On The Behavior Of Secretaries

[Paul Jones]

All,

It was revealed in another thread (linked below) that the secretaries arbitrarily, and without consulting the group, decided not to count the vote of a voting member.

<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!msg/php-fig/TDX--AVR45c/eWMBDUr0DAAJ>

Who among the voting members believes this was appropriate behavior?

Further, I ask Michael Cullum in particular what makes him think he can engage in this kind of arbitrary decision-making without consulting the group?



--

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

[Jordi Boggiano]

On 26/05/2016 21:12, Paul Jones wrote:
> It was revealed in another thread (linked below) that the secretaries arbitrarily, and without consulting the group, decided not to count the vote of a voting member.
>
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!msg/php-fig/TDX--AVR45c/eWMBDUr0DAAJ>
>
> Who among the voting members believes this was appropriate behavior?

He clearly said it was decided not to count it as it had no impact,
while they would have brought it up to the list if it had an impact.
Which means they took a non-decision, and their only mistake was to
mention it instead of just not mentioning it, as the only impact was
that of "corrupting" the Annals of the FIG.

I for one think this thread is a waste of our time.

Cheers

--
Jordi Boggiano
@seldaek - http://seld.be

[Paul Jones]

> On May 26, 2016, at 15:17, Jordi Boggiano <j.bog...@seld.be> wrote:
>
> On 26/05/2016 21:12, Paul Jones wrote:
>> It was revealed in another thread (linked below) that the secretaries arbitrarily, and without consulting the group, decided not to count the vote of a voting member.
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!msg/php-fig/TDX--AVR45c/eWMBDUr0DAAJ>
>>
>> Who among the voting members believes this was appropriate behavior?
>
> He clearly said it was decided not to count it as it had no impact,

So "votes that have no impact" are not to be counted? That strikes me as ... imprudent.

> their only mistake was to mention it instead of just not mentioning it, as the only impact was that of "corrupting" the Annals of the FIG.

It is indicative of their thought process, which clearly needs correcting.

> I for one think this thread is a waste of our time.

Sure; you'll probably want to mute or block it. Others may wish to do so as well.

For those of concerned about these matters, though, it may be worth watching.

[Jordi Boggiano]

On 26/05/2016 21:20, Paul Jones wrote:
>> their only mistake was to mention it instead of just not mentioning it, as the only impact was that of "corrupting" the Annals of the FIG.
>
> It is indicative of their thought process, which clearly needs correcting.

I find that your lack of concern for the hundreds of ML member's time
needs correcting.

[Kayla Daniels]

A few things: 

1. It made no difference to the vote at all. The decision to include/exclude it didn't warrant wasting the time and effort of voting members, or starting another thread or waiting another two weeks to discuss whether or not a vote that makes literally no difference should or should not being counted. 

2. He said it would have been discussed, had it made an impact. 

3. HAD it made an impact and had another thread been started to determine whether or not his vote should have counted, I for one would have agreed with the decision to ignore that vote. As I alluded to elsewhere, that vote was an obvious and blatant conflict of interest and, in my opinion, shouldn't have been counted. 

Also, agree with Jordi that this is a waste of time and with Chris that your tone and framing here are both unnecessarily aggressive. 

Kayla

[Paul Jones]

> On May 26, 2016, at 15:29, Kayla Daniels <kayl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A few things:
>
> 1. It made no difference to the vote at all.

Doesn't matter. All votes of all voting members should be included. Is that somehow a disagreeable position?

> 2. He said it would have been discussed, had it made an impact.

That's not up to a secretary to decide; it's up to the voting members, whom the secretaries serve, to decide.

> 3. HAD it made an impact and had another thread been started to determine whether or not his vote should have counted, I for one would have agreed with the decision to ignore that vote. As I alluded to elsewhere, that vote was an obvious and blatant conflict of interest and, in my opinion, shouldn't have been counted.

Should members be allowed to vote on their own PSR proposals? That's a conflict of interest, too, and yet we do (and should).

> Also, agree with Jordi that this is a waste of time and with Chris that your tone and framing here are both unnecessarily aggressive.

Direct, yes; blunt, yes; aggressive, no.

[Kayla Daniels]

Voting on your own PSR is much different than voting on whether or not your project should remain or be removed from this organization. Voting on your own PSRs is not a conflict of interests. Voting to not have yourself removed clearly is. So yeah, I find the position disagreeable. 

Kayla

[Michael Cullum]

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. The final vote outcome (pass or fail) remained unchanged whether he voted +1,-1, abstained or did not vote. It was not so much a conscious decision to exclude his vote, but to avoid making a decision without a full debate so it was never put on the sheet.

In the interest of being transparent and making it clear it was not an accidental omission I clarified this when I posted the overall result of the vote because as secretaries we are held accountable to the membership and transparency is core to this. This was not a covert decision, but simply an explanation of why I had recorded it on our records as I had. A few people had asked as to the legality of his vote, and ultimately the truth is we never needed to make a decision on whether it was, but I had to put something on our records.

Had whether or not Dracony's vote affected the outcome, after the vote had closed, I would have brought up the topic for debate and then potentially a vote if required, but as the value of his vote, or whether he voted or not, didn't affect any portion of the vote's final outcome, I didn't see the need for another discussion of bureaucracy which would have potentially taken 4 weeks. I believed it was in the interest of the FIG to move on, not make a decision either way, and focus on the current PSRs (Particularly PSR-15 coming in, PSR-14 forming a working group, PSR-13 nearing review and PSR-12 which Korvin and I are working on the survey for), potential future PSRs (Async) and future potential structural changes however I did note we should change the bylaw to clarify its position for future.

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 therefore neither suggested the role, nor formed the initial roles and responsibilities) although Joe Ferguson was present (who then advised on the final production of the text in addition to a number of other people present). All I then did is take the notes of that meeting and reword it up into a bylaw, and I then made changes as requested by the membership of the FIG  and I don't recall rejecting any changes. The bylaw then was voted on and was one of the most unanimous votes in the past year or so. Myself, Joe and Samantha were then nominated and voted upon, to which the votes were then added up and verified by a number of FIG members. In FIG 3.0 I believe there are a few wording adjustments Larry made that were picked up on after it was voted in but primarily there are no real changes to the role. 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.

--

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/CE422EBB-5903-4629-90CE-874C7C7984A9%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Paul Jones]

> 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.

[Robert Hafner]

I think that the secretaries making this decision was a mistake. 

Not counting a vote is a huge deal. What's the point of having votes if they can be arbitrary discounted by the Secretaries? Lets make sure we're clear about this- whether it matters or not towards the final outcome, they did remove a vote.

In my opinion the secretaries should stick with the status quo, or bring it up to the list. In this case we've never refused to let a member vote before, so by doing so now they have unilaterally changed how this organization is run.

This was inappropriate. I think the best result going forward would be for the secretaries to undo the mistake they made, and then for us to clarify both the rules around voting and the rules about what powers the secretaries are allowed to bestow upon themselves.

Rob

[Michael Cullum]

On 26 May 2016 at 21:47, Paul Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?

We were not excluding his vote from anything other than our records, where it was not recorded because we were not sure if the vote was legal or not, and no discussion took place with the membership to decide if it was or not so we did not make a decision without the membership to exclude his vote, or include his vote, but rather leave it blank.

 

> 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.

 

As I have said, on a number of occasions, we did not exclude his vote from anything other than our record keeping, should his vote have affected whether the vote would pass or fail (which is, as far as the voting protocol is concerned in my personal interpretation, the only thing that does matter), we would have asked the membership what they wanted to do in this matter. We never claimed this power, in fact, 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.

 

>  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

 

Forgive me, at the time of my typing that email those topics had not been posted. Thanks for starting those discussions.

 

--

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

Thanks,

Michael Cullum

[Paul Jones]

> On May 26, 2016, at 16:03, Michael Cullum <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote:
>
>> On 26 May 2016 at 21:47, Paul Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> We were not excluding his vote from anything other than our records, where it was not recorded because we were not sure if the vote was legal or not

What, given all past experience of voting in this group, made you think it could possibly not-be legal? And what made you think you could opine on its legality, one way or the other, given that you answer to the voting members?

You also said this earlier: "It was not so much a conscious decision to exclude his vote, but to avoid making a decision without a full debate so it was never put on the sheet."

That you would unconsciously "*not* put a vote on the sheet" instead of unconsciously "put a vote on the sheet" is disheartening. It is the *opposite* of impartial and neutral. It is picking-and-choosing, and very definitely an overstepping of the bounds of your role as secretary.

[Kayla Daniels]

This thread has gotten 12 posts in just over an hour. 

Let's work on that self throttling thing we do. 

For reference: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/php-fig/agreement$20limit/php-fig/fhoYjwufhwE/cCtkmhilmkEJ

Kayla

[Robert Hafner]

Repeatedly saying you didn't exclude it while also saying you didn't record it doesn't make sense to me. Either to vote counted and was recorded or it was didn't count and wasn't recorded.

There is absolutely nothing I can see that suggests his vote was "illegal". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but here we have a claim with no evidence at all.

Is there any specific reason why you continue to refuse to count the vote? It's obvious that the members either don't care or disagree with you, so your refusal to budge on this is becoming more of an issue.

Rob

--
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.

[Michael Cullum]

I don't know quite what you are talking about Robert?

I changed the sheet to include the vote 3 hours before this topic was even created and stated I had done so in an email to the list, on the voting topic, at 17:50, on my second email into this discussion which has now consists of ~40 emails.

--

Michael C

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/1E567A22-8363-49BE-9F99-9A5EB3314607%40tedivm.com.

[Benni Mack]

Hey all,

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?

This is running in circles TBH. Additionally, this is again a "we make a huge discussion out of nothing" topic, whereas it does not matter.

From the outside (non FIG member) it looks like: If there *would* be an impact, the secretaries would ask the whole group - but apparently this situation is not set in stone. If you need that set in stone, the FIG could do so, but this is classic "bureaucracy over trust" topic. Why does everything need to be set in stone? Because people don't trust each other. This is a sad thing to see within this mailing list. The FIG members voted to have these secretaries in place, and thus trust them to do the right thing. The secretaries behave just like that, if there would be something where all members need to be included they would say so, otherwise informing everybody is just fine. What's the big deal?

Maybe FIG needs a CoC, if discussions like that bubble up all the time, disturbing the actual goals of the group.

The more these kinds of discussions come up, the less I'm (and probably the silent majority) interested in collaborating with FIG creating more standards where it makes sense.

All the best,

Benni.

TYPO3 Core Team Leader

https://typo3.org

[Phil Sturgeon]

Paul, you are spamming people. Stop.

The noise in here of late is getting absolutely ridiculous. This completely unnecessary whining, complaining, arguing, and all-round drama is an embarrassment to the group, and the secretaries need to step their game up to combat it.

Great work by the secretaries so far, but please start locking these threads faster.

[Paul Jones]

> On May 27, 2016, at 03:29, Phil Sturgeon <pjstu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Paul, you are spamming people. Stop.

Phil, you are spamming in return. Stop.

> The noise in here of late is getting absolutely ridiculous.

So stop contributing to it.

> Great work by the secretaries so far, but please start locking these threads faster.

Yes, by all means, shut down conversations faster. (/me rolls eyes)

[Woody Gilk]

It would really be better for everyone if Phil and Paul would stop
addressing each other on this ML. Just my $0.02.
--
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/358F9E76-9749-45DD-80FE-B330FEE9F6C1%40gmail.com.

[Paul Jones]

> On May 27, 2016, at 08:53, Woody Gilk <woody...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It would really be better for everyone if Phil and Paul would stop
> addressing each other on this ML. Just my $0.02.

I am totally fine with that; he can stop initiating conversations with me or mentioning me (directly or indirectly!) in his comments, and in turn I won't to reply to him.

[Kayla Daniels]

This thread is reaching pretty childish levels. 

Is this discussion really necessary? What outcome are we looking for here? If we do need to have this discussion can someone please indicate what the expected take-aways/outcomes are supposed to be? 

Anything to make this a constructive conversation that doesn't reflect poorly on this organization in the way that the current tone is doing (In my opinion). 

Kayla

[Paul Jones]

> On May 27, 2016, at 11:50, Kayla Daniels <kayl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anything to make this a constructive conversation that doesn't reflect poorly on this organization in the way that the current tone is doing (In my opinion).

Cool; let's get back to my (as-yet-unanswered) question to Michael. It is:

"Where do the secretaries get the power to choose to include or exclude votes, on *any* basis?"

The correct answer, of course, is "from nowhere" (or alternatively "they don't have that power"), but it would be good to hear Michael explicitly give that answer himself.

[Woody Gilk]

C'mon people, this is ridiculous. It's clear that Michael has
acknowledged what he did and why he did it and everyone knows that
secretaries don't have any ability to exclude or otherwise not count
votes.

Focusing on the secretaries _when they had to make a judgement call_
is not the actual issue that needs to be resolved. The bylaws
regarding secretaries are not the sound of the problem. The bylaws
should be updated to make it clear that a member cannot vote against
their own expulsion/nullifcation/excommunication.

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

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Christopher Pitt <cgp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh! So you're looking for him to publicly prostrate himself. Good to know.

>
> --
> 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/1bb0ef50-b4bb-491b-a4ad-793b15879df4%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Jones]

> On May 27, 2016, at 11:59, Christopher Pitt <cgp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So you're looking for him to publicly prostrate himself.

Acknowledgement of a mistake is not a "prostration." A simple "my bad, won't do it again" would suffice.

[Kayla Daniels]

"The bylaws should be updated to make it clear that a member cannot vote against their own expulsion/nullifcation/excommunication. "

A PR is open now to fix this. Do we need to have a 2 week discussion about it? I can start that thread. That at least would be something constructive that comes out of this. 

PR for reference: https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/762/files

[Christopher Pitt]

Paul: I apologise for venting. You frustrate me, but that's no excuse for me saying nasty things or using snark. I don't care to interact with you anymore, which is the main reason I withdrew from this group. Please hold me accountable to treating you professionally.

[Paul Jones]

> On May 27, 2016, at 12:29, Christopher Pitt <cgp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Paul: I apologise for venting. You frustrate me, but that's no excuse for me saying nasty things or using snark. I don't care to interact with you anymore, which is the main reason I withdrew from this group. Please hold me accountable to treating you professionally.

No harm no foul. All is well between you and me, as far as I am concerned. :-)

[Jordi Boggiano]

On 27/05/2016 18:19, Christopher Pitt wrote:
> For the love of God, Michael. Please just tell Paul what he wants to
> hear so this shit can stop.

If it comes to this, I'd rather kindly ask Paul to pack his toys and go
play somewhere else. We are not subjects to His Majesty, and throwing
tantrums on the list, no matter how well argued and calm they appear on
the surface, should not be tolerated.

I have had it with the passive aggressive BS to be honest. Paul, you are
toxic as hell. It's not about you or your ideas, it's the way you
communicate that always leads to a shit-show. I don't know if you do it
willingly or not. If not I suggest you reconsider your communication
style. If yes well, enjoy that smirk.

Cheers

--
Jordi Boggiano
@seldaek - http://seld.be

[Paul Jones]

> On May 27, 2016, at 12:46, Jordi Boggiano <j.bog...@seld.be> wrote:
>
> Paul, you are toxic as hell. It's not about you or your ideas, it's the way you communicate that always leads to a shit-show.

If people didn't behave improperly, I wouldn't have to call them on it. I'm not the only one here that thinks the not-counting of a vote was improper.

[Jordi Boggiano]

On 27/05/2016 18:57, Paul Jones wrote:
>
>> On May 27, 2016, at 12:46, Jordi Boggiano <j.bog...@seld.be> wrote:
>>
>> Paul, you are toxic as hell. It's not about you or your ideas, it's the way you communicate that always leads to a shit-show.
>
> If people didn't behave improperly, I wouldn't have to call them on
> it. I'm not the only one here that thinks the not-counting of a vote
> was improper.

As I said, I'm not strictly against your point, but the way you make it.

Don't try to re-frame my post to be about the secretaries behavior, it
was about yours. I am all for civility and I think I usually do a decent
job of remaining calm in the face of some of the worst online behavior,
but you manage to drive me as well as many others, nuts.

You could take it as a sign that maybe the way you communicate isn't
effective and causes more conflict and damage than it's worth, or you
could not give a damn, deflect on the secretaries and move on with your
life. I was hoping that seeing this message from someone else than the
usual club of Paul-naysayers would nudge you towards the former.