-making; in the case of the FIG, the people who have skin in the game (as much as is possible, anyway) are the people who have member projects here. As such, the mission best remains one of researching what the member projects do themselves, and attempting to find commonalities between them.
I don't see why process has to change at all here. What's being
discussed isn't "We intend to dictate how everyone does things". The
discussion is around an extremely minor tweak to the goals to
recognize that your audience isn't just yourselves.
And be realistic, it's not. The recommendations that you make have
broader application and impact than just the member projects here. At
bare minimum, it affects the users and sub-projects (which don't
always have representation). But typically it will affect far broader
people than that (considering non-framework users still use
And to say "no skin in the game", I'm sorry, but we all have skin in
the game. What this group is doing here affects everyone who uses PHP.
I'm not saying everyone should be a voting member just because, but
please realize that more than just the voting body here has skin in
> As such, the mission best remains one of researching what the member projects do themselves, and attempting to find commonalities between them.
Which is totally fine. Nothing wrong with that. The part that many of
us are objecting to is the fact that you limit the audience of
prospective users to member projects. Nobody's saying you should make
standards that you don't yourself need. What we're saying is that when
you are creating a standard you should think about the impact to
non-member projects and other developers as well. Because that's the
reality of what you're doing.
>> On Dec 10, 2015, at 17:28, Woody Gilk <woody...@gmail.com
>> So where does that leave the community? Not worse off than before. The truth is that there are 40+ (generally) well-respected members of the community sitting at the table. Just because these people also happen to work on specific projects does not exclude them from the community. That also means that these projects, and FIG as a whole, are representatives of the community and as such must be accountable to it.
> I assert that the representatives are accountable to *their represented communities* and no others. Certainly I do not speak for Doctrine, or Zend Framework, or any other member project; nor am I accountable to them, nor they to Aura or any of my projects. How then could any project here, or the entirety of the membership. be accountable to the whole world of PHP developers?
Because the standards you make impacts the whole world of PHP
developers. Again, we're not saying that you should try to solve
everyone's needs. What we're saying is that you should recognize when
you're discussing the needs your trying to solve effect a lot more
than just yourselves.
Take for example the PSR-7 discussion. There was a lot of
cross-collaboration external to member projects. There was discussion
all across the community to build a generic standard that serves
generic needs, not just those of a few frameworks. There was active
engagement and recognition that the standard would impact non-member
That hasn't happened on all proposals. It hasn't happened on most
proposals. My suggestion is to alter the goals so that that's explicit
and is a bar with which all voting members measure proposals.
Should you be accountable to the whole world of PHP developers? Yes.
Because you already are *responsible* for impacting the whole world of
PHP developers. Responsibility without accountability leads to a ton
of friction. Which is exactly what you're seeing here today.
>> On Dec 11, 2015, at 03:39, Andrew Carter <andrewca...@gmail.com
>> Had the community been involved more formally with PSR-6, the vote would probably have been pulled and some of the issues fixed.
>> Going further, reading Anthony Ferrara's open letter to the FIG I struggle to see why he wasn't listened to then.
>> On Dec 11, 2015, at 05:09, Andrew Carter <andrewca...@gmail.com
>> no effort was made to keep the community informed about the process.
>> On Dec 11, 2015, at 05:42, Andrew Carter <andrewca...@gmail.com
>> All I'm saying is that the FIG could benefit by reaching out to them... rather than assuming they will come to this mailing list (just to have their opinions largely ignored).
> This line of thought raises an interesting paradox: how is it that FIG activity is not advertised enough in the wider PHP community, and yet at the same time is apparently so well-known that everyone does what it says? (/me shrugs)
That's not a paradox.
The reason people implement PSR standards is because either they do so
by proxy (monolog uses PSR-3, so they start using it), by convention
(composer uses PSR-4 in examples, so they do) or by influence (ZF3
using PSR-7 inspires others to use PSR-7).
The point about activity isn't that FIG isn't advertised enough. It's
that general contribution isn't encouraged most of the time. Because
your goals are internally-facing, it creates a strong wall that many
individuals simply don't cross. If instead FIG was proactive towards
reaching out and asking non-member-projects and other communities to
help and collaborate, then you'll get far more collaboration.
> Finally, I opine that no matter how much the FIG does to "reach out to the community" of worldwide PHP developers, there will always be some who say they were not aware, or feel grief at not having been consulted, and so on. There will never be "enough".
I think you're blurring the point by saying this. Every standards body
is going to do things someone doesn't like. That's the nature of the
beast. The concern that some of us are raising however is that there's
a wall that's put up that denies you any responsibility towards the
The simple fact that you have a community representative should show
that the walls aren't as tall as they are made out to be here. Yet at
every turn the FIG reiterates that it only targets its member projects
and actively shuns including others in the audience for the standards
that it makes.
What I'm asking, is simply that FIG officially acknowledges its
responsibility to the larger communities. That responsibility is
already there, it's just actively ignored. And that's why it's a major
issue (to some of us at least).