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. On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 at 16:19 Christopher Pitt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/z3R9hfQ-QMQ/ipiZ5U3zCQAJ>. > 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 > > -- > 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 > [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/c937b38d-e5d1-435a-9b45-b0b99febd89a%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/c937b38d-e5d1-435a-9b45-b0b99febd89a%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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CAAueXOXLT7hj3suR-uPE%3Dn9RVbqCV0CyFokgKOvv45w%3DOLaqag%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
