Input on the Paul M Jones thread.

[scott molinari]

Hi,

I asked in the thread and it seems my post was ignored or maybe not even seen, so I'll ask in this separate thread. 

Would there possibly be any interest in hearing some input from a non-member, external person like myself about the situation with Paul?

What I'd like to say is more about leadership/ management in general, than it is about that particular subject. I could post it here too, but I don't want to waste anyone's time, if there is no interest. I am noone in particular either. Just a bystander and PHP dev, who wants to see the FIG be successful, for the sake of the success of the PHP language.

Scott

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

Aside from voting threads, there are no specific limitations I am aware of for non-members. So go ahead.

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

[Brian Retterer]

Hi Scott,

I am sorry, I did see your post today but being the holiday, I didn't have a chance to reply to it yet.  We love input from anybody on the mailing list.  The community members do have a voice here as well, the only restriction is to any post that has `[VOTE]` in it. Those posts are our voting posts and only for member projects.  I would love to hear your feedback.

-Brian

[scott molinari]

Ok. Here goes then. 

It is interesting how my question was responded to: "No limitations" and "the only restriction". Not quite the same answer. No problem though. It actually leads me perfectly to what I want to point out. 

Theoretically, I could have looked in the bylaws of the FIG to see if there is any mention of the rights and responsibilities of community members. i.e. People interested in being a part of FIG, but in a lesser manner than actual members. There isn't any as AFAIK. Or is there? 

In the bylaws, I did find this interesting sentence for members. 

This bylaw defines the rules and rights of membership.

What about responsibilities? 

Responsibility is the ability to properly respond to a situation or action (that is my definition). Most people understand how to respond properly. How we respond though, is the core to our discipline. Some let emotions take over and end up responding inappropriately. For these situation (and others), there are rules. If rules are broken, it means someone responded improperly. When that happens, then there must be fair judgement and after that fair punishment, which had the intention to teach the punished to respond properly the next time they find themselves in the same situation.

Everyone will probably be saying, "That is just plain and simple knowledge." But, when people get down to details or in heated debates or down right fights, they often forget the simple stuff. :-)

So, where am I heading with this?

I need to say it again. Upholding discipline, which any group of people working for a common cause, a society, a community needs, goes like this:

Responsibilities must be known first. 

Rules must be clear, and based on those responsibilities.

If rules are broken, there must be clear and fair judgement. 

And if the judgement is made and the rules were deemed broken, then there must be a fair punishment.

I'd like to put forward, that the FIG is missing the clear responsibilities for its members for some of its situations. This is going to raise the debate on a CoC again, and let it be clear, that is NOT my intention. However, for discipline to prevail, there must be clear responsibilities, which a CoC, or even just a clear list of responsibilities on engagement in and for the FIG community, is supposed to do. Then you can create rules to enforce the proper responses, which can be, if at all possible, objectively judged and if deemed worthy, given fair punishment. 

So, that having been said (a couple of times), as I see it, no member of the FIG can be "kicked out", according to the current rules, for disruptive responses in the mailing list. That needs fixing, before you make judgement on a situation. And, if you think about it. Had the responsibilities been pointed out, this situation might even have been completely avoided.

I know that sounds easy and in reality it isn't. Holding up discipline in a democracy is actually very difficult. The main thing to remember is, a responsibility only needs to be made public in the by-laws, when it is clear, there is a general problem. Paul's situation has made it clear, there can be a general problem. I believe the FIG now needs to find some terms to show members their expected responsibilities within the mailing list. A tough call too, I know. But, I feel, a necessary one. Otherwise, the discipline cannot be upheld. 

I hope I could help.

Scott