We were discussing the status of various PSRs so we could see what resources they needed and the like in one of our first monthly meetings and when PSR-8 came up, we were aware it was stuck in Limbo (because of it's nature) so we contacted the Editor [Larry] to discuss what he wanted to do regarding it. The discussion ensued there wasn't anything in the bylaws that allowed anyone to do anything about it due at the time but it would be covered in FIG 3.0 so therefore we determined there was no need for us (Secretaries) to start a discussion on the mailing list for (1) a bylaw change and (2) the abandonment vote as this process would take a minimum of 8 weeks (2 week discussion, 2 week vote on each occasion) and it would be wasting peoples time as it would potentially be solved in the near future anyway. It was also noted it had been raised with a number of FIG members at a FIG meeting (Zendcon which I believe you were even present for so you know this was discussed with the wider FIG) and briefly a number of times on the list. If it wasn't solved in FIG 3.0, we could always formally propose a bylaw change to introduce this new PSR 'state'.
Again, if you would like to discuss this, please start a new topic; commenting on secretary actions and what we can and cannot do (or should and shouldn't be doing) in almost every instance is just derailing topics of conversation. If you have feedback or suggestions for things we could do better then we'd love to hear them but I'd suggest reaching out to us in private in the first instance as it might be as simple as a 'Fair point, we will work on that/that sounds like something we could certainly do' and there is no need to bother all 3209 people subscribed to the mailing list with it. I believe you and I have even discussed this before and you agreed it made sense to first reach out to us in private in future instances when you thought we could do something better or wanted to express discontent at the way we'd done something. -- Michael C On 9 September 2016 at 16:13, Paul Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sep 9, 2016, at 10:08, Michael Cullum <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > We [secretaries] discussed PSR-8 a while back and we've also been part > of numerous conversations with Larry [PSR-8 Editor] and other folks and we > came to the conclusion that it doesn't appear there is really a way to > withdraw PSRs for the moment. > > Interesting; was that brought up as a discussion for the whole group to > consider? And if not, why not? Seems like exactly the kind of thing voting > members should be talking about, not the secretarial assistants among > themselves. > > > -- > > Paul M. Jones > http://paul-m-jones.com > > > > -- > 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/B77808E9-F408-40E0-B247-FBF41F1C44FD%40gmail.com. > 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/CAAqcDMhikArL4nEU_44Ordm9H2DHQA%3DO4Znv2cyXdn3FHRmjNw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
