Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

<ac:macro ac:name="toc" />

<h2>Information</h2>

<ul>
<li>Date: 17 August 2011, 17:00-18:00 UTC</li>
<li><ac:link><ri:page ri:content-title="2011-08-17+Meeting+Agenda" /><ac:link-body>Agenda</ac:link-body></ac:link></li>
<li>Moderator: Pieter Kokx (nickname kokx)</li>
</ul>

<h2>Summary</h2>

<h3>Meeting format</h3>

<ul>
<li>Meetings will be 90m in length, and occur every other week.</li>
<li>Meeting topics can be suggested on the agenda page for the meeting in the wiki, and will use the "Survey" plugin for recording votes. Matthew will document this in the IRC meeting area of the wiki.</li>
<li>Prior to the meeting, the topics receiving the most votes will be chosen. We will aim for 15 minutes per topic, with 5-10 minutes of overflow time; this will limit us to approximately 4 topics per meeting.</li>
<li>One person will be a moderator, and will be responsible for announcing start and end of discussions, and typically summarizing decisions and/or action items.</li>
</ul>

<h3>ZF2 Process</h3>

<p>The general consensus was that the current process:</p>

<ul>
<li>is too slow</li>
<li>has little visibility</li>
<li>only works for standalone components (not architectural decisions)</li>
</ul>

<p>There was also consensus that a review process is necessary for components that will go into the ZF distribution. Ideas floated included:</p>

<ul>
<li>Reviewing whether or not all members of the CR Team have the time to dedicate regularly towards review</li>
<li>Creation of a proposal <em>application</em> <em>system</em> that would provide notifications and a clear path from proposal to acceptance.</li>
</ul>

<p>The latter received wide support in the meeting, and Matthew will provide specs he's worked out previously for discussion on the mailing list.</p>

<p>It's unclear what was agreed upon for making architectural decisions short of discussion on the mailing list, and advancement of prototypes for discussion.</p>

<h3>Milestones</h3>

<p>General consensus is:</p>

<ul>
<li>ZF2 is ready for GA when the MVC is ready</li>
<li>We may need to drop unmaintained or orphaned components for 2.0 to allow releasing in a reasonable timeframe
<ul>
<li>We may want to consider separating standalone components such as many of the Zend\Service classes, Zend\Pdf, Zend\Search, etc. from core components (MVC, configuration, caching, logging, HTTP, etc.)</li>
<li>Any such pruning would be identified by the CR Team</li>
<li>Components not ported to ZF2 for 2.0 could be added gradually over minor releases</li>
<li><em>(Editorial note: this makes a case for faster minor and/or major release cycles for adding features)</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>

<p>Decisions made:</p>

<ul>
<li>We need to determine what the ZF2 distribution should look like</li>
<li>Once we have, develop discrete milestones, each with a list of tasks</li>
<li>Beta will be when all milestones are accomplished</li>
</ul>

<p>For the first point, we need to decide on basic structure and the distribution model (packaging, getting it into the hands of users, how extensions might be distributed and consumed, etc.). Matthew (or anybody who wants to) will start creating wiki pages and/or ML threads for brainstorming, and aggregating consensus points. Suggested timeframe for consensus is end of 1st week of September 2011, with milestones and tasks to follow shortly thereafter.</p>

<h2>Log</h2>

<table><tbody>
<tr>
<th><p> Timestamp </p></th>
<th><p> Name </p></th>
<th><p> Log </p></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:00:01 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> anyways, its 17:00 UTC now <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:00:12 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> yes, yes it is </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:00:22 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> So, everone: kokx is moderator for today. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:00:28 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> His job is to keep us ON TOPIC. <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:00:31 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:00:40 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> or something like it? <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:00:43 </p></td>
<td><p> rtuin </p></td>
<td><p> good luck kokx </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:00:44 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> hail to kokx </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:00:47 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, best of luck. I'll pay the funeral expenses. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:00:49 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Just as a reminder, the agenda is here: </p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/2011-08-17+Meeting+Agenda">http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/2011-08-17+Meeting+Agenda</a>
<p /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:00:52 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> the agenda for today is: </p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/2011-08-17+Meeting+Agenda">http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/2011-08-17+Meeting+Agenda</a>
<p /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:00:53 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> haha </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:00:56 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> LOL </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:01:00 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> lol weierophinney <ac:emoticon ac:name="cheeky" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:01:12 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> anyways, back ontopic, lets start with the suggested meeting format! </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:01:33 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> KK – so, I mentioned in the agenda that we might use doodle </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:01:45 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> I'm not sure we need to – we have a voting mechanism already in the wiki. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:02:00 </p></td>
<td><p> rtuin </p></td>
<td><p> Yeah that worked pretty well </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:02:01 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> The only real difference is doodle tells us <em>who</em> voted, and what they voted. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:02:12 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Do we need that kind of granularity? do we care? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:02:29 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> Hmm, Doodle might be better in some cases - do we have any use for anonymous voting? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:02:44 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> for me you should stand up to your vote </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:02:46 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> afaik not PadraicB </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:02:53 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> +1 NickBelhomme </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:02:55 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> but what is the need for non-anonymous voting? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:02:56 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> I respect your privacy but we're already murdering each other on the ML anyway <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:02:56 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> or, to flip your argument, PadraicB, why do we need named voting? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:02:59 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: do we have any use for non-anonymous voting ? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:03:11 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB, LOL </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:03:30 </p></td>
<td><p> Freeaqingme </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera, anonymous voting is easy to cheat </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:03:32 </p></td>
<td><p> ralphschindler </p></td>
<td><p> i think we do need the granularity +1 NickBelhomme </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:03:43 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> It's just a bit more transparent is all - might as well know who voted and, if not, why not (where it makes sense) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:03:49 </p></td>
<td><p> Freeaqingme </p></td>
<td><p> +1 for non anonymous voting </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:01 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> +1 here too </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:03 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> isnt' there a way to put named voting into the wiki? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:07 </p></td>
<td><p> ezimuel </p></td>
<td><p> +1 here too </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:07 </p></td>
<td><p> </p></td>
<td><p> »» StormTide doesnt care </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:09 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> +1 for named voting here too </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:13 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> Doodle also supports "other" vote </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:23 </p></td>
<td><p> mascker </p></td>
<td><p> +1 for named voting here too </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:25 </p></td>
<td><p> Freeaqingme </p></td>
<td><p> Is anyone /against/ ? If so, reasoning? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:25 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> You need to be logged in to vote on the wiki, I would assume there's some way to attach your name to the vote. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:26 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> Wiki voting requires log-in </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:27 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> okay, so if we want named voting, we can't use the mechanism in the wiki. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:30 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> +1 for non anonymous <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:37 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> with other I mean: if the options are not sufficient... </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:39 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> well, its clear: we want named voting </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:40 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> rizza, not with the current mechanism. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:45 </p></td>
<td><p> konrness </p></td>
<td><p> Anonymous voting stifles the discussion around why a particular person voted a certain way. The actual vote score matters less than the discussion around it. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:47 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: Bummer. No worries. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:50 </p></td>
<td><p> </p></td>
<td><p> »» artur_bodera bows for kokx </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:04:51 </p></td>
<td><p> ralphschindler </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: let me check on that </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:05:06 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> ralphschindler, I already did - doesn't support it. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:05:08 </p></td>
<td><p> rtuin </p></td>
<td><p> Freeaqingme, not really against, but there is no real problem with anonymous voting atm </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:05:20 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> My question: should we look into a plugin for the wiki, or use doodle? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:05:33 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: do you think that a plugin for the wiki would exist? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:05:51 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, we might be able to dig one up. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:05:56 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> I'm going to do a quick search now. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:06:04 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> If we can, we should keep everything in one place, so if there's a plugin, lets give that a try. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:06:12 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> It would probably be best to keep it on the wiki if feasible' </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:06:14 </p></td>
<td><p> Freeaqingme </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, I think I dont care about actual implementation. As long as it works, it's fine by me. It's not like it's going to contain sensitive data </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:06:17 </p></td>
<td><p> rtuin </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, i'd say go for the one that has the least effort. but if we use the wiki it is easier to archive the agenda's probably </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:06:32 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> lets move on to other decisions on this subject while weierophinney does his quick search </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:06:34 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> if a plugin doesn't exist, I would suggest in not waisting time to implement it ourselves... </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:06:46 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:06:47 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Sounds reasonable. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:06:53 </p></td>
<td><p> ralphschindler </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:06:55 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> We'd already have a doodle site </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:06:55 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> if a plugin does not exist, why don't er simply edit the page, and add our +1 in a block? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:06:57 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> are there other comments on the proposal ? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:07:05 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> (or -1) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:07:43 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman, that could work – just requires more effort to get the vote in. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:07:44 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman, is it possible to tie those votes to the real person though? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:07:44 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman: you mean like how wikipedia does such votings? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:08:08 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> Just to make sure it can't be fudged in any way </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:08:09 </p></td>
<td><p> mikaelkael </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: like php </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:08:27 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> mikaelkael: you mean how they do voting on the internals list? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:08:32 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: Well, we have history for wiki edits, so it should be pretty easy to detect gaming of the votes. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:08:32 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> thatalso means everybody has to have edit rights... </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:08:32 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB, sure, look at the edit history if you really want to audit it, otherwise, people just put their name, and their vote... </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:08:33 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman: Problem with concurrent editing by two people? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:08:45 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> rizza, cool. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:08:55 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa, it does warn you, but thats probably the biggest drawback </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:09:09 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> wiki conflict resolution? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:09:22 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> auto-diff.. not atomic.. can cause headaches... </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:09:24 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> It looks like there's a "workaround" of sorts using the survey plugin we use. I'll test it out and get back to the contributors list with results. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:09:27 </p></td>
<td><p> Freeaqingme </p></td>
<td><p> it's not like it's visited by a billion people, so concurrency wont be much of a problem </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:09:33 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> for me doodle + link in the wiki towards it </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:09:38 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> But yes – it seems the user <em>is</em> captured, just not displayed currently. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:09:46 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> we can copy+paste from doodle to wiki later... can't we ? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:09:54 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> since we agreed on the named voting, we have the following ideas on the table: </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:10:02 </p></td>
<td><p> mikaelkael </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: like this </p>
<a class="external-link" href="https://wiki.php.net/todo/php54/vote">https://wiki.php.net/todo/php54/vote</a>
<p /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:10:03 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><ul class="alternate">
<li>looking for a plugin for confluence</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:10:13 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><ul class="alternate">
<li>voting by editing the wiki page</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:10:20 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><ul class="alternate">
<li>voting by doodle.com</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:10:24 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme, good point </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:11:11 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> I'd argue that we try for the first, and use the last if we can't make it work. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:11:15 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Sound like a good plan? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:11:20 </p></td>
<td><p> hhatfield </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:11:20 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:11:23 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:11:25 </p></td>
<td><p> mikaelkael </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:11:33 </p></td>
<td><p> <bradley-holt> </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:11:35 </p></td>
<td><p> rtuin </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:11:39 </p></td>
<td><p> robertbasic </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:11:40 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:11:43 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:11:56 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> btw: great link.. now I know how my array notation will look like in 2 months <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:11:56 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> +1, may want to specify who's welcome to vote vs who can use the Wiki for it </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:11:57 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:12:00 </p></td>
<td><p> tgodar </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:12:08 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> so, weierophinney will look for a confluence plugin, otherwise we will use doodle.com </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:12:17 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:12:24 </p></td>
<td><p> ezimuel </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:12:26 </p></td>
<td><p> mascker </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:12:26 </p></td>
<td><p> Freeaqingme </p></td>
<td><p> I'm in favor of editing the page first </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:12:37 </p></td>
<td><p> Freeaqingme </p></td>
<td><p> (I'm a minority – apparently) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:12:44 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> looks like it </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:12:44 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB, well, we can see if there are a lot of unknown users voting, and weigh based on that. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:12:55 </p></td>
<td><p> ralphschindler </p></td>
<td><p> +1 (use of current vote/survey plugin with available features) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:13:14 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> btw, if you refresh th emeeting agenda now, you'll see the workaround in place. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:13:14 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, cool </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:13:15 </p></td>
<td><p> rtuin </p></td>
<td><p> Can one suggest additional agenda items in doodle? (assuming we can in wiki) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:13:22 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> ok, then lets move on, we still have other decisions to make on this subject <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:13:34 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> +1 on plugin or doodle, editing page is messy </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:13:36 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> rtuin, we wouldn't be using doodle if we do this. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:13:49 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> works great ! </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:13:52 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> and if you're a contributor, you can edit the page. <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:13:58 </p></td>
<td><p> rtuin </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, okay lets not consider that a problem right now then </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:14:09 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: nice quick-hacking <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:14:23 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> I have ralphschindler to thank for that, artur_bodera . <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:14:25 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> exactly <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:14:29 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> (he pointed me to the info) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:14:31 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> +1 on doodle (like plugin) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:14:43 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> ok, we got the voting on wiki .... </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:14:47 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: let's move on </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:14:55 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> indeed, lets move on <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:14:56 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: agenda is on the wiki? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:14:56 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Cool, next part of this section: how many minutes should we meet usually, and how often? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:15:05 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa, yes, linked in the topic. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:15:09 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td> <a class="external-link" href="http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/2011-08-17+Meeting+Agenda">http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/2011-08-17+Meeting+Agenda</a> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:15:18 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> Twice a week is a nice thing at the moment weierophinney </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:15:21 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> as long as we have topics to discuss </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:15:27 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, who ever said twice a week? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:15:28 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><ul>
<li>once every two weeks I mean, sorry :X</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:15:35 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> LOL </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:15:38 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> +1 once every two weeks </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:15:40 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: 60m, every two weeks. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:15:46 </p></td>
<td><p> Freeaqingme </p></td>
<td><p> I'd go for every two weeks. Pref a few days after the biweekly updates were sent </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:15:46 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> That's the question – every 2 weeks, or every week </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:15:46 </p></td>
<td><p> <bradley-holt> </p></td>
<td><p> I'd say timebox the meetings. Personally, I'd go for 60m. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:15:49 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> 1 hour or 90m? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:15:55 </p></td>
<td><p> robertbasic </p></td>
<td><p> 60-90 minutes, every 2 weeks </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:15:56 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> looks like 60m is winning so far. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:15:59 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> 60 - 90 mins, biweekly </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:01 </p></td>
<td><p> toneumann </p></td>
<td><p> 60 to 90 minutes - two weeks </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:02 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> 60-90mins once per 2 weeks </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:06 </p></td>
<td><p> guilhermeblanco </p></td>
<td><p> 60m, 2w </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:07 </p></td>
<td><p> Freeaqingme </p></td>
<td><p> +1 DragonBe </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:08 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> 60-90 every two </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:16 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> 60-90 - a little wiggle room for runover </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:16 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> 60m, 2w </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:17 </p></td>
<td><p> <bradley-holt> </p></td>
<td><p> I'd pick one: 60m or 90m (so people can plan). </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:20 </p></td>
<td><p> Freeaqingme </p></td>
<td><p> anyone with some decent counter arguments? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:25 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> +1 bradley-holt </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:27 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> I would suggest 90 minutes </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:29 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: how many subject per meeting? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:29 </p></td>
<td><p> mascker </p></td>
<td><p> 60/90 - 2w </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:35 </p></td>
<td><p> Freeaqingme </p></td>
<td><p> bradley-holt, lets focus at an hour, and then have 30 mins of possible 'delay' </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:36 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> then let's say 90 (we can always end it earlier) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:43 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> Freeaqingme: thats really hard to plan on </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:45 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> Fine, 90 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:46 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:47 </p></td>
<td><p> toneumann </p></td>
<td><p> or maybe we could arrange something in depencdence of actual agenda </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:47 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> 60-90m , 2 weeks </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:48 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:50 </p></td>
<td><p> </p></td>
<td><p> »» PiotrN ia against everything (just to balance it out the apparently BORG community) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:52 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:53 </p></td>
<td><p> robertbasic </p></td>
<td><p> ^what DASPRiD said +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:16:54 </p></td>
<td><p> rtuin </p></td>
<td><p> +1 DASPRiD </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:17:13 </p></td>
<td><p> toneumann </p></td>
<td><p> agenda is written in wiki and per main point arrange 20 minutes? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:17:17 </p></td>
<td><p> <bradley-holt> </p></td>
<td><p> I agree w/ DASPRiD: I'd rather plan for longer, and end sooner (although I'd still rather see 60m). </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:17:19 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:17:35 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> PiotrN: You must not be familiar with our mailing list, where we "murder each other" over topics. <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:17:40 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> so, thats settled, we'll plan for 90 minutes, and if possible, end earlier </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:17:47 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> so, with that in mind, I'd argue aim for 4 topics, try to hit 15m apiece, but allow 5-10m wiggle room. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:17:52 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> rizza, there weren't that many deaths yet <ac:emoticon ac:name="cheeky" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:17:54 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> rizza, plagiariser! <ac:emoticon ac:name="cheeky" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:17:58 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> I quoted! </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:03 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> hehe </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:04 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney+1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:08 </p></td>
<td><p> Freeaqingme </p></td>
<td><p> +1 weierophinney </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:11 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:13 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> 1 per 2 weeks. Time between 60-90mins. Topics depending on the urgency qnd size... </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:16 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:16 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> +1 weierophinney </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:18 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> we didn't even need voting plugin for that <ac:emoticon ac:name="cheeky" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:21 </p></td>
<td><p> rtuin </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:22 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> I think we need a bit more for a topic weierophinney </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:22 </p></td>
<td><p> mascker </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney+1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:27 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> LOL </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:28 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> we're already on this one for 18 minutes <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:29 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> kokx IS the voting plugin </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:30 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney +1 - 4 is plenty to think on </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:39 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> you cannot timebox big topics the same as small </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:41 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera: haha! </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:42 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: well, we are only learning <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:43 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> I think we've hit this topic over the head enough now. <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:53 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:18:59 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> next… </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:19:03 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, you're up. <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:19:04 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> these should be estimated and then timeboxed and grouped so we can fill between 60 minutes and 90.minutes </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:19:11 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: hit your judge's hammer on the table.. .and let's move on </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:19:14 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> but apparently, we all think that we need less, so we'll do 15 minutes per topic, and allow a 5 to 10 minutes room for other stuff </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:19:27 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:19:29 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> next on: the ZF2 process </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:19:34 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme, true, and I'd argue we should only discuss things that have been on the ML and for which we need to arrive at a decision or action items. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:19:58 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> The questions are on the agenda. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:20:03 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Who wants to start? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:20:04 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> s/room for other stuff/wiggle room </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:20:15 </p></td>
<td><p> guilhermeblanco </p></td>
<td><p> IMHO, 20m per subject. If we schedule always between 2-5 subjects... we're fine </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:20:18 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> 1) Does the ZF1 process work for ZF2 development? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:20:28 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> guilhermeblanco: get ontopic, we're at the ZF2 process <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:20:29 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> which zf1 process? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:20:37 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> Proposal process </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:20:38 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> theres been several distinct processes </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:20:38 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide, the proposal process. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:20:44 </p></td>
<td><p> mikaelkael </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide: write proposal, get community feedback, post to CRT, get recommendation, proceed </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:20:47 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera: no, definitely not, since we also have the CR team now </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:21:00 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> no the current proposal process is not working </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:21:00 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> (I'm citing questions from wiki) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:21:03 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> which is basically 'hacked in' into the process </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:21:15 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide: </p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/2011-08-17+Meeting+Agenda?&vote.choice=Yes+-+Let%27s+discuss+this&ballot.title=Suggested+format+for+meetings%0A#">http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/2011-08-17+Meeting+Agenda?&amp;vote.choice=Yes+-+Let%27s+discuss+this&amp;ballot.title=Suggested+format+for+meetings%0A#</a>
<p /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:21:33 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> I think that the ZF1 proposal process was too slow. Blame that on whatever you want… but we should be able to move from proposal -> recommendation faster than we were. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:21:34 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> it can work for stand-alone isolated components, but wont work for architectural considerations around bc breakage etc </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:21:45 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p />
<a class="external-link" href="http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/2011-08-17+Meeting+Agenda">http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/2011-08-17+Meeting+Agenda</a>
<p> << the agenda </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:21:51 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> i like the proposal process... however, i hate how it works today in confluence </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:21:55 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> I'd suggest creating a tad shorter process for core.... and create a RAD (open) process for our modules/extra components hosted on the repository. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:21:56 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> the visibility is also poor </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:21:58 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> rizza: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:22:08 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide, the proposal process was never intended for architectural stuff – it was for standalone components. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:22:09 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> lubs: Visibility is definitely a problem. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:22:21 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: Will we soon have notifications for a proposal with status ready for review? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:22:24 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, so the real question is what is the architectural process </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:22:31 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> lubs, one thing we've discussed in the past is creating a dedicated proposal application. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:22:36 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> I think that the proposal process should be opened up more, more inviting for other people to join in to help with proposals </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:22:38 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: so we need 2 approaches, one for architecture and one for components </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:22:40 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> rizza: do you want to have a community voting mechanism on the proposals? doodle like? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:22:45 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms, correct. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:22:53 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms: what is "architecture" ? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:22:53 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe: I think that would be a great idea. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:22:57 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe, we could hack that in now with the survey plugin. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:23:04 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> and, not to put too fine a point on it, but if the architecture goes modular, do we still need a proposal process </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:23:06 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:23:08 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> i also think they should work more like an RFC like process - then a voting can occur prior to building </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:23:09 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera: its called "typing disfunction" <ac:emoticon ac:name="cheeky" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:23:15 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> lubs: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:23:23 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide, for official inclusion in the framework, likely yes. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:23:25 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> for me the worst side of proposal project is it is hard to draw attention - we have quite a few proposals that have no or very little comments. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:23:25 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> lubs: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:23:26 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide, sure, otherwise how does stuff get into the 'core' (zend) namespace? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:23:34 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> So that we can enforce CS, testing requirements, docs, etc. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:23:36 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> lubs, yes I agree but a lot is still written in advance of a proposal </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:23:43 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> torio: that won't be a problem after we have a repository ... </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:23:46 </p></td>
<td><p> Freeaqingme </p></td>
<td><p> < afk, sorry </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:24:05 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman, through discussion (like this) with the core maintainers, etc... </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:24:07 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera: what is RAD process? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:24:08 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: true, but in the end it saves far more time if it is something that would never be added to the framework </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:24:18 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman, im not sure zfprop to change the core post 2.0 is going to make sense </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:24:20 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: being able to have the complete test-run reports available to see where components either conflict or break other components </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:24:21 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> I'd say: If you have a working code + tests + docs, throw it into repository (semi-incubator). Let other people play with it. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:24:26 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: enforce = required? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:24:41 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> lubs: most people write code because that is easier than to figure out the kinks of the proposal when designing it </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:24:43 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe, yes – we need to get that setup </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:24:53 </p></td>
<td><p> rtuin </p></td>
<td><p> the proposal process should be easier to start off. i.e. send an idea for a component to the contributers ML to get feedback sooner, then let either a voting process or CR review decide wether the initial idea deserves a proposal. saves the proposer a lot of work </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:24:55 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> should the process not have 2 parts? one RC-like to decide on structure, form and so forth.. then a Pull Request accptance where we enforce CS and etc... </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:24:56 </p></td>
<td><p> hhatfield </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera: doesn't github facilitate that? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:24:57 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa, yes – just like today. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:24:58 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> koksindeed </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:24:59 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera: So the idea is that developers get a working prototype before submitting a proposal? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:25:16 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: that is true - but really when you get into some of the details it will take a much larger amount of time especially if you have to refactor it many times </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:25:21 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> hhatfield: no. It's more of a source-code repository, not a good place to find new zf components. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:25:22 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> IMHO, the "process" should be dropped in-favor of more lightweight decision making </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:25:27 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> I think it should be easier to start a more sparse proposal, start with a basic idea instead of a worked out component immediately </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:25:48 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide, what do you mean by "lightweight decision making"? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:25:49 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> and slowly transform it into a more concrete idea with community feedback </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:25:50 </p></td>
<td><p> rtuin </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, that's what i meant </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:25:50 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> if you are architecting a component you should be able to visualize and explain it clearly without writing a line of code but providing something like an interface to look at. it just makes it more clear </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:25:58 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> and how does that translate to long-term maintenance? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:25:59 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, zend+cr team make some executive decisions </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:26:00 </p></td>
<td><p> mascker </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, agree! </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:26:02 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: ideas are easy to throw, hard to manage </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:26:02 </p></td>
<td><p> nerdery </p></td>
<td><p> As an outside contributor, I'd like to say that I've found the proposal process to be a challenge. The wiki page "process" seems to be unmonitored and the only way to get attention is to shout at people. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:26:12 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: +1 Test waters to see if the community is interested in a proposal, then work collaboratively to get a formal proposal written and code developed against it. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:26:14 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> we have too many sleeping proposal at this moment </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:26:16 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, i don't really see a problem with first hooking up a prototype to test how stuff can work and then propose it </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:26:27 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa: ineed! </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:26:32 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> i think that's a personal decision </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:26:39 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> +1 DASPRiD </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:26:45 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> Main point from my POV is that the process is like any proposal process - propose, comment, review, peer review, release </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:26:49 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> rizza: hhatfield: StormTide: I'd see it like this: we have an open repository. One can submit his/her working component (code) + docs + tests... no "process" involved. It gets published days (as opposed to months) later and people start d/l and using it. If it is good enough, stable and universal, it can get voted and CR-TEAM checked to be included into "THE CORE" (the matrix) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:26:53 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> well, posting an initial idea can help finding other people who are wanting to help </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:27:03 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:27:09 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> The issue is it's damn slow, and I hope the CR Team fixes that </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:27:12 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> as long as we don't have to paste all the files in the wiki.. i much rather use DVCS branching power and links from wiki to gihub or where ever then reproducing files in the proposal </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:27:16 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:27:20 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera, thats fine for a discreet component but doesnt work in architecture land (which is where i live) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:27:25 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> exactly PadraicB, and the current process is only really stalled, because right now, with ZF2 pending, nobody really knows what to do when. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:27:27 </p></td>
<td><p> hhatfield </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:27:28 </p></td>
<td><p> ezimuel </p></td>
<td><p> The proposals should be a working in progress </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:27:28 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> So are we deciding to change the process or make it more efficient? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:27:31 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: true, but don't we have a ML for that? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:27:36 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB, maybe that means we need to poll the CRTeam to see who has time, and for those who don't elect new members who do? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:27:50 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe: well, officially, yes, but I don't see much people use it in that way </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:27:51 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> and its partly why we have components that don't play super nicely together today </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:27:56 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> theres a perfectly good mailing list (which people have actually been using this last week) which can grab attention </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:27:56 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: Make it more efficient imo. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:27:57 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, exactly </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:28:10 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> discussion should be centered also. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:28:13 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe: we should at least encourage people to do that more </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:28:18 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: weierophinney we might have to re-introduce the proposal ML </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:28:24 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB, do we have members right now who don't have much time? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:28:32 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide: i.e. it would me much faster, if you already had a few MVC modules in the repository as candidates for ZF1 MVC replacement. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:28:36 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe: Isn't the zf-contrib ML sufficient? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:28:42 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe, yes, and that might work well if we also get a proposal app going. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:28:44 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> encourage people to start a sparse proposal in the community, and then move it on to something more concrete </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:28:50 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera, im not going to dev an entire framework in the hopes it gets past cr </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:28:56 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD, not that I know of - I don't expect to know immediately given our current furious pace catching everyone off guard </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:29:03 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> which is essentially the current process </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:29:06 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide: that wasn't my point... </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:29:14 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD: I guess it really depends..some time you have time, some time you are out of it (hacking other projects) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:29:26 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide: no, not exactly, the proposal doesn't have to include code </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:29:27 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> Open question: how many of the proposals are core-related. How many are just new components (features, widgets, extras) ? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:29:30 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide, then you dev it for yourself, and release it publicly, and put in a proposal for it to be cored.. or you don't do the dev work up front.. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:29:31 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> i would raterh keep this off MLs use more things like github comments on pull requests and the wiki... MLs are hard to keep track of </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:29:42 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera: Typically proposals are for additional components. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:29:44 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> Can we say it is obvious that the current process will not work and we want to revamp it? If that is the case - we can take an action item to discuss on the ML? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:29:47 </p></td>
<td><p> hhatfield </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:29:47 </p></td>
<td><p> ezimuel </p></td>
<td><p> I think proposals are very good to take track of the working progress of a new component. Also to communicate with developers that are not in the ml </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:29:51 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD: yes, me… working 14h/d and family matters: not much time left, but all devoted to ZF </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:29:59 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman, or we stop living in our little fiefdoms and actually collaborate on the architectural goals for the thing </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:30:07 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera, most are ZF1 smalls - which is why the process currently goes nowhere <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:30:08 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe, <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:30:12 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> back up a minute. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:30:18 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> I mentioned a couple times now... </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:30:32 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> ok - let's create a shorter process for architecture. Let's create a NO-PROCESS for loose-components/modules. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:30:33 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> we've proposed building a proposal application to help automate the steps and get notifications out. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:30:48 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> It seems like that could help streamline the process. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:30:51 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: I'd be happy to help make that a reality. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:30:53 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Does this seem like a good target? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:30:55 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: who is going to write the application, you guys at Zend? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:30:55 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: do we need separate proposal for such an application <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" />) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:01 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney++ </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:03 </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:05 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:05 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> I've given specs to Freeaqingme before, and can share those on the wiki. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:07 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:07 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:08 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: +1 on dedicated system, if integrated with pull requests to the DVCS which ever way we go with that </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:11 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> we could host the app on the ZF site. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:15 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: +1 on dedicated system </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:16 </p></td>
<td><p> hhatfield </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:17 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, +1 but implementing that thing takes time, who has it? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:31 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Looks like rizza has volunteered to assist. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:32 </p></td>
<td><p> mascker </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:35 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Anybody else? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:36 </p></td>
<td><p> robertbasic </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:37 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> i don't care - i would help building something like that... just seems like something that needs to be done. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:37 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> how do you build a proposal application without making serious resource contributions? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:41 </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan </p></td>
<td><p> I can also help out with that </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:42 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> so i'm in </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:46 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: shouldn't those specs be discussed too, at least once? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:50 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> and essentially deciding the direction unilaterally </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:51 </p></td>
<td><p> hhatfield </p></td>
<td><p> I can help </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:51 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> It would be nice to connect all our tools with DVCS </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:53 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> If we have good specs, the work can be divvied out </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:58 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, yes, you're right. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:31:59 </p></td>
<td><p> robertbasic </p></td>
<td><p> I think I could throw in a few hours weierophinney and rizza </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:03 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: +1 for discussing that proposal app </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:12 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> so I would suggest, throw that application on github, and let everybody who is interested throw pull requests into it </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:19 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> also, I think that we should lay the ground process for proposals first, and then create the application </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:21 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> I'm with NickBelhomme </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:22 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> So, how about I create a web page detailing the workflow, start a ML discussion, and we circle around next meeting? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:27 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: IMO application will streamline the submission and notification process... not necessarily speed up the review process. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:32 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> instead of the other way around </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:33 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> I agree </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:35 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: Agreed </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:36 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:38 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: good </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:39 </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: agreed </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:41 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> sorry hold up </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:43 </p></td>
<td><p> ralphschindler </p></td>
<td><p> +1 NickBelhomme </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:49 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: how about using the wiki with the specs; then ML discussion? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:50 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> are you meaning proposal application (ie your quickstart) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:52 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> or a document </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:54 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera, speed is a matter of resources - we have a CR Team </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:55 </p></td>
<td><p> <bradley-holt> </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:32:56 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera, the idea I had is that it would email increasingly frequently unti lfolks moved things along. <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:33:04 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera, how much more streamlined than write one page about your proposal, then email a mailing list can you get? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:33:23 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> (you don't even have to email the ML, but its probably a good idea if you want anyone to look at it) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:33:23 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> if the former, see prior comments, if the latter isnt that just zfprop2.0? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:33:35 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide, proposal application as in an application to manage the proposal workflow. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:33:43 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman: that is not the end of current process.... is that a golden bullet for current ZF1 iteration slugishness ? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:33:57 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide, and it would be centered primarily on components, not core. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:33:58 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, so sticking with zfprop but adding tooling? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:34:05 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> well, weierophinney is going to create a web page detailing the workflow and start an ML discussion, so I think we should postpone the rest of the discussion to the next meeting? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:34:05 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> adding automation and tooling </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:34:08 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:34:09 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> -1 to that then </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:34:12 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney + 1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:34:13 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> 1 minute left in the timebox </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:34:14 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> I'd say that the slugishness wasn't really much to do with just the proposal process at all. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:34:19 </p></td>
<td><p> <bradley-holt> </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:34:28 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: +1, let's move on. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:34:29 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide - automation, tooling + CR TEAM (there are six of us!) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:34:33 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> No wait... what happened to NO-PROCESS for components ? How do you divide that ? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:34:37 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> i think we need to address the 2.0 architecture and decide what components look like, then theres no need for a proposal process </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:34:42 </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan </p></td>
<td><p> I think the process is good, just needs refinements </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:34:44 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman, agreed. We need a way to keep the momentum on the process. Tooling and automation and notifications can assist. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:35:05 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> what does zfprop look like in a component world with strongnames for example </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:35:06 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> If we assume 80% of current ZF1 proposals are new components, we don't need that proces... </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:35:07 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> at all </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:35:17 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> if anyone else has an idea for the process, please feel free to create a wiki page about it, for the next meeting <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:35:18 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> does the zfprop not then become a component signing request rather than a zfprop </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:35:32 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> i think we're way way ahead of ourselves here </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:35:35 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: +1 otherwise we are going in circles here </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:35:36 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide, the question is: what gets shipped with the ZF2 distribution? If we want stuff included, we need a process for review. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:35:57 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, maybe the zf2 distribution is just a component loader/ </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:36:01 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> have we decided that yet </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:36:15 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: we have a ton of proposal laying around... you want to create a "grinder" and force them through. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:36:15 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> discreet zfprops wont get those big blocks sorted </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:36:21 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide, no we haven't - not on agenda </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:36:23 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide: yes, automation and tooling </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:36:27 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: If we are NOT to include most of them inside core ZF2, then why bother? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:36:32 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> we should have a non-shipped componente repoitory and a paproval process to move any of those into the will-ship repository </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:36:40 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB, i see that... which is why im so confused i guess </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:36:59 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> its like we're trying to decide how to manage the lines at the fairground we havent built </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:37:02 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> Haven't we gone off topic here? Shouldn't this go into the ML / wiki and be revisited next meeting? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:37:05 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide, I know - it's an ML topic - we can't hash that one our in this meeting </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:37:07 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> ok, I basically see this discussion seeing nowhere </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:37:10 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms: something like the wordpress plugins and the Drupal modules ? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:37:20 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe: or symfony bundles </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:37:22 </p></td>
<td><p> </p></td>
<td><p> »» rdohms hides </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:37:22 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> this topic is just too comprehensive to discuss this way at the moment </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:37:26 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, we can move on I think <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:37:26 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Let's move on to milestones, then, because I think that's where the tone of the discussion is moving: when do we say ZF2 is "done" </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:37:31 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, me too... lets move on </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:37:35 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> so lets move on, to the milestones <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:37:42 </p></td>
<td><p> <bradley-holt> </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: Yes, let's move one… </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:37:50 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> again, we can find the agenda here: </p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/2011-08-17+Meeting+Agenda">http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/2011-08-17+Meeting+Agenda</a>
<p /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:37:59 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> gents, got to leave you now… have another meeting sadly enough </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:38:03 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> so, anyone likes to start? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:38:07 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> laters, DragonBe </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:38:12 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe, cya later </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:38:12 </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe </p></td>
<td><p> <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:38:13 </p></td>
<td><p> </p></td>
<td><p> »» bradley-holt waves goodbye to DragonBe </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:38:16 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, whats the new topic </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:38:16 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> I'll start </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:38:20 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe, bye1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:38:21 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, i'd happily suggest that ZF2 should be released once the new MVC is in place, and workable, and the rest of the lib has been brought up to the CS </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:38:25 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide: the milestones, you can find it in the agenda <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:38:30 </p></td>
<td><p> ezimuel </p></td>
<td><p> DragonBe, bye </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:38:37 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: after we have new, comparably easier to use and faster MVC and extensions infrastructure to host all new components/proposals quicker. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:38:41 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide has touched on something I think we need to consider – Bittarman also touches on it. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:39:10 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> The idea is: what is "done". What "defines" ZF2. Is it a small core? Is it an application layer on top of that core? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:39:17 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman: CS means? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:39:23 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa: coding standards </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:39:28 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> the only problem with pushing it out that quick, is... if we then decide to improve the other components (sort out Zend_Service for one) then what happens about API stability </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:39:34 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: thanks <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:39:51 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, exactly. where are we at </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:39:53 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, right now it's everything for API stability </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:39:53 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> if we want API stability, we should release without the old components that haven't been refactored </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:40:10 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> or wait very long until everything is worked up again </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:40:21 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, from what I observe about the way people actually use ZF, is that they generally consider a 'ZF app' to be something running Zend_Application. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:40:22 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, I agree but if they are very old and very not working <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:40:23 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: well, we only need some roadmap, on how they can be re-integrated in framework when ready. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:40:24 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> My proposal: ZF2 is a MVC (because most php frameworks supply that) + component backbone/foundation + a collection of basic components </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:40:29 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:40:33 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> I rather have a small core but stable and working, than a huge project (all library) which will drown everybody... </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:40:42 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:40:48 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> which makes it a good block to use for the consideration of what the general userbase is going to think of when they think of ZF2. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:41:03 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> API stability = decision about puggable / setOptions / ... </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:41:07 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> the fact that ZF also serves as a bloody good component lib, is usually a secondary point to pretty much everyone. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:41:07 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> I think we need to do some pruning on the components. Take a look at ones that are dated / unmaintained and just put them aside for later, or completely scrap them. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:41:12 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, we obviously cant hash out what the architecture is today, but can we agree to visit that before moving forward? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:41:14 </p></td>
<td><p> hhatfield </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman: </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:41:16 </p></td>
<td><p> hhatfield </p></td>
<td><p> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:41:29 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman, well, I've heard otherwise on <em>many</em> occasions. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:41:33 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman: actually not. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:41:38 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> and refactor some components to use broker and/or pluginClassLoader </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:41:40 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman: well, thats true, but I think we should not leave the community in the cold about what we have promised to them </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:41:40 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman: +1 I won't forget that </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:41:44 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> I see a lot of folks adopting ZF because they can pull functionality they need into their existing apps. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:42:08 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> Look we can't just drop any component - migrating to ZF2 assumes continued support </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:42:08 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> I would go for a smaller core... I also would like to see ALL "Zend_Service" components moved into a separate repository; there are far TOO many SERVICES to consider and should be a separate library </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:42:10 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, adopting a very small subset of the components, others will never be used that way </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:42:17 </p></td>
<td><p> Bittarman </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, sure. but those folks don't call their app a ZF app generally </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:42:18 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> i think we need to recognise the boundaries there </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:42:21 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: yes, ZF as a component library is equally equal to ZF's MVC and rest core components. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:42:23 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: an sample of functionality? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:42:25 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: +1 … I used ZF's indvidiaul components quite heavily at my last job in my Magento projects. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:42:26 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> zend_pdf should always be autonomous </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:42:33 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> im not sure zend_dispatcher should </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:42:41 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> i think that ZF2 can't be marked "final" as long as the core components aren't completly finished. that being said, also includes architecture decisions like mentioned setOptions() and stuff </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:42:41 </p></td>
<td><p> <bradley-holt> </p></td>
<td><p> The promise of ZF has always been that it's both an MVC framework and a component library. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:42:51 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> bradley-holt: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:42:51 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> We are off topic IMO </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:42:55 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> Feed is core? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:43:15 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa: to rss aggregator app - absolutely <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:43:21 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> I would focus on the MVC framework, and with minor version updates the components </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:43:49 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> still if we focus on MVC framework, and have a plan on pulling in the rest for ZF1, we can progress I suppose. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:44:11 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: Steer us back on track. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:44:20 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme, it's not MVC alone, MVC also depends on other core components (caching, config, uri, http stack)… </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:44:23 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> we need to clean some classes like Zend\Loader(.php) and Zend\Registry (and Debug/Version) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:44:28 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><ul class="alternate">
<li>Milestones: Are they still relevant?</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:44:30 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> <ac:emoticon ac:name="cheeky" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:44:30 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:44:31 </p></td>
<td><p> <bradley-holt> </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme: If that approach is taken, I'd recommend potentially pushing that to beta versions to get some outside feedback if users would accept a proper ZF2 without all of the components. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:44:33 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> I'd set up a deadline for loaders + MVC + extensions architecture = ZF2 GA date. At the same time I'd attempt to migrate as many components as we can into ZF2. The rest should be thrown into repository with status: UNSTABLE. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:44:33 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> Before we make a decision, we need to know what components are in bad shape - I've proposed the CR Team do just that. Now...on topic? kokx> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:44:34 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> One thing: ZF1 and ZF2 can operate side-by-side, so folks <em>could</em> use stuff removed from ZF2 still if they're willing to have both libraries in their app. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:44:35 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> going back to the agenda </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:44:50 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: right, back ontopic, to the milestones </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:44:54 </p></td>
<td><p> robertbasic </p></td>
<td><p> set a date, for example November 1st, what's stable by then, it get's into Zend\, what's not, it goes to.... some other place. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:44:55 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD, indeed but those dependencies are then part of core </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:44:59 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide, agreed – but ML. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:45:05 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme, indeed </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:45:07 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: +1 for having CR Team go throw components and decide/find out the current status </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:45:09 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> milestone 1: nail down the architecture </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:45:16 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme, as i said, at least the core needs to be finished </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:45:17 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> and I think we should move on with what PadraicB said, we need to know what components should be put into the trashcan </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:45:18 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: +1 – let's talk milestones. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:45:22 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> robertbasic: to the repo </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:45:41 </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: +1 for having CR Team sort components </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:45:42 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> MILESTONES, ye landlubbers! </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:45:43 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> Not trashcan - repository with a flag UNSTABLE </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:45:49 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> milestone 2; develop a list of milestones from the architecture </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:04 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> Let's create a milestone for when the CRT can be expected to have completed their audit of the components. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:09 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> ok, we have a list of milestones on the agenda </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:13 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> I think we need finer grained milestones - something the community can get an easy handle on and break into specific tasks </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:15 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> milestones to be are far too brief: In the Stdlib are these components unstable / alpha / etc? The hard part is if we are to write a component based on something currently in the ZF2 repos is it stable enough to write against? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:15 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> does everyone still think they are still relevant? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:20 </p></td>
<td><p> </p></td>
<td><p> »» artur_bodera points to </p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/2011-08-17+Meeting+Agenda">http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/2011-08-17+Meeting+Agenda</a>
<p /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:26 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:29 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> and what should be added/removed to that list? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:29 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> +1 artur_bodera components not refactored (but having namespaces and exceptions applied) are generally working - but UNSTABLE </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:33 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB++ </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:34 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:36 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:36 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> No, they're irrelevant - too vague, too big, no specifics </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:39 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, -1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:41 </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan </p></td>
<td><p> I think we need another one: refactoring components </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:44 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB, +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:56 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, milestones as defined there are irrelevant </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:57 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> and the problem of forward port ZF1 patches into ZF2 for some components </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:46:59 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:47:42 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> i mean the very <ac:link><ri:page ri:content-title="done" /></ac:link> beside autoloading and plugin loading == totally fubar </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:47:42 </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan </p></td>
<td><p> what specifically is meant by I18n/L10n? the components, or having the documentation translated? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:47:49 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: what do you propose on those finer grained milestones? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:47:49 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> Milestone 1 = loading and MVC architecture with prototypes </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:47:54 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> Open to milestones suggestions but it's better proposed on ML at length </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:47:55 </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan </p></td>
<td><p> s/the components/Zend\Locale et al/ </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:48:04 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide: exceptions are actually quite done </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:48:04 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: +1 again </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:48:06 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan: components </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:48:17 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: true, this needs to be discussed more at length </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:48:39 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide, qualify such statements, please. The underlying architecture has been accomplished for some time, and a <em>LOT</em> of work went into that code. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:48:52 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan, refactoring of those components. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:48:57 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> i think the disribution model is a good thing to decide.. it will define what needs to be in the relase for it to work </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:48:57 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, e.g. Decide the basic Controller API <--- you could write loads on just that, vote, and see where it goes into the prototype. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:49:24 </p></td>
<td><p> </p></td>
<td><p> »» artur_bodera cites wiki: "How do we want to track progress on each milestone and set of tasks/subtasks? " </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:49:25 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: I don't quite grasp what you are trying to say there? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:49:30 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, what architecutre, that which is a refactor on zf1 and found in your quickstart? thats not the architectural model i've been so patiently waiting to discuss </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:49:43 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> grained milestones sounds like components status page: what is done/need help </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:49:51 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide: please get back to the milestones topic <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:49:54 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, i think we need to go back to the brass tacks of what a component is and is zf2 a component framework </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:50:00 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: He means to split up "MVC" into submilestones. One for controllers, maybe one for the router, and so-on. Smaller, easier to digest milestones… not epic milestones. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:50:01 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide, let's discuss later. I think you read <em>way</em> too much into some of this. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:50:04 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> It's a small unit - the ML is better suited, but basically something small is easy to work on and decide somewhat quickly </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:50:11 </p></td>
<td><p> pnp </p></td>
<td><p> anyone think of weierophinney as the angry leprechaun from the leprechaun movies but saying 'i just want to code' instead? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:50:14 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, we should chat </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:50:18 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> rizza: these are called "tasks" </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:50:20 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> tracking milestones / delivery - GreenHopper is nice but it likely wont work unless you want every broad subject in a post it note looking thing </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:50:29 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB, ++ </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:50:49 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera, milestones are obtainable groups of tasks - in a sense. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:50:57 </p></td>
<td><p> lubs </p></td>
<td><p> it works but it would be difficult from the "at a glance" perspective </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:51:08 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> I think we we are diverting too much from each other in this discussion, I think this stuff is better discussed on the ML more first </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:51:16 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: I'd see a max of 5 milestones... including BETA1 , BETA2 and GA </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:51:22 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> lubs, I know - we can categorise and track but there's no escaping it will take reading a bit </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:51:27 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera: What's GA? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:51:33 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB: each one consisting of 1-10 main tasks </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:51:36 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> General Availability </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:51:43 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> Release </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:51:46 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> rizza, that's the question, really. When is it stable? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:51:48 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> Gotcha… RC's. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:51:58 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera: yes, but they should be contain some 'submilestones', and 'subsubmilestones' <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:51:59 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera - terminology switch? I use milestones, others might use goals, etc. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:52:02 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> rizza, no, GA is stable. RC is release candidate. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:52:05 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> no... GA = Release = Final = Done </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:52:16 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> so </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:52:20 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> Oh oh. Sorry. I'll just be sitting over there. <ac:emoticon ac:name="cheeky" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:52:25 </p></td>
<td><p> anilyeni </p></td>
<td><p> we have too many good coders but project managers <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:52:25 </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat </p></td>
<td><p> it's table when there's at least 2 independent apps written with it that have been maintained for a few months so we know that the API is gonna work long term <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:52:32 </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat </p></td>
<td><p> s/table/stable </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:52:33 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> +1 for BETA releases </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:52:37 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Okay, so, I'm going to summarize really quickly, if I may. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:52:37 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> BETA1 in max 2 months, BETA2 in next mo, FINAL before december. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:52:47 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> we need BETA releases </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:52:57 </p></td>
<td><p> </p></td>
<td><p> »» artur_bodera slaps rizza with a pizza </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:52:57 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera, what are you smoking to think we can do that? I want some! </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:00 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: go ahead <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:03 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera: we need a clean stable nice final release </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:07 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Okay, so: </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:11 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: artur_bodera me too! </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:13 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> haha </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:13 </p></td>
<td><p> <bradley-holt> </p></td>
<td><p> I wouldn't artificially limit the number of BETA releases. Valuable learning can come out of the betas. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:14 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa: no we don't! </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:22 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><ul>
<li>we need to decide what ZF2 should look like before we make milestones</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:24 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera, needs to be a realistic timeline. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:24 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> we can't speed up only to have a release in 2011 without a quality </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:28 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera: why? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:30 </p></td>
<td><p> robertbasic </p></td>
<td><p> symfony2 had something like 16 betas </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:37 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><ul>
<li>once we know that, we develop milestones with discrete tasks</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:47 </p></td>
<td><p> </p></td>
<td><p> »» rdohms kicks off his cloning proces to deliver a beta in 2 days </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:50 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><ul>
<li>we consider beta when tasks are accomplished.</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:51 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> IMO ZF2 is lagging a huge deal behind namespaced frameworks and symphony2 integration and such </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:51 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:53:57 </p></td>
<td><p> <bradley-holt> </p></td>
<td><p> Predetermined milestones shouldn't map to betas. Two different discussions. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:54:10 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> I do agree we need A timleline - something to measure progress against and see if we're moving well, etc. Doesn't have to be perfect! </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:54:15 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: +1 … these items to be done on the ML? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:54:21 </p></td>
<td><p> robertbasic </p></td>
<td><p> once all milestones are met, we go alpha. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:54:28 </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney's 3 points are certainly key </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:54:47 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:54:52 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> rizza, no on the wiki page and maybe even on evans app </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:54:53 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> robertbasic, we can ship alphas during milestones </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:55:03 </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:55:08 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> structure, desitribution model are 2 things we need to decide to decide what is "done" </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:55:16 </p></td>
<td><p> <Miika--> </p></td>
<td><p> Any idea how long this whole thing takes? When it could be realistic to expect at least first beta version? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:55:20 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme: That is where it will end up, but I was speaking more about the decision process of those items Matthew outlined. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:55:31 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> Ok. Let me reiterate - we need a ZF2 sooner than later, throwing unfinished stuff into "distribution channel" </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:55:39 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> So, my tasks will be: start some ML/wiki discussions about what ZF2 distribution should look like, then start brainstorming tasks when we get consensus. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:55:41 </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat </p></td>
<td><p> I would like to see a decision on "what ZF2 should look like" soonish... say end of 1st week of Sept </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:55:42 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera, we do not need zf2 soon </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:55:45 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> For example: alternative MVC implementations could be extra modules/components </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:55:46 </p></td>
<td><p> robertbasic </p></td>
<td><p> anyways, +1 for each key weierophinney pointed out. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:55:53 </p></td>
<td><p> ornicar </p></td>
<td><p> /close </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:55:56 </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:02 </p></td>
<td><p> mascker </p></td>
<td><p> member:Akrabat: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:04 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Miika--, estimation is really, really hard to do accurately. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:09 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:26 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:27 </p></td>
<td><p> robertbasic </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:30 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, maybe timeframe would be a valid discussion as it will limit us </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:33 </p></td>
<td><p> mikaelkael </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:40 </p></td>
<td><p> hhatfield </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat: +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:42 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> Miika--: at the moment, oktober sounds just as plausible as Q4 2012 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:46 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> Each contributor can provide a fixed number of hours per week? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:50 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: LOL </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:50 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide, I think we need timeframes, but only after we're in agreement as to what we're doing. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:55 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa: no, definitely not </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:56 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa: no way </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:59 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> and some time frame for reaching consensus. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:59 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, ok </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:56:59 </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat </p></td>
<td><p> the we can maybe have a list of what needs to be done in some sort of order say by by end of 3rd week Sept and certainly by end of Sept </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:57:28 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> we are agree </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:57:34 </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme </p></td>
<td><p> just to be clear: weierophinney there is no pressure from Zend itself to release? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:57:39 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat, I think when we have consensus on what it looks like, we can come up with milestones quicly. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:57:46 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> NickBelhomme: lol <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:57:47 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat, that should be possible - we have the ML numbers at least <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:57:49 </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan </p></td>
<td><p> My thinking is we need to make a list of components and sort them into two piles, those that are "framework-y" (like MVC, cache, http, etc) and those that aren't (PDF, Services, etc) </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:57:52 </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: yeah - that's why I assued a fortnight </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:58:46 </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan </p></td>
<td><p> Once "framework-y" things are done, maybe we could do a "Zend Framework Core" release, and provide other components later through a distribution channel like is being talked about on ML </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:58:56 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> ok, back ontopic I think, this is going a lot of ways, but not in the direction of milestones </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:59:05 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, lol </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:59:05 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> I don't want a micro unstable framework for zf2 to release ASAP :x </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:59:15 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> <ac:emoticon ac:name="cheeky" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:59:18 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: I've seen you've got a panel on ZF2.... how about you brought up some of the discussions and reasoning we're producing on ML and here <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> It's interesting to see how a "new" framework is born. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:59:30 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan: I guess adam has a point here. we need to define some "core" that can be considered good enough to make ZF2 releasable. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:59:31 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan: said that 3 times in the last 30 minutes <ac:emoticon ac:name="cheeky" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 17:59:38 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney, we could have a very sexy architecture preview by then though <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:00:05 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> My silence is agreement <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:00:10 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide, yes, I think that's achievable. <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:00:15 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> and that's all I've promised. <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:00:16 </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera: just adding another voice to the chorus <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:00:17 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> timeframe alert, its 18h </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:00:19 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide: you should build houses, not applications <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:00:28 </p></td>
<td><p> toneumann </p></td>
<td><p> <PadraicB>My silence is agreement <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> +1 </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:00:32 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera, I build systems for a living <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:00:35 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> not apps </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:00:42 </p></td>
<td><p> </p></td>
<td><p> »» DASPRiD puts some of PadraicB's silence into a pot </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:00:44 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms: we still have 30m, and afaik there isn't much to discuss on the agenda </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:00:46 </p></td>
<td><p> ralphschindler </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide: semantics <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:00:58 </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide </p></td>
<td><p> ralphschindler, ;] </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:00:59 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> StormTide: i.e. I'm happy you're here to push more semantics and systems into discussion </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:01:00 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, I think I have summarized the decisions. adamlundrigan has a good point about deciding what's in core what's not – that'll be part of the brainstorming </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:01:14 </p></td>
<td><p> rdohms </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: if yu put it that way: we already blew the milestone timebox </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:01:17 </p></td>
<td><p> tgodar </p></td>
<td><p> and then prioritizing those items </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:01:18 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> We clocked out that agenda - nice going </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:01:22 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> So many smileys… this chatroom is far too happy to be ZF… I'm in the wrong place. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:01:22 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> How about our MILESTONE no 1 will be (finally) settling that architectural part of ZF2 ? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:01:42 </p></td>
<td><p> torio </p></td>
<td><p> rizza: why to worry, we have rock solid zf1 <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:01:50 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> rizza, we're the "nice" community. <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:01:52 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> oh btw, I wanted to make a note, today we blew the timeframe for all 3 topics we had <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:01:53 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> torio: with a beard </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:01:55 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney: <ac:emoticon ac:name="cheeky" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:02:00 </p></td>
<td><p> intiilapa </p></td>
<td><p> lol </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:02:10 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> the timeframe we decided on today of 15 minutes <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:02:22 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> kokx, good thing we picked 90mins then! </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:02:22 </p></td>
<td><p> PiotrN </p></td>
<td><p> you are borg </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:02:25 </p></td>
<td><p> toneumann </p></td>
<td><p> @kokx: this is for next meetings </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:02:37 </p></td>
<td><p> kokx </p></td>
<td><p> toneumann: yeah, but it is a good thing to reflect on it already <ac:emoticon ac:name="wink" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:02:38 </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: it wouldn't be a real meeting if timeboxing actually worked <ac:emoticon ac:name="cheeky" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:02:51 </p></td>
<td><p> toneumann </p></td>
<td><p> kokx: agree </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:02:54 </p></td>
<td><p> robertbasic </p></td>
<td><p> so, about milestones. we decided that we will decide about them later, on the ML, right? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:02:57 </p></td>
<td><p> zfjoe </p></td>
<td><p> please bear with me </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:03:07 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> mh, time for some meat-ing </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:03:09 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> adamlundrigan, but it'd be AGILE! </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:03:12 </p></td>
<td><p> </p></td>
<td><p> »» weierophinney gags </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:03:14 </p></td>
<td><p> </p></td>
<td><p> »» artur_bodera clears throat </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:03:14 </p></td>
<td><p> artur_bodera </p></td>
<td><p> So how about that architecture preview? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:03:18 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> Agile solves EVERYTHING. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:03:26 </p></td>
<td><p> DASPRiD </p></td>
<td><p> rizza, world hunger? </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:03:29 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> Even world hunger. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:03:29 </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat </p></td>
<td><p> I think that we know how the milestones are going to be worked out now: </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:03:29 </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat </p></td>
<td><p> 1. Sort out what ZF2 looks like (say by end of 1st week of Sept). </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:03:29 </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat </p></td>
<td><p> 2. Define what needs to be done (i.e. what's core and what isn't) once we know what we're building </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:03:29 </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat </p></td>
<td><p> 3. Milestones fall out of step 2 by end of 3rd week of Sept. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:03:31 </p></td>
<td><p> PadraicB </p></td>
<td><p> robertbasic, yes - suggest away on the ML - will take a bit of work to drill them down into bitesize parcels </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:03:36 </p></td>
<td><p> rizza </p></td>
<td><p> Argh. Beat me to it, DASPRiD <ac:emoticon ac:name="cheeky" /> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p> Aug 17 18:03:49 </p></td>
<td><p> weierophinney </p></td>
<td><p> Akrabat, thanks for summarizing. <ac:emoticon ac:name="smile" /> </p></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>

Labels:
None
Enter labels to add to this page:
Please wait 
Looking for a label? Just start typing.