--
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/CE422EBB-5903-4629-90CE-874C7C7984A9%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> On May 26, 2016, at 15:43, Michael Cullum <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> As I explained in the previous topic, we did not consult the entire FIG membership for a debate as to whether or not Dracony's vote should be counted because the only impact of including, or excluding, Dracony's vote was in terms of the count on the spreadsheet which we secretaries use to tally and record votes.
Yes, I recall you saying that. My question to you is, where do the secretaries get the power to choose to include or exclude votes, on *any* basis?
> I will respond briefly to the point made in the previous topic "Yes, I confess to thinking the same thing shortly after the role was voted into existence. Perhaps the role description needs to be re-written, by someone who is not going to *hold* that role."
>
> The role was initially conceived at ZendCon, when I was not present
I was present. Among other things, "given charge of choosing which votes to include or exclude" was not one of the duties discussed.
> If there are parts of the role you believe should change, then lets discuss them, but they were not raised previously so could not have been addressed.
I have brought them up in a separate thread
--
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/CAAqcDMhUkS-ASRvvcjTnhyeJ%3DG_9s3bR2c4x0to7z3-RMh06fw%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/1E567A22-8363-49BE-9F99-9A5EB3314607%40tedivm.com.
On 26.05.2016, at 22:47, Paul Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com> wrote:As I explained in the previous topic, we did not consult the entire FIG membership for a debate as to whether or not Dracony's vote should be counted because the only impact of including, or excluding, Dracony's vote was in terms of the count on the spreadsheet which we secretaries use to tally and record votes.
Yes, I recall you saying that. My question to you is, where do the secretaries get the power to choose to include or exclude votes, on *any* basis?
Hi Paul,
As I said to Robert, a couple of emails into this discussion, I added the vote to our sheet and acknowledged that omitting it was not the best course of action. I also previously said in this topic "I've explicitly pointed out that we would ask the membership what they wanted to do about this, implicitly stating that it's the membership's decision to do this action, not the secretaries".
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be but:
(1) Should a decision have needed to be made on Dracony's ability to vote, we would have brought this to the membership, as it's for the membership to decide
(2) We made no decisions on whether his vote was included or excluded as we cannot include or exclude votes.
(3) The vote outcome was unaffected so we didn't see the need to drag out this drama for another four weeks (two week discussion plus potentially a two week vote).
(4) I made a mistake, which I apologise for again, but changed right at the beginning of this debate as soon as two voting members questioned it, in choosing to omit his vote from our record keeping which we did due to not knowing if the vote was legal or not.
So, discussions have started for relevant bylaw changes relating to this incident and unless anyone has anything else constructive to add, or wishes to start a discussion for a vote of no confidence, I don't think there is a huge amount more to say on this matter.
--
Michael Cullum
> --
> 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/421C4F43-8A38-4970-90C1-34D83AE8AA43%40gmail.com.
Thank you,
Samantha
On 27 May 2016 23:11, "Paul Jones" <pmjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mike, man, I like you, but this is just not true:
>
> > On May 27, 2016, at 15:02, Mike van Riel <draco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > someone who doesn’t show that he knows how to collaborate with others
>
> ... since collaborating with others as lead/editor on 3 PSRs, as a sponsor of 1 more, officially as coordinator on 1 more, and presumptively (pending a vote) on yet another, is clearly a sign of -- wait, what?
>
And interestingly enough you get into an unpleasant argument with a significant frequency and with a varying number of people. How would you describe that?
Even now: to me your response seems dismissive and it demonstrates to me an unwillingness to reflect on recent events and consider how your behaviour has influenced these.
I'm not trying to claim that you are not active. But being active does not persé equal being good at collaboration.