Ultimately, if FIG 3.0 is to go through, it's going to be a huge change for the operation of the FIG and the proposal should be just right before putting it to a vote, with no open issues on the proposal itself. Especially now with an alternative option (a new organisation) being prominently discussed (suggested by Joe and Paul), members deserve a fair vote on the future of the FIG with a vote untainted by votes on process issues or resolvable unresolved content issues and with a proposal that is solid with any issues and feedback addressed. The vote will then essentially become a case of do you want the FIG group to transition to the new structure (dubbed FIG 3.0), or should other options be followed (e.g. Shutting down FIG in favor of a new organization following FIG 3, changing nothing etc.).
I'd stress that feedback is really important to the proposal and it's still of course open for changes based on feedback such as when referenda was added to the proposal.
--
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/569E1E9F-C321-4F55-B063-9BE28F6628FE%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
As I was directly addressed and asked to respond to some points, I'll respond here but as noted previously, I'm not speaking in a secretarial capacity.
N.B When I refer to ‘FIG Member’ I mean people with voting rights essentially, so depending on the context either core committee members and member projects (FIG 3.0 context) or just member projects (FIG 2.0/status quo context).
On the note of giving secretaries more powers, I'd note the only real change at all was we restricted the previously much too open "Clarifying any interpretation of bylaw text" to what it is now (See https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/752/files#diff-b58538881047f8ede6b65a2ca2e01261R58 and https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/752/files#diff-b58538881047f8ede6b65a2ca2e01261R64). There was no addition of 'powers', just a restriction on them added.
Larry has touched on this note briefly but I'll reiterate, with regards to working group discussions, as Secretaries we'd be working to ensure that discussions took place on *a medium* that is well publicised and we're working towards this already with the current PSRs but we didn't want to micromanage this in the bylaws.
Regarding secretaries being able to start any vote, this isn't a change from the status quo. Larry and I discussed this and ultimately, just because the secretaries have an ability, it doesn't mean they should always be using it, but it's possibly better for them to be able to than have to face potential bureaucratic tanglement later on (this was my rationale for not removing the current blanket statement). In addition to just being an ability in case it is needed, there are also a number of times when it makes sense for secretaries to be able to open votes as standard, for example:
If a bylaw clarification needs doing and we ascertain it's beyond the remit of secretaries
For clearing up misc. items such as the vote about 11 months ago to remove translations
When a bylaw amendment vote that affects the contents of PSRs is requested by a PSR Editor who cannot open a vote (Interface suffix)
It's important here to note that a Secretary opening a vote doesn't mean they are advocating for the change either, it just means they want members to make a decision on something through a vote, and the ability to be able to defer things to members is important as secretaries - it's like passing a decision up to your boss at work because you know it's not your call. I think this ultimately comes down to do you trust Secretaries to not do stupid things (or if they do, realise this, apologise and reverse it), and if you don't, then recall votes should be used or you shouldn't elect them in the first place.
On 5 September 2016 at 17:37, Paul Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael,
The proposal, and the vote, themselves create "drama." I assert there can be nothing *but* "drama" as the result of this proposal, and the ensuing vote. Of course, if avoiding drama is a key point, the proposal can be withdrawn at any time.
The contention arises from you and Larry (and perhaps others) who want to re-constitute the FIG *in toto* and *in situ*, to conform to a new vision of your own, rather than to incrementally perfect an expression of the existing founding vision. Without the proposal, there is no contention. You and Larry are the ones who have brought the contention here.
You, and Larry, and any member projects that agree with you, can "transition into FIG 3.0" right now, by resigning and starting a new group with a new name. Doing so will leave here all those who support the founding vision, to pursue that vision unperturbed. You all, for your part, can pursue your new-and-different vision in your new-and-different group in any way you like.
The contention exists from the general utterances about what a number of people have identified as general problems in the FIG. FIG 3.0 aims to fix a number of those 'problems' and it was neither me nor Larry that started these discussions back in January (or before; these discussions have circulated for years as we all know) about changes to FIG structure nor initially raised many of these comments. We just researched PEP, IETF etc. (as others had suggested) and helped put those suggestions into the text of a series of bylaw changes.
Contention does not have to mean drama though and it will only be made so if people insist on making it so; contention and disagreement can be healthy for a standards body (as you've regularly pointed out), so long as it is not done in a detrimental fashion. FIG 3.0 will go to a vote, as the decision for what to happen to the FIG is neither Larry's nor yours as no one person controls the FIG; the entire body of member projects do. I'd ask you have respect for that sovereignty; after all, you wrote the voting protocol that essentially defines that sovereignty. If member projects wish it to be a separate organisation, that's entirely fine, but they deserve a chance to vote on it, as I think these topics on the mailing clearly show that some or many people disagree with you. It’s not democratic in the slightest to prevent a vote from even taking place, and nobody has the power to do so, so lets stop beating the same bush and just proceed. People can make their relevant cases and people can discuss what they think is best, a vote can take place [as is our way], and then move on from there.
--
Many thanks,
Michael C
N.B. I do not post this message as a secretary but as a co-author of a spec and the person who compiled the secretary job description initially in the bylaws to explain why things were written as they were, but not to advocate for them. I do this in line with my declared conflicts of interest.
--
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/39F84D4A-6F91-4F3F-A2E7-B2B5DB2A4F72%40gmail.com.
The Secretary role is not changing in FIG 3.0 as previously stated.
--
Michael
--
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/63A24628-EB7F-45CA-B710-70563687D3DC%40gmail.com.
But referring to it now as "assistive" and or "record-keeping" role seems to meet with resistance and defensiveness.
Since the word "secretary" has multiple meanings, that makes the title rather ambiguous. In the interest of reducing ambiguity, and making sure the powers of the role fit an unambiguous title, I would love some clarification on exactly what *kind* of secretary we have. Is it really the "assistive/record-keeping" secretary, or is it more like something else? If so, exactly what "something else" is it like?
When asking this question to Michael Cullum over the weekend, in an on-the-record conversation, he replied as follows (in his typical lengthy fashion):
> Secretary does not just mean assistant.
>
> The Secretary-General of the UN, or a Secretary of State are leadership positions; a Parliamentary Secretary is a civil service position which runs the day-to-day of a government department and is responsible to government, but is politically impartial; a Parliamentary Private Secretary is an MP (Member of Parliament, our congressmen) who works with a minister as a liaison between the minister and backbenchers (MPs who are not part of the government but are in the majority/government party); a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State is subordinate to the Secretary of State but is an MP with a smaller brief that they can focus on, reporting to their SoS; a Secretary of a club or society is a mix of a leadership position (they are a club officer and normally considered a very senior one, and the person legally responsible for the actions of the club or society) but also administrative duties as you describe; and of course, the way you describe it, as a PA type role.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that is is a simple fact that the title Secretary can mean a huge variety of things, some considerably more authoritative than that which the role of FIG Secretaries is, some are more solely administrative (I'd note the term 'Administrator' has very similar variance in meaning also). You seem to put a lot of value in the naming of the role; in fact, your last email indicates this is the *most important* thing to you. Might I ask why?
>
> So I do name the role, and I name it Secretary. If you wish to add other titles onto this such as Developer Advocate, PR *, Administrative *, Moderator, Administrator, Social Media *, with * indicating that manager or assistant could be used interchangeably, then you may if that makes you feel like you better understand the role. Just like the startup industry, where titles mean relatively little because they are a small number of people filling a large number of roles, so everyone in the company calls themselves a 'Director of XYZ', the same is applicable here. It is not the title that is necessarily important, but the actions, role and responsibilities.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_State
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_(United_Kingdom)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Secretary
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary-General_of_the_United_Nations
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Private_Secretary
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Under-Secretary_of_State
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Secretary_to_the_Sovereign
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Secretary
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_secretary
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_(title)
> https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/blob/master/bylaws/003-membership.md#overarching-role
I admit I am unsettled by the idea that somehow the secretaries are seen by Michael, who wrote the role description that has been voted in, as anything even remotely resembling a Secretary-General or a Director. Certainly that was not the impression I had when I voted +0 on the role; if I'd had that impression, I'd have voted -1 and raised objections.
So again, I ask: of those many kinds of secretaries, exactly which one(s) describe the secretarial role here in FIG?
--
Paul M. Jones
http://paul-m-jones.com
--
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/494F53A8-55BC-4931-9C2B-B71D83323E2C%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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/494F53A8-55BC-4931-9C2B-B71D83323E2C%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/php-fig/mW3CDX_rIuw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/CAL9n4XOjvezHJ0bo8Fj2w9Pr8pViTiut1h4F0NXEPFObBdg5Cw%40mail.gmail.com.
Defintion of "Advocate" (for those whom might not have english as their first language) : a person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy.
--
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/7594913a-1ba7-4dde-8e74-a426c3448ebc%40googlegroups.com.
--
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/7DBA8B40-A3C8-4683-8670-9B651A55A719%40gmail.com.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1]
--
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/70D86CC7-7D96-4408-9543-107D95B5DB20%40gmail.com.