A message from the Zend Framework CR team

[GeeH]

Matthew Weier O'Phinney, Project Lead of the Zend Framework team, asked me to explain quickly to the group our vote of +0 on the thread to replace Paul Jones as voting representative of the Aura project. It's worth briefly explaining that Matthew is the voting representative for ZF, but votes are decided on as a team decision between members of the Community Review (CR) team. 

It was agreed as a group, that voting +1 for the replacement of Paul was inherently pointless, as removing Paul as the voting representative is a moot action resulting in no perceptible change to the situation. As Matthew was one of the public complainants, it should be obvious that as a team we still feel that there was a problem with Paul's behaviour. In effect, we disagree with Paul's expulsion as a voting representative, but still feel there is a problematic situation on the mailing list. We also believe that expelling someone should be a last resort when mediation has failed and that while mediation was attempted, it was not done in a meaningful way with clear goals.

[Matteo Beccati]

Hi Gary,

On 01/08/2016 17:50, GeeH wrote:
> It was agreed as a group, that voting +1 for the replacement of Paul was
> inherently pointless, as removing Paul as the voting representative is a
> moot action resulting in no perceptible change to the situation. As
> Matthew was one of the public complainants, it should be obvious that as
> a team we still feel that there was a problem with Paul's behaviour. In
> effect, we disagree with Paul's expulsion as a voting representative,
> but still feel there is a problematic situation on the mailing list. We
> also believe that expelling someone should be a last resort when
> mediation has failed and that while mediation was attempted, it was not
> done in a meaningful way with clear goals.

I was planning to write an email to explain the reasons behind my vote,
but I couldn't have found better words to express my own feelings about it.


Cheers
--
Matteo Beccati

Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

I also agree with this post.

To me its important that anyone on this list does not see the -1 from Jackalope on the expulsion vote is considered an endorsement with Paul’s discussion style. I have already contacted him before when I wanted to give him concrete feedback. At this point I have not gotten the feeling that Paul is acknowledging that there is a problem. I do think that in the end it will require all sides making a step towards each other building trust and building at least a base line in etiquette. At the same time I feel like its on Paul to clearly communicate that he even cares. I think the “other side” has made it clear that they would prefer mediation over expulsion and I think Paul has so far not shown any willingness to adjust his behavior regardless of offlist or onlist discussions on this topic, so I understand the frustration that led to expulsion vote. There Paul imho rather than mend fences favored to fuel the fire once again. If this was done intentionally or not I cannot tell.

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
sm...@pooteeweet.org

[Jordi Boggiano]

On 02/08/2016 13:45, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> To me its important that anyone on this list does not see the -1 from
> Jackalope on the expulsion vote is considered an endorsement with
> Paul’s discussion style. I have already contacted him before when I
> wanted to give him concrete feedback. At this point I have not gotten
> the feeling that Paul is acknowledging that there is a problem. I do
> think that in the end it will require all sides making a step towards
> each other building trust and building at least a base line in
> etiquette. At the same time I feel like its on Paul to clearly
> communicate that he even cares. I think the “other side” has made it
> clear that they would prefer mediation over expulsion and I think
> Paul has so far not shown any willingness to adjust his behavior
> regardless of offlist or onlist discussions on this topic, so I
> understand the frustration that led to expulsion vote. There Paul
> imho rather than mend fences favored to fuel the fire once again. If
> this was done intentionally or not I cannot tell.

That's pretty much the reason I voted +1. I have never seen Paul
acknowledge anything, and any attempt to bring it to the table was
derailed in his typical not quite aggressive but yet effectively pissing
you off and making you not want to keep discussing anything style.

I don't see the point of debating this any further. A vote to remove
membership will not effectively ban Paul from the ML but it would at
least send a signal that this kind of discussion style is not condoned
and especially it would mean that it doesn't come from a FIG member
anymore. That's progress IMO.

Voting -1 means nothing moves forward and we keep on tearing each other
apart until everyone gives up. That saddens me as I believe in the
potential of the FIG mission, and I have been fighting to keep people
around in the last few months.

Best,
Jordi

[Alessandro Lai]

I totally agree with Jordi. If I was a voting member, I would have swayed from a -1 to a +1 vote for the same reasons; I have to acknowledge that we could have done more mediation efforts, but Paul on the other side did nothing in return, not even accept in any part that someone was put off by his behaviour.

I hope this moves forward and doesn't create any more issues.

[Fabien Potencier]

Spot on. Thanks Gary, Lukas and Jordi for accurately putting my feelings
into words.

Fabien

> Best,
> Jordi
>