Proposed bylaw changes regarding secretaries

[Paul Jones]

All,

My suggestions follow.

1. Strike this phrase entirely:

> FIG Secretaries will also represent the FIG as a whole to the general community and public on matters relating to the FIG's activities.

2. Modify this ...

> Whilst there are a number of defined functions below but they should also perform other duties as required.

... to say "as required by the voting members."

3. Append this ...

> Clarifying any interpretation of bylaw text

... to add "with the advice and consent of the voting members, and with all such deliberations to be held publicly on the list."

That is all.

Thoughts?


--

Paul M. Jones
http://paul-m-jones.com

[Robert Hafner]

I think it needs to be more explicit that the secretaries should not be making up rules on their own. If something isn't covered in the bylaws then we should stick with the status quo or propose a bylaw change.

Rob

[Paul Jones]

> On May 26, 2016, at 16:04, Robert Hafner <ted...@tedivm.com> wrote:
>
> I think it needs to be more explicit that the secretaries should not be making up rules on their own. If something isn't covered in the bylaws then we should stick with the status quo or propose a bylaw change.

Agreed. Indeed, I begin to think that "Clarifying any interpretation of bylaw text" should also be removed entirely; secretaries should ask the voting members for clarification in all cases.

[Jelmer Schreuder]

Your proposed changed would make the secretaries completely useless.

They're community managers and as such the best representatives the group could have, as any singular member has no responsibility other than representing their own project. The secretaries are responsible for representing the group. Making your first proposal very unconstructive.

Your second proposal is already the only logical interpretation. Unless you mean "as required by members after their majority was polled". In which case the position as secretary adds very little to what would happen without them. As you suddenly require a vote on everything. Making the proposal either unnecessary or unconstructive.

Your third proposal has the same problems as the second. Of course member projects should be able to correct any decision, but taking away the secretaries' ability to decide where the rules are unclear makes any quick resolution impossible. Again making this unconstructive.

You may disagree with the secretaries existence, but they're here and have been voted upon. And they should make life a bit easier and require a little less bureaucracy from members who actually don't have time to reply to every little thing. They actually gave you an explanation and allowed you to react. So I'm not even sure what your problem is here. There was no secret decision making or anything, they were very upfront and explained what they did. Allowing you to react to the decision.

Your proposals would add bureaucracy, require more voting on non-substantive issues and as a whole be very unconstructive to the inner workings of this organization.

But, to be fair, that's just the opinion of an outsider looking in. Looking in, in a large part, because I do think the FIG's work has been consequential and constructive to the PHP ecosystem up to this point. It would be a shame if that all went down in flames because a few members require humongous bureaucracy for every little decision.

[Paul Jones]

> On May 27, 2016, at 13:00, Jelmer Schreuder <j.sch...@mijnpraktijk.com> wrote:
>
> Your proposed changed would make the secretaries completely useless.
>
> They're community managers

Mmmm -- I don't think that's their role. The purpose of the secretaries is to offload some rote, tedious work, such as updating the website, posting messages to Twitter, handling vote counts, etc. Theirs is not a "managerial" position; it is a "secretarial" position. They *answer to* managers; i.e., the voting members.

[Paul Jones]

All, especially Robert,

I have generated a PR related to the changes I have suggested in this thread.

<https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/764/files>

tl;dr: The role is defined as "administrative assistant" (not "adjudicator and public representative"), and the responsibility of "clarifying any interpretation of bylaw text" is removed.

The other powers, including moderation of the mailing list, remain.

Interested to hear your reactions, and any suggested changes.

[Kayla Daniels]

Paul, 

That change is really nothing short of gross. The secretaries are not our administrative assistants and their purpose is not to pick up all the grunt work.

The vote for the current bylaw and its wording was passed without a single dissenting vote. I've just gone and re-read through the other discussion thread on this mailing list when the role was being defined and discussed: not a single person objected to any part of their responsibilities. 

The threads, in case you're wondering: 
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/php-fig/MnbsPkGadJY/discussion

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/php-fig/oWFkNWBnjHQ/discussion

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/php-fig/pxezV88Uk1I/discussion

The secretaries are doing their jobs. They're making our jobs easier. This kind of discussion and proposal borders on a tantrum and is A: making our jobs harder B: taking up a considerable amount of time and head space from people who have much better things to be doing C: reflecting poorly on this organization.  

Kayla

[Paul Jones]

> On May 27, 2016, at 16:27, Kayla Daniels <kayl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> not a single person objected to any part of their responsibilities.

...

> The secretaries are doing their jobs.

That's the neat thing about bylaws and jobs: they can be changed.

[Joe Ferguson]

I disagree with the changes and feel like they are being made as a knee jerk reaction.

As one of the first non member project related individuals to discuss the secretary position and help shape the proposed and accepted changes that introduced the secretary role; I feel like the language is insulting to the original intent.

It has been a really tough few weeks for the secretaries. I have some personal conflicts regarding conversations I've been privileged to due to my role. I feel like as a secretary I am damned if I do and damned if I don't.

I feel like my time that I set aside to devote to the role is not respected with constant infighting, blatant trolling, and total refusal of mailing list members to limit their responses so others do not end up with dozens of emails in short periods of time to catch up on.

-
Joe Ferguson

> On May 27, 2016, at 14:35, Paul Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All, especially Robert,
>
> I have generated a PR related to the changes I have suggested in this thread.
>
> <https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/764/files>
>
> tl;dr: The role is defined as "administrative assistant" (not "adjudicator and public representative"), and the responsibility of "clarifying any interpretation of bylaw text" is removed.
>
> The other powers, including moderation of the mailing list, remain.
>
> Interested to hear your reactions, and any suggested changes.
>
>

> --
>
> Paul M. Jones
> http://paul-m-jones.com
>
>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/5F3BFE50-B75D-4655-905B-A78E7FE9D848%40gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Robert Hafner]

I would be happy with a new bylaw that simply states “Unless otherwise stated in the bylaws, all voting members have the right to vote on any issue brought before the group”.

This has three benefits-

1. The secretary role stays the same.

2. The bylaws can still be adjusted so people can’t vote on their own expulsion. This has already been added as a pull request.

3. This prevents awkward situations like this one from happening again.


What are people’s thoughts on this?

Rob

[Paul Jones]

> On May 27, 2016, at 19:39, Joe Ferguson <j...@joeferguson.me> wrote:
>
> I disagree with the changes and feel like they are being made as a knee jerk reaction.

(/me nods)

I have been thinking about at least one of them, the "secretary as face of the FIG", for quite some time now.

> As one of the first non member project related individuals to discuss the secretary position and help shape the proposed and accepted changes that introduced the secretary role; I feel like the language is insulting to the original intent.

The original intent, as I recall from the first meeting where the role was discussed, was one of "helper" and not of "judge" -- and "helper" is a valuable, needed, and highly-visible role. It shows commitment, dedication, and involvement. If I recall correctly, you were there for that meeting; please correct me if I am wrong.

> It has been a really tough few weeks for the secretaries. I have some personal conflicts regarding conversations I've been privileged to due to my role. I feel like as a secretary I am damned if I do and damned if I don't.

Dude, I completely understand. It's not right that you and the others have had that inflicted on you. It is my opinion that it rises out of unnecessary, indeed unrealistic, responsibilities that should never have been associated with a *secretarial role. The changes I propose remove the "adjudicator" elements of the role, and entirely remove the possibility of a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't situation.

> I feel like my time that I set aside to devote to the role is not respected

Man, I tell you truly that I for one have appreciated the proper actions of the secretaries. There is very much a need for the cooler, independent heads to (for example) police thread volume, along with the attentiveness to vote tracking, among other things. It is worthy of and has earned my respect.

But "judging and interpreting bylaws" is not something that a secretary needs to be doing, nor is "acting as the public face of the FIG." It is unfair, unreasonable, and setting-up-for-failure to expect it of you. Those are things that should never have been dumped onto secretaries, and should be dumped onto the voting members instead.

[Paul Jones]

> On May 27, 2016, at 20:13, Robert Hafner <ted...@tedivm.com> wrote:
>
> I would be happy with a new bylaw that simply states “Unless otherwise stated in the bylaws, all voting members have the right to vote on any issue brought before the group”.
>
> This has three benefits-
>
> 1. The secretary role stays the same.

(/me grimaces)

I'm pretty sure that a "secretary" should not have the role of "judge and interpreter." It imbues the position with the semblance of an authority it should not have, and which (as we have seen) does not really work out well.

> 2. The bylaws can still be adjusted so people can’t vote on their own expulsion. This has already been added as a pull request.

Sure, and I have no objections to it being explicitly expressed in that way. My only concern has been of secretarial "interpretation" that does not seek out voting member clarification.

> 3. This prevents awkward situations like this one from happening again.

I don't think so; the next time a secretary believes, for whatever reason, that something is "questionable" and does not come to the voting members for clarification, it's going to be awkward again.

* * *

In other news, for what it's worth, I have updated the PR to describe the role as "trusted lieutenant and executive aide" -- I think that gives a more accurate flavor to the role.

[Phil Sturgeon]

> The purpose of the secretaries is to offload some rote, tedious work, such as

Add moderation to the list of duties. It's a tough thankless job, but somebody has to do it!

[Paul Jones]

> On May 28, 2016, at 08:38, Phil Sturgeon <pjstu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The purpose of the secretaries is to offload some rote, tedious work, such as
>
> Add moderation to the list of duties. It's a tough thankless job, but somebody has to do it!

It's already there. "Moderate discussions on github, the mailing list and IRC channels ..."

[Alessandro Lai]

Paul, I can't understand why you continue to point that the current status quo adds judicial power to the secretaries.

Yes, they should have the power of interpreting the bylaws to enforce them, but they STILL answer to the voting members, so every choice made by them is questionable and revertable. But they HAVE to have the power to interpret the bylaws by themselves, or they will be paralized and unable to act every time they are needed.

Took the self-throttling rule, as an example: the bylaw is a bit generic, and it stays in the "moderation" role, so it's their duty to enforce it. But they have to interpret it, because there's no way to say mathematically where's the fine line between answering and spamming this ML.

[Phil Sturgeon]

Awesome! That means when they continue to lock threads and tempt-ban people who flagrantly ignore self-throttling rules, we'll all be ok that they're acting within their powers and not sneakily trying to grab power for themselves. 

I think the secretaries are doing a wonderful job, and they should keep on going just as they are. 

[Paul Jones]

> On May 30, 2016, at 04:23, Alessandro Lai <alessand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Paul, I can't understand why you continue to point that the current status quo adds judicial power to the secretaries.
>
> Yes, they should have the power of interpreting the bylaws to enforce them

That's the core of my questioning. Since when is a *secretary* a judge? I've worked with secretaries and been one myself; they use judgement, but they are not judges.

The voting members wrote the bylaws, they know (or ought to know) what they intend; all that's needed is to ask the voting members.

[Paul Jones]

> On May 30, 2016, at 07:11, Phil Sturgeon <pjstu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think the secretaries are doing a wonderful job

I have thought so as well ...

> and they should keep on going just as they are.

... until this recent incident.

The secretaries are lieutenants to the voting members, not their commanders. This latest incident makes me think too many people have an inaccurate impression of the secretarial role, buttressed by the over-granting of powers and an improper description of the role.

The bylaw change addresses that, so that (among other things) the admitted and apologized-for misconduct does not occur again; or, if it does, that there is no backing rule to be used as justification for it.

[Alessandro Lai]

1) Have you considered that maybe you are the one with an inaccurate impression of the secretarial role? As pointed out by Kayla, everyone was on board with the current definition, and nearly everyone disagreed with you in this thread.

2) You're talking about a "backing rule" that isn't there! No bylaw grant them any power, they have just administrative duties; the secretaries already have to answer to the voting members, they don't have any power to decide anything. They just interpret the bylaws in their application, and every choice they make can be questioned and changed.

3) As per the "lieutenant" role, they are already; they just have to have some leeway. They can't just "ask the voting members" about everything, because "the voting members" are a plurality of persons with a plurality of minds. If the secretaries need to ask them for every action they take, the would be paralyzed, and unable to save any time to the FIG members as they should do.

[Paul Jones]

> On May 30, 2016, at 08:55, Alessandro Lai <alessand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1) Have you considered that maybe you are the one with an inaccurate impression of the secretarial role?

I have; I also have yet to see examples of *secretaries* with judicial powers.

> As pointed out by Kayla, everyone was on board with the current definition, and nearly everyone disagreed with you in this thread.

Sure; and now that we have seen where it leads, perhaps it is time to make a couple of minor modifications. There are at least a couple people who agree with me that there's some question of secretarial overstep.

Again: "using judgement" is not the same thing as "being a judge."

[Christian Flach]

Paul, everyone understood your point. There is no point in re-iterating it every single time someone else posts a different point of view.

As others have pointed out, any action the secretaries make can always be questioned and reverted if a decision seems inappropriate. 

You sound like the PHP-FIG is some kind of company or country and the secretaries need to be restricted in their powers, because they would otherwise try to take over the whole thing.

The length of the discussion is really annoying, especially to 'outsiders' like me. 

For the last few weeks, the FIG basically only consisted of 'drama' topics (Samantha -> Dracony -> Secretaries).

While these might be important for Voting Members / FIG People, they have almost zero importance for people only interested in PSRs.

If these kind of discussions continue, you will loose further silent readers every day.

(If there was a forum with a "internal discussions" category, and all the 'drama' stuff would happen in there, I could easily unsubscribe from all of them. But as long as that isn't the case, those kinds of discussions are just "spam" to many people)

[Paul Jones]

> On May 30, 2016, at 10:21, Christian Flach <cmfcmf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As others have pointed out, any action the secretaries make can always be questioned and reverted if a decision seems inappropriate.

Yes, I understand. However, what might be better is to reduce the number of times that a secretary feels it is necessary to "interpret a bylaw as judge over it means", thus reducing the number of times they'll have to be questioned.

Indeed, in the worst case, what actually happens in "oversight" scenarios like this is that nobody (or very few) actually cares to do the oversight after-the-fact, leaving those to be overseen with much wider powers than they should have. I'd prefer to prevent that.

> If these kind of discussions continue, you will loose further silent readers every day.

There are other silent readers who are interested; I speak for them.

[Chris Cornutt]

No, you do not "speak for me" or for other "silent readers" of this thread. We read this is hopes that the discussion will result in the betterment of the PHP-FIG group. While I know you think what you're doing is best for the group, you're doing damage - plain and simple. It's arrogant and condescending to think that your words reflect the wider audience. Please don't assume that because people don't speak up, they don't care. Many (some which have said so on this list) are afraid to get involved in the discussion because they don't want to be belittled and picked apart as you're so fond of doing. 

While I respect that you have opinions on the matter and you see them as correct it's clear that not everyone does. Please take the time to understand their views, take the time to consider them as compared to yours instead of responding immediately and reinforcing your opinion. I've said my peace here, something I've been meaning to do for a long time with all of the recent drama. I understand that you'll reply and disagree with much of what I've said but please understand I'm not interested in a discussion here. I want to see the PHP-FIG succeed and to see the drama level reduce and your continual comments, criticisms and belittlement aren't going to make that happen.

-chris 

[Paul Jones]

> On May 30, 2016, at 10:44, Chris Cornutt <eny...@phpdeveloper.org> wrote:
>
>
>> On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 10:31:16 AM UTC-5, pmjones wrote:
>>
>> > If these kind of discussions continue, you will loose further silent readers every day.
>>
>> There are other silent readers who are interested; I speak for them.
>
> No, you do not "speak for me" or for other "silent readers" of this thread.

While I said for the silent readers "who are interested" and should have added "in the proposed bylaw." My apologies for unintentionally overstating the case.

> Please take the time to understand their views

Oh, I understand them. Perhaps they should take time to understand mine?

[Michael Cullum]

I think we've all been reminded of self-throttling enough.

Paul, we've disabled you from posting for 24 hours (we have to manually add it back so apologies if it's a few hours early or late) to hear from some other people and prevent mailing list flooding.

After which point, you're welcome to of course continue to participate but please try and keep email volume to a minimum. There is nothing wrong with waiting for a day and replying to a series of emails/points at once and it makes the discussion significantly easier to follow.

This also applies to anyone else, please respect self-throttling.

Thanks,

The Secretaries.

[Magnus Nordlander]

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Paul Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com> wrote:

While I said for the silent readers "who are interested" and should have added "in the proposed bylaw." My apologies for unintentionally overstating the case.

I am a silent reader, and certainly interested in the outcome of this proposition. Respectfully, though, I feel that other parties have better represented my opinion in the matter. Just as a reminder that the silent reader opinion is very likely divided. 

Oh, I understand them. Perhaps they should take time to understand mine?

I believe I understand your opinion. I also believe your are making a mountain out of a molehill in this particular case, but I would agree that there is theoretical risk in having the bylaws state that the secretaries are the sole interpreters of the bylaws. 

I would however suggest that the secretaries, should remain the first instance of interpreters of the bylaws. Considering that a vote potentially halts a discussion for four weeks, having a quicker method of resolution as the first option seems like a prudent choice. If however, a voting member cannot conciliate their interpretation of the bylaws with the secretaries', the voting member should still be able to request (or rather, force) that matter should be put to a vote.

This makes the role of the secretaries consistent with the role of presidium in used in some parliamentary procedural traditions. A presidium does not have final say in any matter, but does handle points of order, preliminary bylaw interpretations, acts as speaker for the assembly (when it chooses to make a statement) and similar duties.

--

Paul M. Jones
http://paul-m-jones.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/66A13588-C230-4A37-A0CB-0A420EE3F89C%40gmail.com.

[Joe Ferguson]

I agree that it is odd for Secretaries to be adjudicators. I feel like because there is no other impartial role in FIG that is why the duties were thrown onto the Secretaries. I feel it's important that the Secretaries are forced to be impartial and I disagree with the PR in it's current state because that language is removed.

I also disagree with the removal of "They serve at the member projects pleasure..." Member projects can remove a Secretary as they wish. It's important for both sides to remember this. It's much easier to remove a secretary than a member project: "Any member project may call a vote of no confidence in a FIG Secretary where, if the majority (according to the Voting Protocol bylaw) vote in favour of their dismissal, they will be removed with immediate effect."

If you feel like the secretaries wrongly interpret anything, you as a member project are free to question and even call for a vote on how the projects believe the interpretation to be understood.

Respectfully; I don't want to be your "trusted lieutenant" as the PR mentions. I want to be the person that gives you a kick in the pants when you're slacking off on getting work done, gently nudges you when I feel you're making a fool of yourself, and ultimately makes your job easier. We're the cat herders, which means grabbing a cat and throwing them back into the litter when they get out of line. It's not personal, it's not about power. None of the 3 secretaries care about power or else we wouldn't have volunteered for grunt work role of Secretary. At the end of the day our names aren't on PSRs. We all knew what we were getting into and we knew it was going be hard and likely a bit of drama, however what we've had to deal with thus far has been so much worse than I personally expected.

If this is how FIG is going to be, I don't see myself finishing out my term. While I'm still able to tolerate the drama I want to help and hopefully see FIG come out for the better on the other side.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CAE1QayTvHfAgr-F6y%2BVvRGi%3DdX3vz%2Bco27J52XJ-M%3D0LK1L2Tg%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

- Joe Ferguson
JoeFerguson.me
MemphisPHP.org

[Jordi Boggiano]

+1 on all that, and thank you!

> *presidium* in used in some parliamentary procedural traditions. A

> presidium does not have final say in any matter, but does handle
> points of order, preliminary bylaw interpretations, acts as speaker
> for the assembly (when it chooses to make a statement) and similar
> duties.
>
>
> --
>
> Paul M. Jones
> http://paul-m-jones.com
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
> it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:php-fig%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:php...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/66A13588-C230-4A37-A0CB-0A420EE3F89C%40gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com>.

> To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:php...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CAE1QayTvHfAgr-F6y%2BVvRGi%3DdX3vz%2Bco27J52XJ-M%3D0LK1L2Tg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CAE1QayTvHfAgr-F6y%2BVvRGi%3DdX3vz%2Bco27J52XJ-M%3D0LK1L2Tg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
>
> --
> - Joe Ferguson
> JoeFerguson.me
> MemphisPHP.org
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com>.

> To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:php...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CABj1BaYYktTRMFWj4s%2BD_LDuM%2BFRoWdTMdBUj_C%3D3PZiM1WwqA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CABj1BaYYktTRMFWj4s%2BD_LDuM%2BFRoWdTMdBUj_C%3D3PZiM1WwqA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--

Jordi Boggiano
@seldaek - http://seld.be

[Peter Huynh]

I have been a silent reader who is keen to see this group prosper. Lately, however, it seems that politics has taken over and most of the conversation revolves around the same point, being repeatedly bashed on over and over again.

The way I see it, there are two governing bodies that keep each other in check, the secretaries and the voting members. Discrepancies are to be resolved by proposals and voting.

With regards to the expulsion voting, it does not make sense for a voting member to vote in their expulsion. However, the bylaw does not state so, and Michael took matter into his own hand, which he later reverted his decision and apologized for. The conclusion of that process is a PR which amends the bylaw. That's progress. One can certainly appreciate the situation being handled in a mature manner.

Naturally, there will be more teething problems until this new structure reaches equilibrium, but it will take a lot of forgive and forget to get to that stage. I appreciate those putting an effort into trying to get to that stage.

No matter how important your point is, if you keep pushing it in a non-constructive way, no one will listen to it.

My 2c. I'll go back to lurking, but will express my opinion when I believe that I should.

[Matthew Weier O'Phinney]

Don't presume too much, Paul. Some of us are silent due to schedule, lack of interest, or because enough others are already raising the same points we would (and there's no reason to add to the noise).

I absolutely support the secretaries making judgement calls, and feel that's exactly what happened with this last vote. Further, they informed us of the call they made, providing full transparency so that it could be discussed and reviewed if necessary. Everything they have done has been within their scope as outlined in the by-laws.

I will not support the changes you propose.

>
>
> --
>
> Paul M. Jones
> http://paul-m-jones.com
>
>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/E0295D1C-D277-4FBB-B2EC-4C633014AB13%40gmail.com.

[Mark Baker]

On 30/05/2016 16:31, Paul Jones wrote:

> If these kind of discussions continue, you will loose further silent readers every day.

There are other silent readers who are interested; I speak for them.

Not for this silent reader you don't!

-- 
Mark Baker

 _________
|.  \     \-3
|_J_/ PHP |
|| |  __  |
|| |m|  |m|

 I LOVE PHP