<ac:macro ac:name="toc" />
<li>Date: 25 January 2012, 18:00-19:00 UTC</li>
<li><ac:link><ri:page ri:content-title="2012-01-25 Meeting Agenda" /><ac:link-body>Agenda</ac:link-body></ac:link></li>
<li>Moderator: Ralph Schindler (nick ralphschindler)</li>
<li>Next meeting: 1 Feb 2012</li>
<h3>Meeting Next Week</h3>
<p>Matthew raised a thread on the mailing list to consider if we should meet next week. In short, he is unavailable for this meeting and as of next week, the View component he is working on will need discussion from the community.</p>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://zend-framework-community.634137.n4.nabble.com/View-Layer-update-td4321130.html">http://zend-framework-community.634137.n4.nabble.com/View-Layer-update-td4321130.html</a></li>
<p>Everyone agreed to meet.</p>
<p>This brought up a new discussion: "Should we be meeting every week?"</p>
<p>A consensus in the group decided it would be in everyones best interest to meet weekly. The idea being that by meeting weekly, decisions are not put off thus restricting timely progress. Also, by meeting weekly, it would seem that meetings would happen quicker and not approach a 90 minute mark.</p>
<h3>Whether to Entertain a Proposal to Modify Current Coding Standard Regarding Interfaces and Abstracts</h3>
<p>In a unanimous decision by the group (reflected below), it was approved that would would re-examine our coding standards that revolve around the topics brought up in the RFC by Ralph. It was also decided that in order to reach consensus, we would use the wiki's voting mechanism once the approved ballot (approved at the next meeting, next Wed.)</p>
<ac:macro ac:name="html"><ac:parameter ac:name="output">html</ac:parameter><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[
white-space: -moz-pre-wrap; /* Mozilla, supported since 1999 */
white-space: -pre-wrap; /* Opera 4 - 6 */
white-space: -o-pre-wrap; /* Opera 7 */
white-space: pre-wrap; /* CSS3 - Text module (Candidate Recommendation) http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-text/#white-space */
word-wrap: break-word; /* IE 5.5+ */
border: 1px solid darkgray;
[12:03pm] ralphschindler: hey all
[12:03pm] ezimuel: hi guys
[12:03pm] EvanDotPro: wb PadraicB
[12:03pm] ralphschindler: we have two things on the agenda
[12:03pm] ralphschindler: i added one thing earlier today
[12:04pm] ocramius: http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/2012-01-25+Meeting+Agenda
[12:04pm] ralphschindler: everyone ready? got coffee or whatever tonic you need?
[12:04pm] ocramius: yep
[12:05pm] Kizano_werk: mmm... tonic...
[12:05pm] Thinkscape: ralphschindler: i'm reading through it... that might be the topic for today.
[12:05pm] mwillbanks: hrmmm definitely need more coffee
[12:05pm] ralphschindler: since its relatively light, ill moderage
[12:05pm] ralphschindler: or
[12:05pm] ralphschindler: moderate
[12:06pm] ralphschindler: Issue #1
[12:06pm] ralphschindler: is everyone ok with having a new meeting next week (Meeting on Feb 1 2012)
[12:06pm] mwillbanks: sure
[12:07pm] EvanDotPro: votes on the wiki for that are 13 yes, 0 no.
[12:07pm] Thinkscape: i'm pro
[12:07pm] MikeA: +1
[12:07pm] ralphschindler: i thought the votes on the wiki were for whether or not to discuss in this meeting
[12:07pm] ocramius: I would even bring meetings to weekly if possible
[12:07pm] ocramius: the lack of meetings during the vacation period really slowed down things here
[12:07pm] ralphschindler: hmm, i think we determined that weekly might be too much
[12:07pm] EvanDotPro: ralphschindler: i thought so too at first but look at the title of the poll
[12:08pm] ralphschindler: well, traditionally, the agenda was to determine what needs to be discussed
[12:08pm] ralphschindler: so
[12:08pm] EvanDotPro: perhaps we could have scheduled micro round tables between meetings
[12:08pm] Thinkscape: I see it too
[12:08pm] ralphschindler: everyone can make it next week at this time?
[12:08pm] Thinkscape: i got tricked into voting for being next week.
[12:08pm] Thinkscape: I'll be there anyways.
[12:09pm] EvanDotPro: just to formally update what everyone is working on, what progress is being made, what follups need to be made for action items on the last meeting, etc
[12:09pm] mwillbanks: EvanDotPro: +1
[12:09pm] EvanDotPro: (i'm amending ocramius's suggestion of weekly meetings)
[12:09pm] mwillbanks: great; small round-tables would be perfect; likely with the outcome being documented
[12:10pm] MANCHUCK joined the chat room.
[12:10pm] ocramius: I can make it next week
[12:10pm] ralphschindler: ok, so it seems like everyone is ok with next weeks meeting, done
[12:10pm] ocramius: I'd please put a vote on the "weekly" schedule imo
[12:10pm] EvanDotPro: ralphschindler: yep. next week works for me.
[12:10pm] ocramius: *ask
[12:10pm] ralphschindler: regarding EvanDotPro's question: who would be in favor of weekly meeting (i can bring this to matthew's attention to see if it would fly)
[12:10pm] ralphschindler: (+1 -1 now)
[12:11pm] EvanDotPro: +1, it definitely wouldn't hurt, even if they were just quick 10-15 minute group updates.
[12:11pm] MikeA: +1
[12:11pm] ezimuel: +1
[12:11pm] Thinkscape: I don't like the distinction of biweekly vs weekly meetings
[12:11pm] Thinkscape: It's either weekly or biweekly
[12:12pm] Thinkscape: this is bad: biweekly=full meeting, weekly=shorter, summary meeting
[12:12pm] ezimuel: maybe we can have weekly meeting of 45 minutes instead of biweekly of 90 minutes
[12:12pm] PadraicB: Thinkscape, depends on your definition of bad . I have to arrange my time just to attend.
[12:13pm] Thinkscape: ezimuel: PadraicB: how does a weekly as opposed to biweekly help with finding time in your schedules ?
[12:13pm] ralphschindler: what if every other meeting was status only (no decision making)
[12:13pm] EvanDotPro: also, i would say right now we should just be deciding if we should propose this idea to the community and weierophinney, not if we should actually implement any new meeting schedule
[12:13pm] ralphschindler: right, EvanDotPro
[12:13pm] EvanDotPro: ralphschindler: +1, that's basically where i was going.
[12:13pm] mwillbanks: +1
[12:14pm] Thinkscape: ralphschindler: that's what I don't like. What if there is an important decision to make - is it tabu for that meeting "iteration" and has to wait.
[12:14pm] ocramius: ralphschindler: also good, but the general feeling of I and I guess the #zftalk.2 inhabitants is that things stall until a meeting occurs
[12:14pm] ocramius: +1 anyway
[12:14pm] Thinkscape: also: status updates could be collected, instead of thrown and scrolled on irc
[12:14pm] Thinkscape: collected and published somewhere for everyone to read
[12:14pm] mwillbanks: correct
[12:14pm] PadraicB: +1, Thinkscape - basically some bunch of clowns I work with continue working up to 10pm. Americans...
[12:14pm] Thinkscape: i.e. ML update, a blog, newsreel or whatever.
[12:15pm] ralphschindler: PadraicB: are you +1 on -1 on weekly meetings?
[12:15pm] EvanDotPro: Thinkscape: we've tried that in the past cough paddy cough and it hasn't worked out so great
[12:15pm] PadraicB: +1 .
[12:15pm] ralphschindler: ah ok
[12:15pm] ezimuel: Thinkscape: we are working on this, soon we will have a system to show in real time the status of ZF2
[12:15pm] EvanDotPro: i think we've shown we can stick to the meeting schedule pretty well and make these times pretty productive.
[12:15pm] ralphschindler: it seems like everyone is in favor of full weekly meetings that could (if need be) go up to 90 mins
[12:15pm] Thinkscape: Well, consider that a meeting is somewhat organisational hassle – why do we need to gather everyone just to (one-way) announce what is up ?
[12:16pm] ralphschindler: (keep in mind, if they become weekly, the likelihood of them being 90 mins goes down)
[12:16pm] Thinkscape: It's like saying twitter is the same as irc.
[12:16pm] PadraicB: ralphschindler, yes it does...
[12:16pm] ocramius: ralphschindler: until it helps moving things
[12:16pm] ralphschindler: Thinkscape: are you +1 or -1 on weekly meetings?
[12:17pm] Thinkscape: For the next 4 weeks - to speed up beta3/rc1 i'm +1 — but only if they are real meetings like today.
[12:17pm] Thinkscape: (with agenda, decision, brainstorming ...)
[12:17pm] iH8: i think the schedule will be variable anyways, just before and a week after beta release for instance. no way to predict how that will pan out. just saying. just take it as it comes
[12:18pm] ralphschindler: Is anyone -1 on weekly full meetings, this is your opportunity to vote (otherwise I'm considering this a unanimous decision)
[12:19pm] ralphschindler: ill give it 30 more seconds
[12:19pm] mwillbanks: -1 on [FULL] weekly meetings
[12:19pm] mwillbanks: +1 on status only weekly meetings
[12:19pm] Thinkscape: "status only" is not a meeting per se
[12:20pm] EvanDotPro: Thinkscape: we don't have to call it a meeting
[12:20pm] ralphschindler: ok mwillbanks ill incorporate this feedback into the summary for weierophinney
[12:20pm] mwillbanks: ok a weekly standup for status updates
[12:20pm] Thinkscape: EvanDotPro: will we use irc for it ? (my main point)
[12:20pm] mwillbanks: damn semantics
[12:20pm] EvanDotPro: call it a group status update in chat format...
[12:20pm] mwillbanks: i think IRC and then just someone to document / note taker
[12:20pm] EvanDotPro: Thinkscape: who cares? irc is just the protocol we write the text on... it gets published wherever (wiki, ml, etc)
[12:21pm] Thinkscape: People who need to show up on time care.
[12:21pm] mwillbanks: ideally status would be on next beta so that status of where people are at or where they might need help could be useful
[12:21pm] Thinkscape: (as opposed to just sending an email with updates)
[12:21pm] EvanDotPro: Thinkscape: no reason they can't reply to the thread on the ML to continue a topic if they have input and missed a meeting.
[12:21pm] ralphschindler: I think i've gathered enough feedback to propose this, we can probably take the discussion to the mailing list with weierophinney
[12:21pm] EvanDotPro: Thinkscape: we can discuss in zftalk.2 later
[12:22pm] ralphschindler: Can we move to the final item on the agenda at this point?
[12:22pm] mwillbanks: yes please
[12:22pm] EvanDotPro: +1 for moving forward.
[12:22pm] ralphschindler: ok, i will write this proposal for weekly meetings and post to mailing list incurporating the above feedback
[12:23pm] ralphschindler: onto final point
[12:23pm] ralphschindler: Should we entertain this RFC, if so, discuss how
[12:23pm] ralphschindler: http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/RFC+-+Revised+Naming+of+Interfaces+in+ZF2
[12:23pm] mwillbanks: ralphschindler: i would like to see it incorporated; however, I would like to ensure that we are consistent
[12:23pm] mwillbanks: fyi: ClientInterface and AbstractClient but me... vs. ClientInterface and ClientAbstract
[12:24pm] mwillbanks: but = bug
[12:24pm] ralphschindler: to frame this, i've taken issue with the previous "votes" we had in the past - particular the one where we asked for an open vote on the subject matter
[12:24pm] mwillbanks: prefix vs. postfix i believe is important
[12:24pm] ralphschindler: that vote did not stop duplicate votes, nor did it take names
[12:24pm] ralphschindler: which got us to where we are today
[12:24pm] ocramius: I'm also puzzled by ClassAbstract and AbstractClass
[12:25pm] ralphschindler: at this point, i propose we address this issue, and utilize the wiki voting to reach a consensus on what should be adopted
[12:25pm] Thinkscape: ralphschindler: the example you've shown on the rfc is an edge case. It's a complex components for php oo standards.
[12:25pm] mwillbanks: ralphschindler: is it possible to separate out things for interfaces and then have a separate for abstracts?
[12:25pm] ocramius: mwillbanks: agreed...
[12:25pm] Thinkscape: For smaller components (more segmented) the "creative" interface works quite well.
[12:25pm] mwillbanks: I do like having a class with Interface on the end and I completely agree to that one; for abstract classes i'm not so sure that they need a prefix or postfix
[12:26pm] ralphschindler: lets not discuss the particulars, i just want to discuss if we address the issue, and if so, how
[12:26pm] EvanDotPro: as somone who loathes our current naming convention, i'm all for this... i feel like i'm playing ZF roulette when openining files in a non-ide that doesn't tell me before hand if something is an interface or an abstract class, etc.
[12:26pm] mwillbanks: especially since an abstract class may contain a static that can be utilized
[12:26pm] Thinkscape: For example Zend\Validator\Validator — an interface .... AbstractValidator — abstract.
[12:26pm] Thinkscape: it is a convention.
[12:26pm] EvanDotPro: so i'm +1, we should address the issue.
[12:26pm] iH8: i'm with EvanDotPro +1, having problems also
[12:26pm] ralphschindler: all in favor of entertaining the proposal?
[12:26pm] mwillbanks: +1
[12:26pm] ezimuel: absolutely +1
[12:26pm] PadraicB: +1
[12:27pm] Thinkscape: yes
[12:27pm] Thinkscape: can we start now ?
[12:27pm] ralphschindler: not yet
[12:27pm] Thinkscape: ))
[12:27pm] MikeA: +1 to discuss now – current naming conventions make ZF2 hard to write about
[12:27pm] ralphschindler: ok, moving one step forward
[12:27pm] ralphschindler: all in favor of using the wiki to collect votes on the concencus once we determine what the particulars are?
[12:27pm] ralphschindler: +1
[12:27pm] ocramius: +1
[12:27pm] ezimuel: +1
[12:27pm] Thinkscape: sure, why not
[12:27pm] MikeA: I cannot log in
[12:27pm] Thinkscape: but: give it ~1 week and ML announcement
[12:28pm] ralphschindler: MikeA: talk to me in zftalk.2, ill fix that
[12:28pm] Thinkscape: not everyone is here and reads irc logs
[12:28pm] MikeA: ralphschindler: ok
[12:28pm] Thinkscape: (and this is very important)
[12:28pm] EvanDotPro: +1
[12:28pm] iH8: Thinkscape: +1
[12:28pm] Thinkscape: Actually, 2 weeks would be much better.
[12:28pm] Thinkscape: We can refactor before rc
[12:28pm] cpio joined the chat room.
[12:29pm] cpio left the chat room.
[12:29pm] ralphschindler: so, i propose this:
[12:29pm] PadraicB: +1 to wiki vote collection
[12:29pm] ocramius: Thinkscape: 2 weeks gets too long...
[12:29pm] ralphschindler: we discuss the actual particulars to put into a wiki page for voting, next week we determine if the questions are fair and represent the decisions we want to make
[12:29pm] Thinkscape: ok, let's get it on
[12:30pm] ralphschindler: so, between now and next wed, we are looking to create a small set of questions to vote on that determine the standards we want to adopt
[12:30pm] ralphschindler: everyone ok with that?
[12:30pm] ocramius: fine
[12:30pm] mwillbanks: k
[12:30pm] Thinkscape: k
[12:30pm] EvanDotPro: yep
[12:31pm] iH8: +1
[12:31pm] MikeA: +1
[12:31pm] ezimuel: k
[12:32pm] PadraicB: +1
[12:32pm] ralphschindler: alright, i'll lead that charge then
[12:33pm] ralphschindler: in summary, ill post the proposal for weekly meetings, and will start the process of gathering feedback in zftalk.2 to start building questions for this interface/abstract proposal for next weeks meeting
[12:33pm] ralphschindler: is there any other items we should vote / address on in this meeting?
[12:34pm] • EvanDotPro can't think of anything
[12:34pm] ralphschindler: is everyone +1 on adjourning
[12:34pm] ralphschindler: ?
[12:34pm] EvanDotPro: +1
[12:34pm] ocramius: ralphschindler: what about things missing?
[12:35pm] ocramius: is there some list of what still has to be refactored/put in zf2?
[12:35pm] ralphschindler: that was not on the adjenda
[12:35pm] ocramius: not "what has to be done", but just an overview of what comes till april
[12:35pm] ralphschindler: agenda
[12:35pm] ralphschindler: bah
[12:35pm] ralphschindler: we know what we need to address for beta3
[12:35pm] ocramius: just asking for a reference eventually
[12:35pm] ocramius: ok
[12:36pm] ralphschindler: well, i think we can adjourn this and take it to zftalk.2
[12:36pm] ocramius: well, fine, for me this was already ok
[12:36pm] iH8: yup, godspeed ppl!
[12:36pm] ralphschindler: alrighty, done here!