[Nomination] FIG Secretary: Paul M. Jones

[Nate Abele]

Hi all,

I'd like to nominate Paul Jones as FIG secretary. Paul has a long history of diligent, detailed, careful work in the service of the PHP community, going back to the very first set of formal PHP framework benchmarks, continuing through co-founding FIG, and doing the research and analysis (and writing) that have lead to a number of PSRs.

Of late, there seem to be differences of opinion over FIG's future direction, and it seems to me that some of the... ahem, lack of productivity in some of the ML traffic has been the result of philosophical differences over what FIG should be. I believe the vision Paul has laid out will help the FIG continue to do the practical, impactful work it's been known for at the best of times, by streamlining processes, and building consensus by iterating on practical, real-world examples.

I know from personal experience that Paul has the discipline and patience (and apparently the free time) to help guide the FIG accordingly.

Thanks,

Nate

[grey...@gmail.com]

-1 It states very clearly in the bylaws that: 

The role should be filled by three people (working together to ensure impartiality in all matters and continuous availability) at any one time and those individuals must not be: * Project Representatives of a Member Project * An Editor of a PSR that is in Draft phase

Unless this means that Paul is stepping down as representative for Aura? 

-- Graham

[Paul Jones]

> On Aug 10, 2016, at 13:27, Nate Abele <nate....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to nominate Paul Jones as FIG secretary.

I accept the nomination, and thank you for your kind words.

The bylaws state that a secretary cannot also be a Voting Member; if elected, I will arrange for a replacement Aura representative before accepting the secretarial role.


--

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

[Samantha Quiñones]

Michael is unavailable for a few days and he maintains the list of candidates as a gist. I will make sure he remembers to include your name, Paul.

Thanks,

Samantha

[grey...@gmail.com]

Paul,

Per the precedent you set here : https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/R5TQ_YD7unI/GBy-b8KIHa0J during the Beau/Silex vote, it was argued and generally agreed upon that the lead developer of a project has direct control over that project's vote. Therefore, you, as the lead developer of Aura, would still have control over a vote and wouldn't be impartial. 

I'm completely cool with the nomination, but Aura would need to leave the FIG, based on the precedent that's already been set. 

-- Graham

[Nate Abele]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 7:11:51 PM UTC-4, grey...@gmail.com wrote:

Paul,

Per the precedent you set here : https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/R5TQ_YD7unI/GBy-b8KIHa0J during the Beau/Silex vote, it was argued and generally agreed upon that the lead developer of a project has direct control over that project's vote. Therefore, you, as the lead developer of Aura, would still have control over a vote and wouldn't be impartial.

I read through the thread a couple times, and the discussion and consensus seem to revolve around the idea of sub-projects acting as proxy votes for an umbrella project. Which parts of the thread were you referring to in particular?

Thanks,

Nate

[Adam Culp]

We have many potentially good nominations for FIG secretary, and you are one of them. So to help members choose, please provide some insight:

1. Why did you accept the nomination?

2. What are your plans?

3. Similarly, what do you hope to accomplish as secretary?

4. At the moment do you see any reason why you would not remain for the full term?

5. Will you be able to keep a level head?

Regards,

Adam Culp

IBMiToolkit

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 3:36:32 PM UTC-4, pmjones wrote:

[Paul Jones]

Dear Voting Members,

> On Aug 11, 2016, at 06:35, Adam Culp <thege...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We have many potentially good nominations for FIG secretary, and you are one of them. So to help members choose, please provide some insight:
>
> 1. Why did you accept the nomination?
> 2. What are your plans?
> 3. Similarly, what do you hope to accomplish as secretary?

These three are all closely related.

The position of secretary is entirely too powerful. It is mistakenly seen by many, and treated by at least one secretary, as an authoritative/leadership/guidance/steering position. Instead, it is supposed to be an assistive role, subordinate to and overseen by the Voting Members.

The fact that some people are upset by the fact that I have been nominated for the position of secretary helps to support my case that the position is too powerful. If it were not, there would be little reason to be unhappy about any particular person holding the role.

So:

While pursuing the proper, limited, and constrained duties of a secretary, I will also attempt to reduce the power of the position from the inside, both formally (by championing bylaw changes) and informally (by acting as a check on the overstepping-of-bounds that has been so prevalent since the position was created). I will do everything possible to make sure that this assistive role is seen as "secretary", and not as "Secretary-General" or "Secretary of State", both during my term and for ever after.

> 4. At the moment do you see any reason why you would not remain for the full term?

I do not.

> 5. Will you be able to keep a level head?

As much as anyone else is capable of doing. The fact that this is even a question shows what a powerful position this is, and why it needs to be made less-so. Some of the secretarial tasks can (and should) be automated, so that "keeping a level head" is not even a consideration.

Thank you in advance for your vote.

[grey...@gmail.com]

Nate, 

Here: "If the same person has final authority over each one, I don't see how they can be separate in terms of voting." https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/R5TQ_YD7unI/6bSHmgLwJ8QJ

and

Here: "It sets a terrible precedent.  It means that one person, prolific or not, can then be the power-behind-the-votes..." https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/R5TQ_YD7unI/s3h5X4-dSU8J

The entire argument that Paul made during that vote was that the Lead Developer of a project has the final say over that project's vote. As Lead Developer of Aura, Paul has control over that vote, whether he's the voting member or not. 

To be very clear: I am in no way upset or bothered by the nomination. I think Paul would be a fine secretary, but Aura would need to leave the FIG for him to be able to the position and remain impartial. 

-- Graham Daniels

[Hari K T]

Hi,

 

The entire argument that Paul made during that vote was that the Lead Developer of a project has the final say over that project's vote. As Lead Developer of Aura, Paul has control over that vote, whether he's the voting member or not.

There is another question you need to ask, what about other secretary?  They are not lead of a project, but does that mean they don't have any influence on voting members ?

I think the other secretary can also be a proxy then :-) .

[Woody Gilk]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Hari K T <ktha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is another question you need to ask, what about other secretary? They
> are not lead of a project, but does that mean they don't have any influence
> on voting members ?

Hari,

To my knowledge, none of the current secretaries are associated with
any member project. All secretaries are required to disclose conflicts
of interest.

Regards,
--
Woody Gilk
http://about.me/shadowhand

[Paul Jones]

> On Aug 11, 2016, at 11:32, Woody Gilk <woody...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Hari K T <ktha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is another question you need to ask, what about other secretary? They
>> are not lead of a project, but does that mean they don't have any influence
>> on voting members ?
>
> Hari,
>
> To my knowledge, none of the current secretaries are associated with
> any member project.

I note that Michael Cullum describes himself on GitHub as "phpBB Manager":

https://github.com/michaelcullum

I don't know what level of involvement or influence with the phpBB member project that entails (or even if the description is still accurate).

> All secretaries are required to disclose conflicts of interest.

Yes, they are.

[Adam Culp]

Oh my, would this extend to personal relationship, which could theoretically also carry influence?

How complex should we delve?

Regards,

Adam Culp

[Phil Sturgeon]

Adam: I think the suggestion from Graham was to delve as deeply as we have done in the past and no further. We aren't trying to find new ways to keep people out, but Paul did set a precedence in the Beau/Silex vote and as such that same concern should be just as relevant now. 

If we start delving further we might get to "they can't be a secretary because they stayed on their sofa one time" levels and we don't need to do that. :) 

[Adam Culp]

Agreed. And that was the point. We need to have better by-laws in place to prevent over-stepping and conflict of interests, and for the rest we need to accept one's word at some point when they state that the reigns will be turned over so they can perform the duties at hand. ;-)

Regards,

Adam Culp

[grey...@gmail.com]

I was under the impression that previous precedent was pretty clear, and in lieu of explicit bylaws on the situation, should suffice. It has been established that a being Lead Developer gives you control over a vote and therefore would remove his ability to be impartial.

If the solution here is that we need to amend the bylaws to explicitly say that secretary can't have direct control over a Member Project, I'm okay with that but, in my opinion, that vote and amendment needs to happen before the Secretary elections. 

I'm increasingly bothered that this group seems unable or unwilling to make simple, logical judgement calls when there is no direct coverage by the by-laws. It seems pretty obvious that a member shouldn't be able to vote in their own expulsion. A member project should not serve as secretary, etc. These things seem very common sense to me, and yet, because they aren't explicitly and directly covered in the bylaws, they're allowed to continue. If we continue down this path our bylaws are going to be more verbose than our standards and eclipse any value that we provide to the community. 

-- Graham Daniels

[Michael Cullum]

Hi all,

Sorry for not responding sooner, I am currently away this week with limited internet and would normally be not handling secretary duties for a week but this is not possible due to a Secretary vacancy and Samantha being a candidate in the election.

Firstly, Thanks Nate and Paul, nomination received. :)

Secondly, I might add that whilst this has been addressed to the candidates, I'd ask everyone keep this election fair and clean. Everyone is aware of recent events regarding the potential expulsion of Paul as project representative but in a few minutes I will be closing that vote and the result will be that he is to not be removed and I'd ask people respect the outcome of this vote. Secretaries are in the role they are in to be neutral and I'd ask people consider the impact that bringing (for lack of a better term) politics into a Secretary election could have on that Secretary's ability to do their job and in the same way, candidates may very well be expected to soon represent a neutral position so I would recommend they keep this in mind throughout the election. In the same fashion, I'd ask that once a Secretary is elected, whoever they may be, they are given the chance to execute their duties properly and are given a chance by all; nobody wants to see the FIG split due to who has been elected, or who hasn't been elected, as Secretary.

On a personal note, as I know I've been referenced a few times in this topic (Curiously referred to as 'the other secretary'?), I am a phpBB team member but have no influence over the vote as Marc (Project Rep) is the Lead Developer and has the only and final decision on any FIG votes; and the position of FIG representative lies with Lead Developer role (previously filled by Nils). I have noted this before, and even mentioned my personal friendship with Marc when he became representative, and that I work on phpBB when I was nominated to be Secretary. I have clarified this further in the conflicts of interest topic.

Paul, I would note from your paragraph of what you wish to accomplish as Secretary you said you wish to champion bylaw changes. Can I please just confirm what you mean by this for eligibility reasons? As I'm sure you are aware there is currently an ongoing discussion on the mailing list about whether that would affect your eligibility criteria for being a Secretary. I am of course aware that this is something that affected me personally as a Secretary where I came in already being a collaborator with Larry on FIG 3.0 (albeit it was in discussion phase back then) and it was raised by a project representative (Adam) that he believed my continuing championing of it on the mailing list was inappropriate, however I did clarify to him that I had no intention of picking up biases on any new bylaw changes whilst a Secretary as this would be wholly inappropriate and was just seeing FIG 3.0 out, and I have also since stepped back from championing FIG 3.0 on the mailing list. I also note you've just suggested your own FIG 3.0 alternative of which you need to find an alternative person to continue to champion should this bylaw change go through.

On the note of Paul's nomination, there appears to be disagreement amongst member projects/voting representatives on the matter of whether being a project lead developer/BDFL means you have control over a vote and over who the representative is and whether this violates the principle of impartiality. In the past it was decided that as a project lead, you did have influence over the vote and therefore in the case of Silex, it couldn't have a vote exercised by Beau as it would fall under the final influence of Fabien who controlled the vote of Symfony also; yet a number of member projects (Adam and Paul) have highlighted they believe these circumstances to be different.

As right now I am the only secretary not up for re-election (Samantha being up for re-election and after Joe's resignation) I do not feel comfortable making any kind of even initial judgement call on my own, particularly as it concerns Secretaries; after previous incidents the current consensus, and something to effect Paul I believe was working on a bylaw change for after a discussion between myself and him a number of months ago, is that Secretaries can clarify bylaws interpretation in some cases subject to no objections from voting members. As secretaries, we perform all our actions together in agreement, particularly those as important as this and I feel that this is not a call that can be made by any individual Secretary and even should there be a full complement of Secretaries, I would tend towards deferring it straight to a member project vote anyway, it is a decision that should be for member projects to decide as is standard practice (using the voting protocol) especially so as it concerns Secretary elections.

I'm suggesting that we proceed with the election with Paul as a candidate, and if Paul is elected as a Secretary and does not wish Aura to resign as a project at that time, then there can be a two week vote for Member Projects to decide if this is considered 'okay'. The discussion period for such a vote can be marked as commencing when Graham made his initial comment so that the 2 week discussion period is still observed. Then, in the instance the vote says Aura should resign, then Paul may either choose to remain as a voting representative or become a Secretary and Aura must resign. Should he choose to become a Secretary, he would take up office on the following Sunday, or should he choose Aura to remain a member project then we will hold a Secretary election again in October to fulfil the vacancy.

Does anyone have any objections to this way of proceeding? This appears to be the fairest way I can see to allow member projects to have their say, without putting Paul at any disadvantage during the election.

TL;DR: There will be no judgement suggested formally by Secretaries on whether Aura should resign as that's something for Member Projects to decide; so if PMJ is elected then a vote can be held after the election result but before PMJ takes office.

--

Michael Cullum

FIG Secretary

--
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+unsubscribe@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/453600c0-bb1b-43dc-8e96-99b4d2648ab0%40googlegroups.com.

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

[Hari K T]

Hi,

From the eligibility criteria : https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/blob/b2ae9e026539d0653467eb6d5d87b917c6bd0b74/bylaws/003-membership.md#eligibility-criteria

must not be:

   Project Representatives of a Member Project

So does that mean, they can be an internal representative of a project?

And can write a "disclose conflicts of interest"?

Hari K T

You can ring me : +91 9388 75 8821

http://harikt.com , https://github.com/harikt , http://www.linkedin.com/in/harikt , http://www.xing.com/profile/Hari_KT

Skype  : kthari85

Twitter : harikt

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CAAqcDMiKzrkw4oB9uZH8yJD9uTaFENDq-rD-4zQEkFgTaX8U6g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Phil Sturgeon]

Hi all,

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/453600c0-bb1b-43dc-8e96-99b4d2648ab0%40googlegroups.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.

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/CAAqcDMiKzrkw4oB9uZH8yJD9uTaFENDq-rD-4zQEkFgTaX8U6g%40mail.gmail.com.

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

Thanks Hari! 

We know about the bylaws. :) If we were following the bylaws to the letter and ignoring precedence, then it would be fine. What is being said in this thread, is that when the Beau/Silex vote happened, Paul used a lot of arguments as to why Beau should not be able to represent Silex be a voting member. His reasoning was that because Fabien would ultimately be in charge of both Symfony and Silex, one person would therefore have control over Beau's decision, making him a puppet vote. Something incredibly similar happened in the PHP League application, suggesting I was going to puppet vote over Graham.

What Graham is now pointing out, is that the exact same situation is happening once again with Paul. Paul wants to be a secretary whilst also being the Lead Developer of a voting project, putting another member of the team in place to handle the vote, which is ultimately still his. Past Pauls reasoning would suggest that Paul would ultimately be in charge of the Aura vote, making it a puppet vote.

As I said when this has come up in the past, it sounded like paranoia, but I am curious about why the situation is suddenly different now. Past Pauls arguments line up perfectly against current Pauls situation, but people do not seem to agree with past Paul that it is in issue this time.

Know what I mean? Can we just be a bit consistent? 

[Hari K T]

Hi Phil,

Thank you for your write up.

 

We know about the bylaws. :) If we were following the bylaws to the letter and ignoring precedence, then it would be fine. What is being said in this thread, is that when the Beau/Silex vote happened, Paul used a lot of arguments as to why Beau should not be able to represent Silex be a voting member. His reasoning was that because Fabien would ultimately be in charge of both Symfony and Silex, one person would therefore have control over Beau's decision, making him a puppet vote.

It was not just Paul who was against it, but some of them including you were against it [1]. And I did suggested Beau to represent Sculpin [2] .

 

Something incredibly similar happened in the PHP League application, suggesting I was going to puppet vote over Graham. 

What Graham is now pointing out, is that the exact same situation is happening once again with Paul. Paul wants to be a secretary whilst also being the Lead Developer of a voting project, putting another member of the team in place to handle the vote, which is ultimately still his. Past Pauls reasoning would suggest that Paul would ultimately be in charge of the Aura vote, making it a puppet vote.

It was for projects, and the questions were raised for you were representing Pyrocms at the time and ThePhpLeague was looking for membership. People will question things when they doubt things. I think the questions raised at the time were not wrong.

If you don't have any problem let me ask you to clarify the ownership of thephpleague once again .

I am asking the question for I came across a thread by Woody Gilk :  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/thephpleague/TedrYlsTJ1Q/5coHyHClBQAJ

Question to FIG members regarding why secretary should not be a member project member or lead of project ? Is that any where mentioned why can't a project member cannot be a secretary ?

What I don't understand is what may be the reason that member projects are not allowed to be a secretary when the secretaries cannot vote?

[1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/R5TQ_YD7unI/E7S5ovt0NM8J

[2] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/R5TQ_YD7unI/Pk3FRwtyXYkJ

Wishing you all good luck for the election. Even if you failed in the election I value the time and energy you guys have put to make this group better.

Thank you

[Phil Sturgeon]

Haha! I forgot what my vote was, but reading that I remember my decision was due to my perception that Silex and Symfony are pretty much the same project. That was less of an imagined puppet vote, and more of a literal one/. I'll concede to faulty memory there. When it came to PyroCMS / League, that was absolutely nonsense. I was an advisor on both projects, and simply because I purchased a domain and wrote a few blogs I was called BDFL. 

Regardless of my vote at the time, if Silex and League were both blocked due to this conflict, the Aura conflict is identical and should be responded to in an identical fashion. That is the crux of the point being made.

As for "Is that any where mentioned why can't a project member cannot be a secretary ?" Yeah that's pretty well established and this is not the thread to discuss it. :) 

Let's let others continue this conversation, we're done for today. Cya on IRC if you have any follow-up thoughts!

[Paul Jones]

Grey & Phil (& other interested observers):

Before analyzing the particulars of the past argument in question, I want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.

1. Some time ago, I made an argument that you thought was wrong, and you argued against me at the time.

2. Now, in light of a new situation, you admit that my argument back then was right after all, and that you were wrong to argue against me.

3. Admitting now that you were wrong then, you want to use my previous argument (which you now agree was the right one then) in this new situation.

Is that about it?

[Larry Garfield]

That's an impressive spin attempt, Paul, but not quite. Rather, you've
argued in the past that X should not be allowed, and blocked 2 project
applications on those grounds. You're now running for a position that
would result in you doing X (or very close to it). Grey, Phil, et al are
calling out that situational inconsistency. Calling out your change of
heart does not require anyone else to have had one.

That is, why have you changed your mind and admitted that you were wrong
then?

--Larry Garfield

[Alessandro Lai]

Also, there is the point of consistency by the FIG itself. If in the past projects have been barred because of this impasse, and no bylaw exists about it, why should Aura be treated otherwise?

Last bur not least, I would like to point out that this nomination itself created a very strange situation: Paul just voted for itself as a secretary. This seems to me a big, unresolved, conflict of interests.