[CC][Nomination] Graham Daniels

[Matthew Weier O'Phinney]

I hereby nominate Graham Daniels for a position on the Core Committee.

Graham has excellent development skills, as evidenced by his activity in the
League of Extraordinary Packages, as well as his work at refinery29. He speaks
often at conferences on development topics, but, also, and arguably more
importantly, the human aspects of development. Related, he is the original
author of The Code Manifesto, a set of value propositions for safe, equal, and
effective collaboration as developers.

I think these skills make him an excellent candidate for FIG.

[grey...@gmail.com]

Thank you very much. I gladly accept the nomination.

-- Graham

[Michael Cullum]

Recieved. Thanks Graham & Matthew.

http://bit.ly/cc-election-candidates

--

Thanks,

FIG Secretaries

[Dracony]

From https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/php-fig/league%7Csort:relevance/php-fig/2_bSl2FQnA0/KoOYdVoOCQAJ :

> From the League's perspective, it feels like the right time to step back and refocus our efforts on creating high quality, framework agnostic PHP packages. We are simply not adding nor receiving enough value from this group to remain a voting member of it.

So what made you cnage your mind in just 3 months? Somebody who feels he's not "adding value" is a very poor choice for a CC member.

[Christopher Pitt]

 Somebody who feels he's not "adding value" is a very poor choice for a CC member.

Not to put words in Graham's mouth (or Michael's mouth), but the previous FIG structure is very different from this new incarnation. I didn't feel like I was adding enough value to justify the amount of abuse and self-censorship I was experiencing, but thing have definitely changed since then. CC members have far more responsibility than member projects. That is a difference significant enough to justify such a change of heart (in my opinion). 

[Adam Culp]

I'm sorry, but I do not feel this nomination should be recognized. Not because Graham is not capable, because he is very capable. But rather because of the personal relationship between Graham and Samantha, a current Secretary. See further comment at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/jFNMb6ykn1k/yLec0XvFCAAJ

I think Graham can contribute a great deal, but should do so as an outside contributor rather than in a leadership role due to this conflict of interests.

Regards,

Adam Culp

[Brian Teeman]

Surely that is a decision for the voters.

[Magnus Nordlander]

Adam,

According to the bylaws, there is no provision allowing for non-recognition of a nomination based on conflict of interest (or any other basis). The only option in cases like this (save for the rescinding nominations/acceptances, and barring a bylaw change) would be to recognize the nomination, and then campaign against the election of the person in question. I believe this is what has been referred to in this thread as letting the voters decide.

Magnus

--
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/22d1df99-f8aa-44ea-9da2-8f7b2b9cd998%40googlegroups.com.

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

[Adam Culp]

Thus the spiral of more and more conflict of interests continues, condoned.

I will discontinue because others appear not to care, or do not see the problem. I have better things to do than tilting windmills. Moving on.

Regards,

Adam Culp

On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 12:25:36 PM UTC-5, Magnus Nordlander wrote:

Adam,

According to the bylaws, there is no provision allowing for non-recognition of a nomination based on conflict of interest (or any other basis). The only option in cases like this (save for the rescinding nominations/acceptances, and barring a bylaw change) would be to recognize the nomination, and then campaign against the election of the person in question. I believe this is what has been referred to in this thread as letting the voters decide.

Magnus

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Adam Culp <thege...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm sorry, but I do not feel this nomination should be recognized. Not because Graham is not capable, because he is very capable. But rather because of the personal relationship between Graham and Samantha, a current Secretary. See further comment at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/jFNMb6ykn1k/yLec0XvFCAAJ

I think Graham can contribute a great deal, but should do so as an outside contributor rather than in a leadership role due to this conflict of interests.

Regards,

Adam Culp


On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 8:21:37 PM UTC-4, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:

I hereby nominate Graham Daniels for a position on the Core Committee.

Graham has excellent development skills, as evidenced by his activity in the
League of Extraordinary Packages, as well as his work at refinery29. He speaks
often at conferences on development topics, but, also, and arguably more
importantly, the human aspects of development. Related, he is the original
author of The Code Manifesto, a set of value propositions for safe, equal, and
effective collaboration as developers.

I think these skills make him an excellent candidate for FIG.

--
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.

[Larry Garfield]

Adam, I'm curious.  What other conflict of interest issues are you referring to?  You make it sound like we're drowning in conflict of interest problems, but I don't see that at all.

--Larry Garfield

On 11/06/2016 11:42 AM, Adam Culp wrote:

[Adam Culp]

Yes, I know. There have been a few brought up over these past months, but we condoned them all. We even have a pinned thread for those in relation to Secretaries. I'd rather not get into it again. Our membership has made it clear that conflicts of interest are acceptable.

Regards,

Adam Culp

[Matthew Weier O'Phinney]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Adam Culp <thege...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I know. There have been a few brought up over these past months, but we
> condoned them all. We even have a pinned thread for those in relation to
> Secretaries. I'd rather not get into it again. Our membership has made it
> clear that conflicts of interest are acceptable.

My question to you is: what sort of conflict of interest do you
envision, exactly?

I've seen plenty of public and private boards of directors and
governing bodies that included married couples or family members
(heck, my own parents served as president and vice president of a
local non-profit organization this past year!). How is the CC of
PHP-FIG any different?

If both parties have the betterment of the PHP ecosystem in mind, what
negative ramifications do you foresee by having both involved?

If the CC involves 12 members, how do you see two members in
relationships as tipping the balance of a vote? Do you assume they
would *necessarily* always vote the same? Again, why would you assume
that?

I'd expect to see conflict of interest in CC members primarily based
on their *employment* or the *organizations they already represent*,
not the relationships they have with others. As an example, were you
or I to be nominated, the bigger question on others minds is whether
our employment by Zend/RogueWave might lead to inability to vote our
conscience on proposals that might negatively impact the products from
our employer. *That* is a more tangible conflict of interest than a
relationship, as it has actual impact on our ability to vote.

My point is: I think this is spurious. If and/or when a real conflict
arises we can address it. Let's assume that folks are well
intentioned, unless proven otherwise through concrete actions. Let's
NOT assume issues where non have been demonstrated.

> --
> 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/4a69a783-a70f-44e4-a367-ec7c0c7f5a6b%40googlegroups.com.

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

--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
mweiero...@gmail.com
https://mwop.net/

[Christopher Pitt]

I'll respond, since I was the first to bring this issue up, in Samantha's nomination thread. I don't personally think it's a good idea, because it puts added pressure on Samantha and Graham. Not because I think they'll be forced to always agree with each other but because they'll be under increased scrutiny. If they're happy to take that pressure on, then that's fine. I'm not about to try and stop them, and I couldn't even if I wanted to.

Let's NOT assume issues where non have been demonstrated. 

...Is exactly the argument against preemptive community measures, like codes of conduct. Reacting isn't always the best approach, and often folks want to be more prepared for a situation which is indicative of a potential problem. Still, I don't think this is a big enough issue that I'd pursue any kind of preventative action against one or both of these fantastic people being elected. 

[Matthew Weier O'Phinney]

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Christopher Pitt <cgp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll respond, since I was the first to bring this issue up, in Samantha's
> nomination thread. I don't personally think it's a good idea, because it
> puts added pressure on Samantha and Graham. Not because I think they'll be
> forced to always agree with each other but because they'll be under
> increased scrutiny. If they're happy to take that pressure on, then that's
> fine. I'm not about to try and stop them, and I couldn't even if I wanted
> to.
>
>> Let's NOT assume issues where non have been demonstrated.
>
>
> ...Is exactly the argument against preemptive community measures, like codes
> of conduct.

Funny; the line I wrote above was written based on discussions I've
had with others about CoCs. Most I have read encourage that you
respect that others have done something in good faith before assuming
otherwise. I feel that's missing with this thread.

> Reacting isn't always the best approach, and often folks want to
> be more prepared for a situation which is indicative of a potential problem.
> Still, I don't think this is a big enough issue that I'd pursue any kind of
> preventative action against one or both of these fantastic people being
> elected.

People are quickly jumping on the bandwagon of "potential conflict of
interest" in this case, *without detailing what those potential
problems could be*. All I'm hearing is, "They're in a relationship!
Conflict of interest!" Nothing about what conflict is being predicted.

Do we have anything *demonstrable* as a potential conflict of
interest, or is it just a *feeling* that there's one? Without
something concrete for us to discuss, the thread feels hugely
nonconstructive, and disrespectful to those nominated.

[Christopher Pitt]

Hey Matthew,

Let's take a step back here. I have given a reason for why I think it's a bad idea, but I'ave also said (very clearly I think) that it's just my personal opinion. That these are two very capable people, and that sometimes being reactive isn't the only approach we could take. You don't have to listen to my opinion, or make a big deal about it. 

I definitely don't think we should be afraid to discuss things we think may be potential problems. I saw something I thought was a potential problem (in a different thread), and brought it up for discussion. Turns out not too many people agree with me that it could be a problem. So let's leave it there. :)

[Adam Culp]

I apologize for my prior posts apparently insinuated a negative about the people involved, which was not my intent. I am saddened Matthew (and perhaps others) jumped to a negative conclusion about my motives. (I will reflect on what I may have done to warrant this.) In fact my motives were more along the lines of ensuring we have more opinions involved in decision making. If two people are in a relationship I believe it could lead more in the direction that they influence each other to the point of sharing each others opinions more often. In my opinion this would hurt the FIG, because there would be less opinions, and fewer ideas or alternatives to solving a problem.

My post in another thread was also meant along these lines, but I poorly relayed this. (see https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/jFNMb6ykn1k/yLec0XvFCAAJ)

Regards,

Adam Culp

[Stefano Torresi]

I just wanted to share my 2 cents here.

While I understand Adam's concern about CC members influencing each other, I think the argument is a bit moot because most of the current members project representatives know each other in person and interact with each other outside the FIG context, so they probably do influence each other already.

Besides, I find the idea of discriminating candidates because of their personal relationship quite preposterous: anybody with a nomination should have the chance to participate. If you think there are compelling reasons not to vote for them, make your case to the electorate; straight out excluding people by rejecting their nominations, though, is an extreme measure and should be considered with much care.

[Brian Teeman]

IF you are going to have a rule that two people in a personal relationship cannot serve at the same time then you also need to create a rule that anybody serving on the CC must declare immediately if they start a personal relationship with another CC member. Then you need a rule that defines what a personal relationship. Does it require cohabitation? Is there a qualifying time period for the relationship before you call it a COI? Are both people in the relationship disqualified from serving or just one of them? If just one then which one?

You cannot make rules to govern people's personal relationships.

If you believe there will be a COI then you are entitled not to vote for one or other or both of those people. You really cannot disqualify someone because of a personal relationship.

[Christopher Pitt]

Could we lock this thread please? I think it's getting blown way out of proportion, and is just as harmful to the nomination as it is to the expression of opinion.

[Michael Cullum]

Hi all,

I'm not going to lock this topic because it's a nomination topic and people might still wish to ask valid questions to Graham however I entirely agree that the tone of this topic has gone in a direction nobody wishes to see.

The nomination stands as there is no platform for 'rejecting a nomination'; however you, as voters, may choose to take this into account when voting if you so wish.

Lets move forward as I think this discussion point has run its course and keep the tone constructive.

--

Michael C

On 8 November 2016 at 17:02, Christopher Pitt <cgp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Could we lock this thread please? I think it's getting blown way out of proportion, and is just as harmful to the nomination as it is to the expression of opinion.

--

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/d51b4e3a-ad85-4363-ab56-0132d9d6a43b%40googlegroups.com.

[Adam Culp]

Unfortunately, while others were rebuking my conflict opinion, there is still a relevant unanswered question from Dracony. (I apologize to Roman for causing it's oversight by speaking up.)

(See https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/mlzQXgOUKkw/oockaY5sCAAJ)

Regards,

Adam Culp

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 8:23:12 PM UTC-5, Michael Cullum wrote:

Hi all,

I'm not going to lock this topic because it's a nomination topic and people might still wish to ask valid questions to Graham however I entirely agree that the tone of this topic has gone in a direction nobody wishes to see.

The nomination stands as there is no platform for 'rejecting a nomination'; however you, as voters, may choose to take this into account when voting if you so wish.

Lets move forward as I think this discussion point has run its course and keep the tone constructive.

--

Michael C

On 8 November 2016 at 17:02, Christopher Pitt <cgp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Could we lock this thread please? I think it's getting blown way out of proportion, and is just as harmful to the nomination as it is to the expression of opinion.

--
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.

[Hari K T]

Hi,

Not against anyone conducting in election. But here I do want to agree with Adam and Roman's views and please do look into the threads. We want to make a better FIG and not political FIG.

We don't need dramas again like people resigning from core committees.

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 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/10bdf0d3-fa1c-4cf6-8974-2004e4f43197%40googlegroups.com.

[Dracony]

Actually considering the low amount of nominations there really won't even need to be a vote. So when Brian wrote:

Surely that is a decision for the voters.

That actually might not be the case. Since atm there are less nominees than spots on the CC. Hm, in fact I should apply also