[PSR-17] New Sponsor Requested

[Woody Gilk]

In light of recent events, I am requesting that PSR-17 (HTTP Factory)
receive a new sponsor to replace PMJ.

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

[Matthew Weier O'Phinney]

On Jun 26, 2016 11:11 PM, "Woody Gilk" <woody...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In light of recent events, I am requesting that PSR-17 (HTTP Factory)
> receive a new sponsor to replace PMJ.

I'd be willing.

-- mwop

[Paul Jones]

> On Jun 26, 2016, at 23:10, Woody Gilk <woody...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In light of recent events, I am requesting that PSR-17 (HTTP Factory)
> receive a new sponsor to replace PMJ.

I do not relinquish the position.

I understand that you are attempting to make a moral stand. The proper way to take that stand is for *you* to remove *yourself* as editor.


--

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

[Adam Culp]

Woody,

This is not appropriate. Please wait for the current drama to subside, and then evaluate proper measures to be taken. All this will do at the moment is cause more drama and stress.

Regards,

Adam Culp

[Woody Gilk]

My interest is ensuring that PSR-17 and PSR-15 continue to move
forward while the other issue is resolved. I am not asking for this to
be dramatic, and there are no bylaws (AFAIK) that address how to deal
with this situation, I just want a name replaced so that said drama
does not impact the ability for these PSRs to continue moving forward.

How is that not an appropriate request?

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

> --
> 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/4b4887c1-058a-4c49-af86-bac7eb26d353%40googlegroups.com.
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Andreas Heigl]

Hey Woody.
Am 27.06.16 um 17:23 schrieb Woody Gilk:

> My interest is ensuring that PSR-17 and PSR-15 continue to move
> forward while the other issue is resolved. I am not asking for this to
> be dramatic, and there are no bylaws (AFAIK) that address how to deal
> with this situation, I just want a name replaced so that said drama
> does not impact the ability for these PSRs to continue moving forward.
>
> How is that not an appropriate request?

Because it's not your decission to remove someone that is a valid member
of the FIG from a position the FIG wants him to do. Against the will of
that person.

Just my 0.02€

Cheers

Andreas


--
,,,
(o o)
+---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+
| Andreas Heigl |
| mailto:and...@heigl.org N 50°22'59.5" E 08°23'58" |
| http://andreas.heigl.org http://hei.gl/wiFKy7 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| http://hei.gl/root-ca |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Adam Culp]

+1

[Woody Gilk]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Andreas Heigl <and...@heigl.org> wrote:
>
> Because it's not your decission to remove someone that is a valid member
> of the FIG from a position the FIG wants him to do.

There are no votes to give someone sponsorship of PSRs. Saying the FIG
as a whole wants any member to be a sponsor is misleading.

Since there are no (AFAIK) bylaws that address this, the secretaries
and FIG members will have to decide how to handle this situation.

[Paul Jones]

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 19:35, Woody Gilk <woody...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Since there are no (AFAIK) bylaws that address this, the secretaries
> and FIG members will have to decide how to handle this situation.

What precedent leads you to believe that is the case?

[Rafael Dohms]

What precedent leads you to believe that is the case?

For a list that wishes to move away from "politics" we sure seem to use a lot of political terms and force political situations.

Let's try to ignore the politics right here.

A member has asked someone to step down from a position, someone else equally capable has volunteered to pick up the position.

Seems like a simple matter "the current person is engaged in a potentially disruptive discussion vote, in order to avoid any delays to this, we replace it with a more available person"

It is perfectly sane move that focuses, on what should be our only focus: the goal, getting the PSR done.

It ignores politics, it avoid conflict.

Now, the only sane move I see here is for said person to voluntarily "step down" in prol of the greater goal.

Its that simple, "I want this to happen, if I'm possibly going to get in the way then fine, i'll step down".

The only reason I can see for this not happening is, sorry, EGO. Said person wants his name involved in the PSR, and this means he is no longer focused on the goal (finish PSR), but on his own agenda "finish PSR with my name".

If I'm missing any other CLEAR reason why Paul would not simply "let it go" in favor of "getting his affairs sorted", then please enlighten me.

Otherwise I urge you Paul, to focus on the greater good, don't make yourself a liability and let PSR move forward. 

If it does happen your membership does go into vote and you are removed, we will be running around to sort this kind of stuff later, might as well prevent it now.

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

On 28 Jun 2016, at 10:08, Rafael Dohms <rdo...@gmail.com> wrote:

What precedent leads you to believe that is the case?

For a list that wishes to move away from "politics" we sure seem to use a lot of political terms and force political situations.

Let's try to ignore the politics right here.

A member has asked someone to step down from a position, someone else equally capable has volunteered to pick up the position.

Seems like a simple matter "the current person is engaged in a potentially disruptive discussion vote, in order to avoid any delays to this, we replace it with a more available person"

It is perfectly sane move that focuses, on what should be our only focus: the goal, getting the PSR done.

It ignores politics, it avoid conflict.

Now, the only sane move I see here is for said person to voluntarily "step down" in prol of the greater goal.

Its that simple, "I want this to happen, if I'm possibly going to get in the way then fine, i'll step down".

The only reason I can see for this not happening is, sorry, EGO. Said person wants his name involved in the PSR, and this means he is no longer focused on the goal (finish PSR), but on his own agenda "finish PSR with my name".

If I'm missing any other CLEAR reason why Paul would not simply "let it go" in favor of "getting his affairs sorted", then please enlighten me.

Otherwise I urge you Paul, to focus on the greater good, don't make yourself a liability and let PSR move forward. 

I also agree that for the sponsor role, it seems sensible to just let thing go and move on ..

But I also think that this is exactly the kind of thing where “political drama” could have been avoid on the list if the people involved could have just send a simple email off-list before hand to explain the reasoning. 

If it does happen your membership does go into vote and you are removed, we will be running around to sort this kind of stuff later, might as well prevent it now.

I do not think this is a valid argument. There is a discussion in place, there is no reason to start stripping anyone out of this list on whom there might be a vote for expulsion which might be accepted.

If anything, this thread lacks of empathy towards Paul, exactly what the expulsion discussion is accusing Paul of doing wrong himself. Lets stop right there and keep common curtesy as a basic right on this list for anyone.

regards,

Lukas Kahwe Smith

sm...@pooteeweet.org

[Adam Culp]

Of course I agree Paul stepping down from these 2 PSRs would be "easier" in light of the politics surrounding recent events, but I also feel that is not the "correct" approach. There has been no bad behavior, or roadblocks, that warranted such a public and political move by Woody. I would further argue that despite the politics of recent events Paul has remained civil and has avoided confrontation in the matter. Therefore I see no reason for these requests to be made by Woody, other than ego, as indicated by Rafael.

I'm not advocating for anybody to step down, but why do some feel Paul stepping down would be better than Woody stepping down? Woody is obviously the individual, in this case, who is letting personal feelings interfere with the task at hand to the point of promoting politics.

Because of the items I've outlined above I feel Paul is validated in his strong stance.

At some future time, if Woody's fears become reality, my feelings may change in this matter. But that is to be seen.

Regards,

Adam Culp

[Paul Jones]

Rafael, some of your starting premises are incorrect.


> On Jun 28, 2016, at 03:08, Rafael Dohms <rdo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A member

Woody is not a voting member.

> has asked someone to step down from a position

Woody did not ask me to step down. He appealed to others for a replacement.

> in order to avoid any delays to this, we replace it with a more available person"

I am fully available and have caused no delays. Any delays, if they have occurred, are due to persons other than myself.

With those in mind, you may wish to revise your analysis.

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

On 28 Jun 2016, at 13:47, Adam Culp <thege...@gmail.com> wrote:

Of course I agree Paul stepping down from these 2 PSRs would be "easier" in light of the politics surrounding recent events, but I also feel that is not the "correct" approach. There has been no bad behavior, or roadblocks, that warranted such a public and political move by Woody. I would further argue that despite the politics of recent events Paul has remained civil and has avoided confrontation in the matter. Therefore I see no reason for these requests to be made by Woody, other than ego, as indicated by Rafael.

I'm not advocating for anybody to step down, but why do some feel Paul stepping down would be better than Woody stepping down? Woody is obviously the individual, in this case, who is letting personal feelings interfere with the task at hand to the point of promoting politics.

because the editor is a key role for a PSR: "The Editor of a PSR is actively involved in managing and tracking a PSR as it is written.” 

the sponsor’s main task is to ensure that only PSRs get to a vote that have a certain relevance to the group ..

so as such if the editor feels like they prefer not to work together with the sponsors, it makes much more sense to replace the sponsor, than the editor.

but like I said .. still this process could be conducted in a manner that follows common courtesy, ie. contacting people before making such a request and when making such a request providing a non nebulous reason.

[Adam Culp]

To be clear, I do understand the importance of the editor role and am grateful for all editors who help make PSRs possible. My comment was not intended to say Woody should step away, and I hope Woody does not feel led to withdraw. My points were more to relay that EVERYBODY is important in the process, and one individual should not be thought of as more important than another. It takes all parties to get this done.

Regards,

Adam Culp

[Rafael Dohms]

Sorry Paul, those facts, are absolutely irrelevant to me, it in now way affects the message or the analysis.

Honestly this picking apart of simple english constructs and words, when they result make no difference, is exactly one of the counter-productive activities that put me off from actually being part of these discussions.

The wording used by Woody matter little to me, the goal is one: "replace Paul from PSR".

As for you being available or not, you are free to state that, I also refer to you being "engaged in your defense" whether that takes a few minutes or a few hours.

Since we like to talk politics, this is like current impeachment in Brasil, let the politician focus on the defense process and take over his/her responsibilities.

Regardless, the fact that this is becoming a "power struggle" is sad and says a lot more about the process.

Adam,

My comment was not intended to say Woody should step away

I'm sorry but that is exactly how it came across. Woody is not the target of discussion, neither has he ever been reported for similar issues.

He is also far more important to the process and his exit could actually cause a delay. 

[Larry Garfield]

On 06/28/2016 08:26 AM, Rafael Dohms wrote:

Regardless, the fact that this is becoming a "power struggle" is sad and says a lot more about the process.

Adam,

My comment was not intended to say Woody should step away

I'm sorry but that is exactly how it came across. Woody is not the target of discussion, neither has he ever been reported for similar issues.

He is also far more important to the process and his exit could actually cause a delay.

I do think it's premature at the moment to be asking Paul to step aside from any PSRs with which he is involved, and this thread is at this time a distraction from what should be the main issue: A large number of people find Paul to be disruptive and drive them away from FIG involvement.  I would very much like to see what Paul's thoughts are on the matter, as he has been silent in the main thread to date.  Whether there are "penalties" involved or not, it's both appropriate that he respond and that he be allowed to respond.

--Larry Garfield

[Adam Culp]

Rafael,

Your words to Paul said it clearly, "...picking apart simple english..." also applies to how you interpreted what I said when asking why one person should step down over another. There was ZERO implications, it was an example used in a question.

Regards,

Adam Culp

[Michael Cullum]

Hi all,

This is all getting a little bit heated so I’d ask people to put on the brakes slightly. Woody and Paul, we’ll reach out to you both over the next 24 hours to have a quick chat about how we could proceed in this matter, it would be preferable to resolve this in a way that all parties are happy with. If we cannot do so, then we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Thanks,

The Secretaries

--

Michael C

--
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/cdb6f89d-354d-4032-8fb3-30b802b59bbe%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Jones]

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 17:40, Michael Cullum <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,

>
> Woody and Paul, we’ll reach out to you both over the next 24 hours to have a quick chat

I'm fine with proceeding in public; no need to keep it hidden from others as far as I'm concerned.

[Paul Jones]

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 19:20, Paul Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 17:40, Michael Cullum <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Woody and Paul, we’ll reach out to you both over the next 24 hours to have a quick chat
>
> I'm fine with proceeding in public; no need to keep it hidden from others as far as I'm concerned.

On further consideration, and per bylaw, in order to enable and ensure proper oversight of secretarial activity by voting members, I reserve the right to publish any and all communications with me regarding this matter.

[Márk Sági-Kazár]

Hi all,

Although I haven't seen too much from the mailing list and the PSR-17 progress lately, if Paul can play his role in it as he should from a professional point of view, then I don't see any reason to remove him from it or ask him to step down. Although I don't always agree with his "passion" (as Mike van Riel called) this is what makes/should make us different from politicians IMHO.

Unfortunately these dramatic situations always require someone to take a step back in the end, but this - surprisingly - doesn't work in this group.

Bests,
Mark