Remove Developer Advocacy Requirement From Secretaries Role

[GeeH]

Hi All,

I created a pull request (https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/820) to remove the requirement for secretaries to be developer advocates for the group. I don't see any of the secretaries aside from Michael submitting talks and generally advocating for the group, and I don't think it means those secretaries are doing a bad job. I personally don't think it should be a requirement for the secretary role.

This is a formally discussion thread to gauge opinion and see if it's worth moving on to a vote.

Gary

[Stefano Torresi]

IIRC Samantha also did some related activity not long ago.

I agree that making this a hard requirement doesn't make much sense, as it cannot be measured exactly whether a given secretary is satisfying it or not (what kind of advocacy? blog posts? conference talks? in what frequency? how deep?).

It should be no more than a soft task, encouraged but not strictly required. If it's done, all the better.

From a bystander view point, it's a very welcomed activity: PSR consumers and implementors can relay to the resources resulting from such activities to further raise awareness, without having to invest time for doing this themselves over and over again.

--
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/94cc8e8b-8560-47c5-bccb-33aca12c5170%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Chris Tankersley]

I think I'm OK with this change. While I don't care if the secretaries _are_ advocating and talking about FIG, if we end up with a group of secretaries that don't want to do talks and marketing PR for the group I'm fine with that as well. No reason to make it a necessary part of the job.

-Chris, Sculpin

--

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/94cc8e8b-8560-47c5-bccb-33aca12c5170%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Chris Tankersley
http://ctankersley.com

[Mark Baker]

On 03/10/2016 16:42, GeeH wrote:

I created a pull request (https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/820) to remove the requirement for secretaries to be developer advocates for the group. I don't see any of the secretaries aside from Michael submitting talks and generally advocating for the group, and I don't think it means those secretaries are doing a bad job. I personally don't think it should be a requirement for the secretary role.

This is a formally discussion thread to gauge opinion and see if it's worth moving on to a vote.

Not that I'm a voting member, but my $0.02
Presenting on FIG at conferences/etc has too much potential for being asked awkward questions about FIGDrama, putting the secretaries on the spot, and which they cannot answer because it's too loaded and political. Advocating for the group has benefits, but is also a two-edged sword; and I don't believe that it should be a defined part of the role, although I also see no reason when Secretaries shouldn't submit to conferences if they are prepared to accept the possibility of being asked inappropriate questions where they have to "no comment".

-- 
Mark Baker

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

 I LOVE PHP

[Stefano Torresi]

Il giorno lun 3 ott 2016 alle ore 18:44 Mark Baker <ma...@lange.demon.co.uk> ha scritto:

Not that I'm a voting member, but my $0.02
Presenting on FIG at conferences/etc has too much potential for being asked awkward questions about FIGDrama, putting the secretaries on the spot, and which they cannot answer because it's too loaded and political. Advocating for the group has benefits, but is also a two-edged sword; and I don't believe that it should be a defined part of the role, although I also see no reason when Secretaries shouldn't submit to conferences if they are prepared to accept the possibility of being asked inappropriate questions where they have to "no comment".

I beg to differ.

At PHPDay, which happened right in the middle of the "PHPixieGate", the drama was initially hinted with joking intent, discussed maturely and briefly, and then quickly and completely dismissed in favor of more important topics.

We are adults, we can and should be able to talk openly about any issue the group may have or have had in the past.

Sweeping dust under the carpet is ultimately inconclusive, I would rather expect quite the opposite approach.

Advocating for what is being done here, on the contrary, shows that after all there are passionate people committed to the mission, which is a very good answer to most of the criticisms the group receives.

[GeeH]

To be clear, I am not saying that secretaries should NOT be advocates, but I am saying that it should not be a hard requirement for the role.

[Larry Garfield]

Someone's got to be responsible for the website and Twitter account, which do fall under the "advocacy and marketing" umbrella, more or less.

As Michael requested, I strongly suggest we not try to tinker with the bylaws further until after FIG 3 is fully in place and had some "settling in time".  I've no doubt that we'll want to make some point releases once we've started working in the new model, but let's get it deployed before we start filing patches.

--Larry Garfield

[Gary Hockin]

As a developer advocate, my job is not to be responsible for the company website or Twitter, and I believe that an advocate's role is more of one of promotion and interaction with customers, which I honestly do not think is important for the role of a FIG secretary. At this point I see only Michael speaking/blogging about the group from his own accounts, and therefore being a developer advocate for the FIG, but I think both other secretaries are doing a fine job despite them not submitting talks about the group.

Could a voting member please open a vote on this PR please?

Gary

[Michael Cullum]

Gary,

A vote is unlikely right now for reasons previously stated previously in this thread by voting members and in https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/php-fig/Rf1Xfgix3Cw.

Finally, there is a general strong recommendation that whilst PSR approval or Errata votes might take place over the next three months, we’d strongly recommend waiting for the new structure to be implemented on the 1st January before any other kind of vote takes place. We are now in an odd kind of limbo state and membership votes, changes to FIG 3.0 and other parts of bylaws or entrance votes might be best to wait until the new structure is in place; especially seeing as the bylaws have changed how these votes actually take place and the voting franchise, but those people are not entirely yet in place to vote on those things. This isn’t a rule, it's not in the bylaws and Secretaries don't have the power to stop votes, we are simply recommending holding off on such votes to avoid confusion over who should be voting on the different measures and debate on such issues.

A vote being done right now would be complicated as we're going through the process of member projects still declaring if they wish to remain member projects but we don't define when this takes effect. There is no hard rule against votes on bylaw changes but it's strongly recommended against (just like the 2-week discussion on votes) due to its complication and nobody objected to implementing this as a general rule when it was suggested.

There is nothing wrong however with putting this to a vote in January if those responsible for opening bylaw change votes feel it necessary then.

--

Michael C

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/6fb7f791-df93-4e76-844c-a60c7764e3d9%40googlegroups.com.

[Larry Garfield]

The dev-adv part of the secretaries role was part of the initial bylaw that created the post. It doesn't seem to have caused an issue so far this year, so I see no reason to be hasty in changing it. Let's let the FIG 3 changes settle in first. The CC may render that Secretary task unnecessary, or not.

Let's leave it alone for now and revisit the question in the spring sometime, once we see how the CC/Secretary split plays out. We'll be able to make a more informed decision then.

--Larry Garfield

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/CAAqcDMgCtCVa7aRfRiDTUpxo96bnJ3cWssbSN0u7aLnKCShDvw%40mail.gmail.com.