Aura (et al.) are not joining

All, With the passing of the FIG 3.0 vote, the group in which I was a founding member has ceased to exist. We see before us now a new and different organization, with a new and different mission. It usurps the name "FIG" to lend a false appearance of continuity, and to lay fraudulent claim to

[DISCUSS] "FIG 3.0" Bylaw amendments (Take 2)

As promised, the discussion thread about the FIG 3.0 vote. I present for your consideration two articles about the proposal currently under vote. - one from Larry (pro): - and one from me (con):

Re: [Review][Discuss] FIG 3.0 Upcoming Vote

> On Sep 19, 2016, at 10:24, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <mweierophin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Paul Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sep 15, 2016, at 13:37, Matthew Weier O'Phinney >> <mweierophin...@

Re: [Review][Discuss] FIG 3.0 Upcoming Vote

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 13:37, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <mweierophin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Paul Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: >> So I still have no idea if the secretary role is intended as an "assistant"

Re: [VOTE] "FIG 3.0" Bylaw amendments (Take 2)

-1 from Aura, et al. I'll be opening a discussion thread to accompany this vote. -- 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

Re: [Review][Discuss] FIG 3.0 Upcoming Vote

Hi all, > On Sep 14, 2016, at 21:23, Bill Condo wrote: > > The duties are well defined and provide more context than any word that could > be added to the secretary title. There is zero benefit in trying to match > apples and oranges for what this role would be titled at

Re: [Review][Discuss] FIG 3.0 Upcoming Vote

> On Sep 12, 2016, at 11:32, Pedro Cordeiro wrote: > > Paul, the role of a secretary is well described here, as I'm sure you are > aware: http://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/membership/#fig-secretary. Yes, it's *described* there, but nobody seems to be able to say what *kind*

Re: [Review][Discuss] FIG 3.0 Upcoming Vote

> On Sep 12, 2016, at 10:56, Michael Cullum wrote: > > The Secretary role is not changing in FIG 3.0 as previously stated. And what role is that, exactly? Assistive, or more along the lines of "Secretary-General" or "Secretary of (Parliament|State|etc)" ? -- Paul

Re: [Review][Discuss] FIG 3.0 Upcoming Vote

Hi all, Larry & Michael, is the "Secretary" role intended primarily as that of "assistant", subordinate to the Voting Members, or is it intended more along the lines of "Secretary-General" or "Secretary of (Parliament|State|etc)" ? Since they are very different things, the title should

Re: [PRE-VOTE DISCUSSION] Withdraw PSR-8

Michael, > On Sep 12, 2016, at 10:39, Michael Cullum wrote: > > Apologies for this. It appears my reply to you had bounced due to some google > groups bug. You can see it here. I think it would be good if you re-posted it to the list, on that thread, so that it's

Re: [PRE-VOTE DISCUSSION] Withdraw PSR-8

> On Sep 11, 2016, at 11:45, Adam Culp wrote: > > The additional commentary about Michael was not really needed. Poor form. I am duly chastised; I regret the poor form. FWIW, my intent was to illustrate (which I clearly did not do well) that the secretaries, as neutral

Re: Resigning My Position ...

Samantha, > On Sep 10, 2016, at 20:42, Samantha Quiñones wrote: > > Paul, > > I already talked about this in the other thread. Continually antagonizing > Michael is not an appropriate way of addressing whatever issues you may have > with the way he conducts himself

Re: Resigning My Position ...

Hi Chris, > On Sep 9, 2016, at 10:25, Chris Tankersley wrote: > > You were in the room at ZendCon 2015's FIG meeting when we brought up the > whole abandonment issue and how we should handle it. The notes are here: > >

[PRE-VOTE DISCUSSION] Withdraw PSR-8

Hi all, Measure: "Withdraw PSR-8 from consideration as a PSR." I presume that the editor is willing, based on other conversations. And since Micheal Cullum (as secretarial assistant) seems to be in the habit now of reminding us when the two-week period of discussion is up, I look forward to

Re: Resigning My Position ...

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 10:08, Michael Cullum 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

Resigning My Position ...

Hi all, I am resigning my position as sponsor of PSR-8, the "Huggable" Interface. This was a fun joke way-back-when, but its time has passed. And if I may suggest it, perhaps the editor should voluntarily withdraw the PSR from consideration. Thanks everyone! -- Paul M. Jones

Re: [Review][Discuss] FIG 3.0 Upcoming Vote

Michael, > On Aug 29, 2016, at 03:56, Michael Cullum wrote: > > The intention of the vote is that it will resolve contention, not create it; > and this should be the case so long as people don't intend to create drama as > a result of the vote. The proposal, and the

Re: [REVIEW] PSR-13: Link definition interfaces

Hi all, > On Sep 4, 2016, at 10:57, Michael Cullum wrote: > > As a general secretarial note, the minimum 2 week review period is now > complete as of the 30th August and this can be put to a vote at any time from > this point onwards. As a general

Re: [VOTE] [Bylaw Amendment] Do not require interface suffix on future PSR Interfaces

-1 from Aura/Solar/etc. -- 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

Re: [REVIEW] PSR-13: Link definition interfaces

All, On consideration, this strikes me as a perfect example of something that should be created as a *-interop project prior to being accepted. That will help "shake out" any problems revealed by real-world use, especially use by people not participating in the creation of the PSR. -- Paul

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

> On Aug 29, 2016, at 17:37, Larry Garfield wrote: > > Is there a reason you excluded PSR-13, which recently entered Review stage? My bad -- I regret the oversight. To update the PSR listing: "- PSR-13 has seen continuing, recent, and regular activity. As a side note,

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

> On Aug 28, 2016, at 17:01, Christopher Pitt wrote: > >> FIG has served its purpose and should be archived. > > You mean aside from the ongoing PSR work? The 10 or so PSRs, approved by > vote, to be worked on? Seems a bit premature to say FIG is purposeless and/or >

Re: Google Group Closed?

> On Aug 29, 2016, at 12:57, Samantha Quiñones wrote: > > Seems to be in order now! :) Excellent. Was a switch flipped somewhere, or did it just disappear and reappear on its own? -- Paul M. Jones http://paul-m-jones.com -- You received this message because

Google Group Closed?

All, I saw on Reddit that the Google Group appears to be closed; I signed out of Google and went to the mailing list page at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/php-fig and I get a "permission denied." Has anything been changed lately? -- Paul M. Jones http://paul-m-jones.com --

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0: Encourage *-interop projects

> On Aug 25, 2016, at 13:10, Larry Garfield wrote: > > So work done on what will become code for a PSR is by default copyright its > original owners and no one else is allowed to use it without their consent. > > FIG has a standing policy that all code "we" produce is

Re: [Discussion][Internals] Remove the Interface suffix from PSR naming conventions

> On Aug 15, 2016, at 14:53, Matthieu Napoli wrote: > > Please share your reasons to vote FOR or AGAINST the change, let's debate for > 2 weeks or more, and then let's have a vote to settle this. "Against" (i.e., leave the Interface suffix in place.) My impression is

Re: [PSR-11] Remove ContainerException

> On Aug 15, 2016, at 14:10, Matthieu Napoli wrote: > > Hi, > > PSR-11, aka ContainerInterface, has been sleeping for too long. Let's get > that PSR moving! Woohoo! > Here is a change I would like to suggest: remove the interface > ContainerException. ... > After

Re: [REVIEW] PSR-13: Link definition interfaces

> On Aug 15, 2016, at 13:34, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <mweierophin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Paul Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Aug 15, 2016, at 12:22, Matthew Weier O'Phinney >>> <mweierophin.

Re: [Nomination] FIG Secretary: Paul M. Jones

Dear Voting Members, > On Aug 11, 2016, at 06:35, Adam Culp wrote: > > We have many potentially good nominations for FIG secretary, and you are one > of them. So to help members choose, please provide some insight: > > 1. Why did you accept the nomination? > 2. What are

Re: Alternative to FIG 3.0 - Is it time to call FIG complete?

Hi all, > On Aug 9, 2016, at 11:54, Larry Garfield wrote: > > But FIG can and should evolve along with PHP. We've done it before. The FIG > of 2009 is not at all what we are today. To be clear, those changes were not the result of "evolution" in any natural sense.

Alternative to FIG 3.0: Encourage *-interop projects

Dear Voting Members, There is another way to solve the problems listed in the [FIG 3.0 summary][1]: formally encourage the creation of a *-interop project as a prerequisite to a FIG entrance vote. (Look to container-interop and async-interop as examples.) * * * Point by point from the FIG 3.0

Re: FIG 3.0 (Including a TL;DR Summary)

> On Aug 5, 2016, at 15:19, Michael Cullum <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote: > >> On 5 August 2016 at 20:24, Paul Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Of course we don't ask for -1s, do we. > > No I don't ask for -1s; if you're opinion is best repre

Re: [PSR-7] Opinions requested on potential patch

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 13:54, Matthew Weier O'Phinney > wrote: > > is such a change > considered a *fix* (because it updates the syntax to match intent) or a > *clarification* (which would require a vote)? IMO that's a fix; no vote needed. -- Paul M. Jones

Re: On the Interoperability of Cryptographic Components -or- Stop Writing In-House Cryptography Features

> On Jul 30, 2016, at 12:13, Scott Arciszewski wrote: > > Hi FIG, > > I've noticed that a lot of frameworks and platforms provide their own > cryptography features, and they're almost always insecure from the outset. ... > This isn't something I can conceptually see as a

Re: Status of PSR-12 survey

> On Jul 31, 2016, at 13:36, Michael Cullum wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > A mix of the two. Well, let's remove one part of that mix, then. > As previously stated, this PSR was always going to include a degree of both > being prescriptive and being descriptive, Yes, and

Re: [PSR-17] Any help needed? When do we move forward?

> On Jul 28, 2016, at 10:22, Woody Gilk <woody.g...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Paul Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > To be clear, this is at the editor's discretion; nothing else impedes > "progress." > > That's an int

Re: [PSR-17] Any help needed? When do we move forward?

> On Jul 28, 2016, at 09:53, Woody Gilk wrote: > > Progress is waiting on other internals issues. To be clear, this is at the editor's discretion; nothing else impedes "progress." -- Paul M. Jones http://paul-m-jones.com -- You received this message because you

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

Dear Voting Representatives, Since the secretaries have seen fit to summarize the complainants' responses so far, but not my own, I will do so here. First, I said in : > Indeed, since not everyone here agrees that my speech was

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

Dear Voting Representatives, The customary two-week period of discussion prior to a vote has expired. I thank you for your patience, and your participation. I have two last points to make: - There has been no clarification from the complainants on exactly what they think removing me from

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

Dear Voting Representatives, You have heard it said that there were offlist attempts to resolve with me, privately, the matter now at hand. On review of the past 6 months of my email archives and other records, I find only the following relevant communications from FIG members. - On 28 May,

Re: [PSR-17] New Sponsor Requested

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 19:20, Paul Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 17:40, Michael Cullum <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Woody and Paul, we’ll reach out to you both over the next 24 hours to

Re: [PSR-17] New Sponsor Requested

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 19:35, Woody Gilk wrote: > > Since there are no (AFAIK) bylaws that address this, the secretaries > and FIG members will have to decide how to handle this situation. What precedent leads you to believe that is the case? -- Paul M. Jones