Hi all,
Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting members, former project representatives and well known community members alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or pleasant to be involved with.
To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, we’ll quote from those who have complained:
“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of respect and members for the FIG”
“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or get involved with to the PHP FIG”
“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting the FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this is just disruptive though.”
The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
Ross Tuck - Community figure
Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
Rafael Dohms - Community figure
Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
In total the number of complaints about this individual totals about 20 however there have also been other concerns aired about this individual publicly and a number of individuals who contacted us said they in turn had heard complaints about Paul from others; as a result of this, and being explicitly asked what we can do/to do something about this situation, including requests of this specific course of action we are starting this discussion on PMJ’s membership. It is not the role of the secretaries to handle this kind of thing or pass judgement on member projects so we are posting this topic to invite discussion from both sides of the table out in the open.
We believe having this discussion going on for too long will not be conducive to the FIG so a vote [to request a new representative from Aura, which will result in Aura’s expulsion unless a new representative is provided] will then commence unless a conclusion has been reached agreeable by all sides before that point. That vote should then put an end to the current situation.
To clarify further, this topic does not indicate the opinion of secretaries that this project representative should be expelled, but that we have been asked by a significant number of voting members and community members to do something about it so we are moving those complaints into public for discussion by voting members as we can do nothing but move the discussion and complaints to the mailing list for the attention of voting members.
I know this is a difficult discussion to avoid making personal, but please try and keep it civil and respect self-throttling. People have requested we ensure we always have two week discussion periods before voting on matters which means that we will not lock this topic unless we have no other option open to us but will be issuing temporary mailing list bans on anyone not respecting rules about civility or self throttling; more than 3 responses in a 24 hour period will result in a 24 hour temporary ban, as will repeatedly making posts that cross boundaries into flaming. If rules are broken multiple times, we will increase the time period of bans.
Many thanks,
The Secretaries
This is an important moment for FIG, as we look to hold one of the group's founders accountable for his actions. I therefore want to lay out why it is imperative that we do so.
"The culture of any organization is shaped by the worst behavior the leader is willing to tolerate."
-- Gruenter and Whitaker (undated), as circulated widely on the Internet in the past year
By design, FIG doesn't have a single leader. It was founded as unstructured as possible. That means that all FIG representatives are, collectively, "leaders", for better or worse. That means the culture of FIG is defined by the worst behavior we are willing to tolerate.
Let's review some of Paul Jones' recent behavior:
* Repeated passive-aggressive snarking at Secretary Michael Cullum about not commenting in voting threads[1][2], specifically when...
* Being called out by the Secretary about claiming to speak for a series projects that are not FIG members, but simply small libraries he happens to maintain. As has been stated dozens of times, FIG's bylaws are very clear that, at this time, projects are represented by people; People aren't members by virtue of having a long resume, although Paul routinely declares his intention to ignore that fact. The call out was on the voting thread as a correction of Paul's presumptive behavior.
* Repeated, continued harassment of the Secretaries over a minor procedural point, even after an apology was given within hours of the original point in question. For the record, I believe the Secretaries did make the wrong call in the Roman Tsjupa expulsion vote as excluding the individual in question is not supported by the bylaws, even though it ought to be in the future. But that does not justify the repeated haranguing that resulted, led primarily by Paul. (I count 37 posts, just by Paul, on the relevant threads in the span of about 3 days.)
* Paul's primary objection to the FIG 3 proposal was an oblique claim that more rules == bad[3]. In itself that is not a crime. In the past, he has been a proponent of letting reasonable people make judgment calls rather than having lots of rules[4]. That sounds great on the surface, because it gives the maximum leeway to the calm bully to seem "reasonable" without accountability. Of course, as soon as the Secretaries exercised their authority to make a judgment call, his response was to call for "more rules" to force more minutia into a public discussion and vote, where it is easier for a reasonable-seeming bully to get his way. That is, Paul is a hypocrite.
* His ongoing feud with Phil Sturgeon (which is certainly bidirectional) has spilled onto the list repeatedly; I cannot recall seeing Phil post of late without a snarky or insulting response from Paul Jones.
* After the inappropriate and off-topic attack on Secretary Samantha Quinones by an anonymous party[5], his response was to obliquely attack... well, anyone who spoke in favor of Samantha[6]. His claim to the contrary notwithstanding, his post was, in essence, a hypothetical strawman against everyone present. (For the record, I do not believe the anonymous individual in question was Paul. I do not know who it was.) Of course, that isn't surprising given that...
* He
openly attacked Secretary Candidate Michael Cullum as "against
freedom of speech"[7] for daring to speak out in favor of the
proposed PHP Internals Code of Conduct. Since he saw it fit to
drag Internals into a FIG process, I will note that Paul's own
behavior in the Internals Code of Conduct discussion was abhorrent
and insulting. Declaring anyone who even remotely supported a CoC
as "fascist", "anti-freedom", etc., repeatedly, is not conducive
to a mature discussion. Disagreeing with the PHP Internals CoC is
fine, and Paul or anyone else is entitled to that position.
Vitriolic attacks in the name of that position are not
appropriate. Those are the actions of a bully.
And the above is only going back to the start of this year. Going back further, we see the same pattern of behavior: seemingly calm passive-aggressive bullying that technically stays within the letter of the law, such as it is, but is clearly designed to intimidate and belittle opponents, and objection to any structural changes or actions that would restrict his ability to do so.
His passive-aggressive behavior extends to technical discussions as well. For instance:
* Apparently Paul feels it's appropriate to slam those who are trying to improve FIG's process[8], based on feedback from the community that he even sought[9], when complimenting a technical proposal. Yet if you look at his own activity on this list in the last 6 months, it is 99% process/politics, not technical discussion.
* "Intellectual self-stimulation" is his description for activity on PSR-12 that doesn't follow the process he considers preferable. That's on top of, in the same thread, attacking Korvin Santo (PSR-12 Editor) for the same, not doing precisely the tasks that Paul saw fit to demand[10]. When called out for it, his response was that he was "exhorting the PSR-12 team to excellence".
* Going through my mail archive, I think the last time Paul actually commented on the technical content of a PSR proposal, rather than the meta process around it, was in August, when talking about PSR-11 (containers). (More recent nods to technical content would be arguing if non-PSR-7-using projects like Symfony mattered when discussing middlewares, when talking to Fabien Potencier, the project lead of Symfony.) So despite his exhortations that we need more tech, less process, he appears to be as much of a problem himself as anyone. It is possible I missed another more recent example, but the difficulty in finding more examples should be telling.
The net result is people being driven away from FIG, including leading members of the PHP Community. Several of them have spoken out above. I hope that others that have remained silent will do so.
Such behavior contributes to a toxic and hostile atmosphere in and around FIG, discourages participation, and generally contributes to a flippant and contemptuous attitude towards FIG in the community at large.
The bylaws permit FIG to eject representatives who in their judgment, are "acting inappropriately and to the detriment of PHP-FIG's ability to meet its objectives"[11]. I believe the preceding paragraph demonstrates that such behavior does exactly that.
None of the above should be taken to dispute that Paul is a sharp, intelligent developer. He is, and I actually agree with him on most technical issues. Nor is it to suggest that Paul has not also contributed positively to FIG over the years as well. He has. However, that does not excuse inappropriate and toxic behavior. The phrase here is "Jeremy Clarkson Effect":
https://blog.vanillaforums.com/help/how-to/dealing-with-toxic-community-member/
Paul Jones is, at this time, a net-negative for FIG. It is indeed possible that he doesn't realize just how damaging he is, and that the above behavior is unintentional. I do not know if that is the case. In the end, it doesn't matter. The behavior is real, the toxic effect is real, and our responsibility to state that we will not tolerate it is real.
I
will be voting in favor of Paul's removal from FIG.
--Larry Garfield
[1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/6rZPZ8VglIM/uf3JHrgJNgAJ
[2] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/f2-FppEpRJs/PvA5WZoKNgAJ
[3] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/h3wrQePdzfc/3ryZCAtlCAAJ
[4] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/FV4aL-noVZk/mg8qcuAtCgAJ
[5] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/K9KyPzCNmss/HIEJG7YPAgAJ
[6] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/K9KyPzCNmss/nkNG6vxnAgAJ
[7] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/wPePxyC8vHA/Czwu80icEAAJ
[8] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/vTtGxdIuBX8/dIG7KVCADQAJ
[9] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/php-fig/oqO1ZH5tJKU%5B76-100%5D
[10] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/php-fig/VVZe7eI0Clg%5B51-75%5D
[11] http://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/membership/#voting-representatives
I personally have found the administration on this mailing list to be subpar at best over the past few months and I often feel it has actively contributed to the problems. I think this thread is case and point.
This could have been handled in a much better way. I really hope over the next few years the fig can pull itself back together.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PHP/comments/2eh7c7/squirt_php_dependency_injection_with_parameter/
I had an idea on something I'd found useful, wrote up a library, and was mocked pretty hard by him. Seeing that he was part of the establishment (FIG), I figured he spoke for the community. It was really not fun to be immediately confronted with a condescending debate, when I just wanted to build something interesting and useful. Have since found folks more welcoming in the React.js community....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/f8af18ce-59a1-4b33-9adc-6075cdd5dd57%40googlegroups.com.--
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/w38tCU4mdgU/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.
--
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/CAAqcDMhe-Uk%3Dwwcu_z7VFY9Uy12NsTQ4CnoXSFGfafBDpQscww%40mail.gmail.com.
On 24 Jun 2016, at 18:32, Adam Culp <thege...@gmail.com> wrote:OK, this is going too far. This is wrong. But I will weigh in because silence creates the perception of approval, and I do not approve.I would add the following to the discussion:
- Paul is passionate about the FIG. On a technical level he has added a great deal, and continues to do so.
- Paul is very active, and responds quickly and concisely. He is not afraid to dive in when emotions are high, or his view is controversial. This can inflame others that are passionate about a given topic. Comments made by Paul can "feel" confrontational when things are passionate. But upon reading many of Paul's comments, at a later time when emotions have subsided, they are not confrontational as originally perceived.
- Paul has been known to include politics and other topics in comments, generally instigated by others.
- There are bound to be personality conflicts in any group. Paul and some others in, and out of, the FIG have personality conflicts due to political concerns and otherwise. This is not cause for expulsion.
- Paul has political views that some disagree with, and freely shares them outside of the group. This is not cause for expulsion.
- We should be focused on what happens inside this group, and not be overly influenced by buzz from the general public. This is our decision.
- The fact that others have chosen to leave the FIG when small conflicts arose is more of a reflection on them, not Paul.
We are adults discussing passionate things, and there will be conflict. Expulsion should not be the answer, otherwise the FIG will become a group of muppets and like-minded people agreeing on everything which would carry no value.When the vote starts I urge folks to not simply join the pitchfork mob, but weigh the accusations and evidence from a non-emotional point of view.
I must state, to start with, that I'm opposed to an expulsion, if not, just for the sake of the fact that PMJ should be able to post here afterwards anyway, like anyone else, so that wouldn't resolve the main issue, that is profess and effective communication.
I do agree to the fact that some degree of confrontation is needed when a technical (and often difficult) decision needs to be made, but an async and written medium like this one warrants a special and additional level of care and empathy, due to the limited ways of expressions that we have at hand. On my opinion, PMJ has demonstrated not enough empathy and professional respect in this mailing list and the FIG repository on Github, as many others have pointed out in this thread already; and I say this even if often I agreed with his point of view; in fact, I was just made uncomfortable just by his way of express his ideas, without taking into account in any way how the other part would have received that.
In the end, I think that a change of pace from him would be the best solution for everyone, so we wouldn't have to loose someone with such competence, without having all this issues with him, that are like an handbrake on al the FIG's efforts on putting out new PSRs.
Thanks for your patience.
Robert,
Off the top of my head (without digging through every medium and logs of each instance we were contacted) I think almost all were asking explicitly for expulsion and almost all [including Mike] also saw the email draft to make sure it was not conveying anything they had not intended. It is intended to say these people complained as they believe there is a problem that needs a resolution (of some kind, an expulsion if it comes to it). The next step in that is having an open and honest discussion, which we are right now, and if it still cannot be resolved, we can have a vote on expulsion, which is the only thing we can really do if discussions do not resolve the issue here.
I'll let those listed clarify their own intent further as I do not wish to put words in mouths and I am aware many are currently at DPC and it is now the weekend so replies may take some time.
Thanks,
Michael
P.S. Sorry for the top post, I'm on my phone.
--
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/3375FE12-BE5B-4086-975B-9275EDD135C6%40tedivm.com.
On 25 Jun 2016, at 11:07, Michael Cullum <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote:Robert,
Off the top of my head (without digging through every medium and logs of each instance we were contacted) I think almost all were asking explicitly for expulsion and almost all [including Mike] also saw the email draft to make sure it was not conveying anything they had not intended. It is intended to say these people complained as they believe there is a problem that needs a resolution (of some kind, an expulsion if it comes to it). The next step in that is having an open and honest discussion, which we are right now, and if it still cannot be resolved, we can have a vote on expulsion, which is the only thing we can really do if discussions do not resolve the issue here.
I'll let those listed clarify their own intent further as I do not wish to put words in mouths and I am aware many are currently at DPC and it is now the weekend so replies may take some time.
Thanks,
MichaelP.S. Sorry for the top post, I'm on my phone.
On 25 Jun 2016 1:47 a.m., "Robert Hafner" <ted...@tedivm.com> wrote:
> First of all: my name is on the list as someone who has indicated that there is a situation that needs to be resolved; expulsion would definitely not be my preference since Paul is indeed an active member, even though his most recent contributions to this list have given me the impression that he is no longer active when it comes to furthering PSRs but rather some kind of political agenda.
Could the Secretaries jump in here and specify which voting members on the list explicitly asked for expulsion? My understanding from reading the first message was that all of the people on that list explicitly wanted him out. I am sure that others on the list may have also misunderstood this, so I think it’s important to make this clear.
Rob
As a side note, since throttling is coming up so frequent lately I just want to remind you guys that we're developers here. We can finally build a platform that enforces throttling on a technical level, like reddit does. Almost every forum software has this feature. This would solve ALL the problems with the flame threads really. And we could leave the IRC as a channel for politics wars.
--
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/w38tCU4mdgU/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/BAA6DC01-5486-4E3E-991E-DE388AE1C18A%40mikevanriel.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/f8af18ce-59a1-4b33-9adc-6075cdd5dd57%40googlegroups.com.
--
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/w38tCU4mdgU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/f1a925a9-f494-4df0-a2a8-a7b9348dd6f6%40googlegroups.com.
I'd really planned on sitting this thread out, but this last email...
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Joshua Drake <linux...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A lot of people who make complaints are the very same people that are actually
> the ones disrupting the collaborative space. They do this passively, likely
> without realizing it. They do it by:
>
> 1. Having thin skin
> 2. Taking umbrage because somebody doesn't agree with them
> 3. Having a chip on their shoulder about $X
> 4. Allowing #1-#3 influence their ability to be productive.
>
> We do have is a list of people who are upset, perhaps rightfully so. However,
> doesn't it strike you as odd that those people weren't willing to stand up for
> themselves and instead asking a steering committee to deal with the problem? My
> experienced guess is that *most* (but not all) of this brouhaha is because of #4
> above.
Your outline above is a classic example of victim blaming.
--
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/w38tCU4mdgU/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/2ecc7edf-907c-504d-520f-2358bf50e26f%40lange.demon.co.uk.
I wanted to swing by and thank everyone for keeping this conversation so constructive. Many people like Larry, Michael and Matt have said exactly what I would have loved to have said, but done it far more eloquently. Sadly, I find the amount of victim blaming going on in here to be bizarre and gross. The FIG has lost so many good quality contributors, all because of one specific person, and none of them needed to be lost. You can have the thickest skin in the world, but eventually you get fed up with it and wander off. People always do this, and I understand that when somebody quits it's very tempting to say "Come on, don't take it personally, just get on with it!" but when that person is politebullying you with multiple acidic emails, battering his point home and patronizing you at every given opportunity, it soon becomes tempting to just work on other stuff. Open source is hard, and time consuming. Whilst you certainly don't need everyone to agree on everything, and whilst I'd be the last person to suggest that every single email needs to contain a million bunnies and hugs, there is a limit. How you communicate with people is important, and I've tried to help Paul with this in the past. He often has a simple enough point, but he makes it in awful ways. I've been working hard on my communication problems (Paul threads nonwithstanding) and I've been doing very well. Paul on the other hand seems uninterested in listening or learning when concerns are raised. Instead he uses snarky against anyone who has "wronged" him. I suffered this for god knows how long after withdrawing the PSR-4 vote and it's not pretty. Working with Paul on PSR-4 was a long way from fun. Despite that, Beau, Larry, Anthony, a bunch of contributors and myself managed to get the job done. I don't want others to continue to suffer through working in those conditions, and will be happy to see any other representative Aura has to offer. Beyond just making his point poorly, Paul often makes that point over and over and over until you either agree or give up. He's not trying to explain it in a new way to maybe help you understand his point, he's just banging on the same drum over and over. That might work on Reddit, but it's not what anyone wants in the FIG. "Really, posting too much?!" has been a common incredulous response by his supporters. Some people say "If you stop using a mailing list, then who cares about how much they post!" The point is, many people want to know whats happening, what is being worked on, what decisions are being made. It's this reason we even have a mailing list, and when two people need to work something out they go onto IRC and come back with their results. If everything was done on IRC we'd have a LOT of logs to scan through to find the signal in the noise, and that sounds awful. So we use a mailing list, and people need to respect that and keep their number of posts to something reasonable. Paul can't do that, and has been the first person to be banned by the new secretaries, a power that he continues to assert is being used selectively. It's not selective if you're the only one causing such a problem that it gets used on you... Finally, this has absolutely nothing to do with some big gender politics conspiracy as so many have assured themselves. A CoC was proposed for PHP and it's still being worked on, but that has nothing to do with the FIG. Getting Paul booted from the FIG wouldn't make PHP have a CoC, and if you think anyone is doing this for revenge then... well we really do have better things to be doing. Paul is just one vote in many, so him disagreeing about CoCs, or global warming, or one of the 8 million other things we disagree about, has zero relevance. He's got a vote, other projects have a vote, so who cares. Having him replaced as representative literally only means that if he continues to post the ways he's been posting for the last few months, the secretaries can give him a ban. If I were spamming out a bajillion emails, being passive aggressive to half the mailing list, causing ~20 complaints from a huge roster of past and present members, and forcing contributors out of the group, I'd expect to be banned too. In fact, just the spamming a bajillion emails part should get me banned. This entire thing is about fostering a productive environment, where people can get on with things without feeling bullied or constantly under attack. If Paul can change his ways then that would solve the problem, but he has shown time and time again that he is completely uninterested in changing his ways, and is unable to even acknowledge any sort of problem on his side. I know I'm rude to him and that makes me look wildly hypocritical, but I have tried with him so many times that I just can't anymore. I'm not polite to bullies, and it makes me really happy to see other people attempting to solve the problem. I put a lot of time and effort into the FIG when I was part of it, and I'll be happy to see it grow and improve. Most people understand that the FIG cannot do that without change, and this vote will be a huge step towards making progress possible. FIG 3.0 can then move forward, and the whole PHP community can benefit in turn.
There are really no victims here besides from Paul who is being attacked.Paul, while having strong opinions and arguing a lot, has not done anything that would warrant calling anyone a "victim".And yes, if you engage into a heated argument on the internet it can be taxing, of course. But calling yourself a victim is really over the top in this case.
--
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/w38tCU4mdgU/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/CAGOJM6JOycbpmrFK1Z60LgHqmSqnXKaXVvZzxrehorWVPNHf2A%40mail.gmail.com.
if I where Paul, I wouldn't respond neither. There is nothing for him to defend. He is who he is, it's up to the community to welcome him the way he is, or exclude him for that very reason.Paul knows what he's talking about, and he is passionate about this project. The fact that some personal dynamics are hurting and some people take offence by how Paul is expressing him self is the real problem, imo. I believe this is what people before me are referring to when they say "grow a thicker skin".
The case against Paul has been presented, as so, very week and more drama has taken place in the community by the people mentioned in the first post. I therefor move to exclusion for this people instead.....
...I'm ofc not serious, doing so would be just as stupid as this conversation was from the very beginning, and ultimately self defeating for FIG. I therefor urge everyone to stop posting here or in any other poo fights that may follow in the future. This whole situation could have been handled by the people involved sending Paul a message explaining what issues they have with him, and how it's hurting the project. That should have been the response by the secretaries, not this thread.
I for one like the heated discussions and believe it's constructive and educational to take part of or read. Unless it's about politics or what ever this could be called...
Erik:
On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 10:02:17 AM UTC+1, Erik Landvall wrote:if I where Paul, I wouldn't respond neither. There is nothing for him to defend. He is who he is, it's up to the community to welcome him the way he is, or exclude him for that very reason.Paul knows what he's talking about, and he is passionate about this project. The fact that some personal dynamics are hurting and some people take offence by how Paul is expressing him self is the real problem, imo. I believe this is what people before me are referring to when they say "grow a thicker skin".Hey Erik. It's not about taking offense, it's about consistently ruining discussions by spamming over and over with passive aggressive comments, stalling things until he's had his way. No amount of thicker skin or ignoring can really solve the problems with Paul's methods of communication, and no amount of "suck it up" is going to bring back all those members.
Even if Paul is not doing anything wrong, the way he's doing whatever he is doing is having a strong adverse effect on members, making them quit in droves. Even if all those members are "wrong" for quitting, they're still quitting! At this rate it will just be Paul left, sat here by himself agreeing with himself, and everyone else just gone because they're sick of it. This is not the FIG the PHP wants or needs.
The case against Paul has been presented, as so, very week and more drama has taken place in the community by the people mentioned in the first post. I therefor move to exclusion for this people instead.....This is not a court of law where evidence needs to be judged, simply having 20 complaints against him is enough, and a majority vote will support it or throw it out. If anyone has that many current and ex members saying he's a problem, then that in and of itself is a problem worth taking action on. If any such number of complaints were made against any other current member, I'd expect the secretaries to take action too.The names on the list you're associating with drama are probably no coincidence. We've had enough mud flung at us to be used to it by now, and having our names in the public eye for one more round of drama before the FIG can finally vote to remove its main source of drama sounds fine with me. There are plenty of names not on that list, and none of those people are as well known for being involved in public discussions about the FIG. Don't just call trying to solve large controversial problems drama because that suits your narrative. :)
...I'm ofc not serious, doing so would be just as stupid as this conversation was from the very beginning, and ultimately self defeating for FIG. I therefor urge everyone to stop posting here or in any other poo fights that may follow in the future. This whole situation could have been handled by the people involved sending Paul a message explaining what issues they have with him, and how it's hurting the project. That should have been the response by the secretaries, not this thread.Multiple people have tried this with Paul, in various ways. Assuming this vote and discussion period was the first approach is bizarre and entirely inaccurate.
I for one like the heated discussions and believe it's constructive and educational to take part of or read. Unless it's about politics or what ever this could be called...This is definitively not about politics, this is about the inability to hold constructive conversations or maintain members due to one toxic, passive aggressive, individual. That really is it. Don't jump to conspiracy. :)
On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 3:53:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Cullum wrote:
Hi all,
Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of
voting members, former project representatives and well known
community members alike approach us regarding a situation they
believe is being detrimental to the continued success of the FIG
and the harmony in the group. It is, essentially, the impact of
Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list and the impact his
contribution is having on making this group welcoming or pleasant
to be involved with.
To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common
grievances, we’ll quote from those who have complained:
*
“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore
directly affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
*
“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss
of respect and members for the FIG”
*
“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
*
“The presence of this individual makes me not want to
contribute or get involved with to the PHP FIG”
*
“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a
threads lately to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with
other over small meaningless things. Sometimes he might even
be right but honestly I don't even care whether he is right or
wrong. They is just plainly disrupting the FIG at this stage.
He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this is just
disruptive though.”
The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody
asked not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy
to be named):
*
Ross Tuck - Community figure
*
Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
*
Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
*
Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
*
Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
*
Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
*
Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
*
Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
*
Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community
figure
*
Rafael Dohms - Community figure
*
Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
*
'offense' is based on things that could only /potentially/ be
/implied/ by his statements, rather than the content in and of itself.
When a person makes a statement, should they be judged by their own
intent, or how they're understood? Charitably, or by the worst
interpretation that can be manufactured against them? As the father of
a child with autism, this is a question I'm confronted with nearly
every day. What kind of society do we wish to create?
For all the preaching about empathy, I can't say I see much practicing
here. In fact, in many of the threads held up as evidence, I see
knee-jerk, uncharitable reactions from people who clearly haven't
taken the time to consider what he's actually saying.
Yeah, Paul's opposition to CoCs has been pretty vociferous and has
spilled over onto this list occasionally. Yeah, sometimes he prolongs
unproductive discussions by /insisting/ on responding to personal
attacks, where someone else might have just let it go.
And yeah, Paul is a stickler for the rules, if ever I've met one. He's
also one of the most consistent, principled people I know. He has a
tendency to abstract specific incidents out into general rules, which
people often seem to miss (sort of hilarious, considering the
context), so it gets interpreted as an attack or off-topic.
If this is about tone, maybe find a medium like Skype where it doesn't
have to be left to the imagination. If it's about email chatter, make
a policy to take back-and-forth discussions to a logged IRC channel
and keep thread noise to a necessary minimum. We work in tech. There
are a zillion solutions to these problems. But if the plan is to turn
FIG into a popularity contest for the in-crowd, hey, that's fine. Just
don't expect it to maintain any credibility as a professional
standards body.
After spending ~a year mostly away from Open Source because I was busy
trying to keep my wife out of prison, maybe my barometer for what it
means to be a victim or feel offended is just different now. I don't
know. Or, maybe it doesn't have to be about that. I've had beers with
most of the people involved or referenced in this discussion. You're
all wonderful people. Figure out a way to move past this. It doesn't
have to be /this/ hard.
--
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
<mailto:php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:php...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Hi all,
Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting members, former project representatives and well known community members alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or pleasant to be involved with.
To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, we’ll quote from those who have complained:
“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of respect and members for the FIG”
“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or get involved with to the PHP FIG”
“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting the FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this is just disruptive though.”
The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
Ross Tuck - Community figure
Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
Rafael Dohms - Community figure
Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
On 04 Jul 2016, at 18:02, Pádraic Brady <padrai...@gmail.com> wrote:Hey Phil,
On 1 July 2016 at 10:54, Phil Sturgeon <pjstu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paddy:
>
> AFAIK, a few people - all active in this thread - reached out to Paul to
> discuss his behavior before this went to a vote. This two week discussion
> period is the time Paul has to answer peoples concerns. No pre-discussion
> period discussion period is known to exist.
I can appreciate that, but it's still unclear whether Paul was notified of this vote/discussion prior to it being made public. It's clearly been brewing for a while, but has no statement from Paul, or summary of dealings with Paul, or...anything that could be construed as pre-existing attempts at mediation with Paul.
If it's not documented, I can't assume it happened.
This discussion will not linger indefinitely, there is a two weeks expiration date set up, that is approaching.This expiration did not came out of thin air, is the standard pre-vote discussion duration here in the FIG, and Paul himself was very vocal about being strict in this matter, as many have already referenced here in this thread too.What I found astonishing is that even now, with the expiration so incumbent, we still do not have any word from Paul here, in this discussion.We can't have his side of the argument, we can't know what he thinks about it, despite the fact that he intervened on the matter elsewhere.If he will not intervene here, not even for a short acknowledgment of the issue, I will find that somewhat disrespectful to the FIG itself and for his position.
pmjones To all @phpfig waiting for my response: the prosecution had multiple weeks to prepare. I've had ~1 week. You'll get my response in due time. 7/1/16, 1:44 PM |
--
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/w38tCU4mdgU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/cc4f754e-e076-4542-819e-8270194d7c11%40googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
--
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/w38tCU4mdgU/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/acb0e7b7-b4e3-4064-80ab-b02ae85658ca%40googlegroups.com.
Keith, can you elaborate on the topic of "sexualized attacks" ?
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/575703e8-8c68-4315-bf07-d012ff21b662%40googlegroups.com.
--
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/w38tCU4mdgU/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/577CB60D.2040203%40gmail.com.
--
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/w38tCU4mdgU/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/db7b8897-0c32-25a8-711b-e217e4bad084%40amiran.it.
Here’s an absolute, complete outsider’s view. FWIW. But someone with extensive experience with conflicts in open source communities (chiefly, Drupal). I don’t know Paul, and I don’t know most FIG members. But I know a fair bit about humans, and I have read through this entire thread thanks to insomnia. :P
First, I can empathize with people who say this whole thing smells a bit like a witch-hunt. The fact that a dozen or so accusations are being levelled at this person, and that those accusations are based on subjective reading of comments that were made, and with a dozen or so highly respected PHP community leaders signing on as “Yeah, I agree that this guy sucks,” (this is not said explicitly, but that's how it can be interpreted) can definitely look like this person is being ganged up on, from the outside.
However, the fact that this accusation has this many other signatories from leaders in the PHP community who are *not* generally known for causing drama for no reason, saying that this person is being disruptive to their work, demonstrates to me that this person must actually be pretty (actually, majorly) disruptive to other peoples’ work.
Why would I say this about someone I don’t know? Because generally speaking, and dating all the way back to formative childhood years, *no one* wants to be a tattle-tale. People will generally try all manner of things before they resort to invoking an “official” conflict resolution body to intervene, including:
- Ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away (often for months or years)
- Asking nicely, by taking the person aside and saying “Dude, could you please chill out?”
- Asking *less* nicely, by taking the person aside and saying “Dude. You need to chill out. Right now.”
- Saying those things in the public forum rather than privately, to help communicate the seriousness of the situation and demonstrate community norms.
- Asking for help from another respected individual with authority to say those things, preferably in an in-person/real-time discussion to mitigate defensiveness.
- etc.
And finally, when all else fails, when they are *literally* completely out of ideas on how else to solve it and feeling utterly defeated and hopeless, THEN they will invoke the “official” conflict resolution body (if they haven’t already rage quit the community by then). But it is *never* step one, or even step 7, at least in my 20+ years of community management experience.
So, I’m not inclined to believe this is a witch hunt. Rather, I’m inclined to believe that the conflict resolution body probably did everything in their power to avoid this public showdown, knowing it would likely go down exactly as messily as this has.
A few people in this thread have acknowledged Paul’s communication style can be off-putting, but have posited that that isn’t actually a problem. That it’s on other people to grow thicker skin, because the technical content of Paul’s messages are intelligent, and often correct. And it’s a meritocracy, after all…
Bzzzzt. Nope. No. Wrong. Nuh-uh.
It is absolutely, unequivocally, 500% on the person *doing the communicating* to do said communicating in a way that doesn’t alienate and frustrate others, *particularly* in an “official” standards body like this, It is NOT on the person *reading* the communication to take on the extra mental headache to “read between the lines” and try and find the nugget of truth buried somewhere in aggressive/patronizing/whatever words. Those who’ve said that the conduct of members of this group reflect on the group as a whole are absolutely bang on about this.
And the fact that you have here a “body trail” of members who’ve left because of this person proves nicely that you do not have a meritocracy here. What you have is a collection of people who have the stamina to yell louder or argue longer than others. And if you want to make that driving cultural value for your community, that is "yelling and arguing over actual technical merit," well, that’s a valid choice to make, I guess… But wouldn’t it make *more* sense to just enforce civil discourse here so that everyone, whether they were a grizzled veteran with 20+ years experience of being yelled at on the internet or a whiz kid fresh out of school with some new, eager ideas, could participate on an equal footing?
I also notice that Paul pulls some stats from these discussions, trying to show a mostly 50/50 split among opinions of his conduct. And maybe there is, I have no idea, and I guess no one does until this comes up for a vote. But one thing I know about humans in general is that if Paul is indeed one of the co-founders of this group, and is indeed widely respected for his technical contributions, even from his detractors (and it appears he is), and he *also* has a long-standing history of the way in which he communicates being tolerated (and it appears he has), I can guarantee you you’re not hearing from even half of the people who’ve actually been adversely affected by this person’s behaviour. You’re hearing from the tiny handful of members who *also* have community privilege of some kind, to the point that they feel safe/confident that their speaking out will not result in any permanent career damage. It’s safe to assume that each one of them is speaking on behalf of others (and perhaps many others) who are too intimidated to speak publicly, or long since left FIG and have no idea this discussion is even happening.
If I were Paul, I would stop trying to double-down on defending my actions, trying to demonstrate a coalition of people who support me and my behaviour, trying to cast doubt on the CoC process and people involved. Instead, I would sit down and do some serious soul searching. *Really* look at my behaviour and how it has adversely affected others, own that, start apologizing profusely and sincerely, and taking immediate steps to remedy past transgressions and start building trust with the community again. Because I agree with others, regardless of which way this goes down, FIG’s in trouble here. You’re obviously passionate about this group and have contributed to it heavily, helped build it with your own two hands. The way forward starts (and mostly ends) with you.
500% on the person *doing the communicating* to do said communicating in a way that doesn’t alienate and frustrate others, *particularly* in an “official” standards body like this
But wouldn’t it make *more* sense to just enforce civil discourse here so that everyone, whether they were a grizzled veteran with 20+ years experience of being yelled at on the internet or a whiz kid fresh out of school with some new, eager ideas, could participate on an equal footing
However, the fact that this accusation has this many other signatories from leaders in the PHP community who are *not* generally known for causing drama for no reason, saying that this person is being disruptive to their work, demonstrates to me that this person must actually be pretty (actually, majorly) disruptive to other peoples’ work.
It is absolutely, unequivocally, 500% on the person *doing the communicating* to do said communicating in a way that doesn’t alienate and frustrate others, *particularly* in an “official” standards body like this, It is NOT on the person *reading* the communication to take on the extra mental headache to “read between the lines” and try and find the nugget of truth buried somewhere in aggressive/patronizing/whatever words. Those who’ve said that the conduct of members of this group reflect on the group as a whole are absolutely bang on about this.
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:14:35 AM UTC-5, Angie Byron / webchick wrote:[snip]However, the fact that this accusation has this many other signatories from leaders in the PHP community who are *not* generally known for causing drama for no reason, saying that this person is being disruptive to their work, demonstrates to me that this person must actually be pretty (actually, majorly) disruptive to other peoples’ work.
Angie, I have to respectfully disagree on this point. Later in your post, you criticize the counting of supporters versus non-supporters. Yet you just counted signatories and "leaders" (a very subjective category).
[snip]It is absolutely, unequivocally, 500% on the person *doing the communicating* to do said communicating in a way that doesn’t alienate and frustrate others, *particularly* in an “official” standards body like this, It is NOT on the person *reading* the communication to take on the extra mental headache to “read between the lines” and try and find the nugget of truth buried somewhere in aggressive/patronizing/whatever words. Those who’ve said that the conduct of members of this group reflect on the group as a whole are absolutely bang on about this.
Again I disagree. There is no way for a writer/speaker to know and avoid every single thing which may or may not alienate or frustrate one of her many readers/listeners. That's an impossible ideal.
Sadly, I've lost a lot of respect for a few people whom I've admired for many years as a result of this -- and all among those trying to oust Paul Jones. I was shocked to see their names on the list of people who complained. I wondered how it got to this point and yet those people haven't spoken privately with Paul Jones in a constructive fashion?Imagine you are employed with 10 co-workers all working for the same boss. Imagine you make a perceived mistake. Do you want your boss to angrily chew you out in front of the 10 co-workers, or do you want to have a private, calm, conversation with that boss about the situation? This whole thing appears to me to be the former.
Yes, people like to avoid conflict, as Angie suggested.That does not however mean they necessarily try to solve the problem in a productive manner in quiet, off-channel ways. Instead, they often stew in their complaints and then begin to share bitter thoughts with others who have them -- which only magnifies the problem, instead of solving it. It's human nature, because it's easier. It's less time consuming. It even has it's own personal emotional rewards. Doing the right thing often takes courage and effort.
I would advocate that everyone involved needs to cool off for a while, and then make a real courageous attempt to find their best selves, take the long view and see if a better solution can't be found.
On 07/05/2016 12:57 PM, Paul Jones wrote:
> Dear Voting Representatives,
*snip*
> As such, you can see that the complaint appeals to only one portion of "the PHP Community" -- perhaps a portion with which the complainants themselves identify. But there is another substantial portion, maybe as much as half, to whom the complaint does not appeal. This, along with the comments of those who see little-to-nothing objectionable revealed by the evidence raised against me, should give you reason enough to vote *against* my removal.
*snip*
> With that, I leave the fate of my status as a Voting Representative in your hands. Regardless of the result, I thank you for your time and attention.
Paul, while I am glad you finally responded I find your response
extremely disappointing.
Let's take your own numbers at face value: 70-ish people expressing an
opinion, split roughly half and half on whether your behavior is
problematic and detrimental to FIG.
Your response to that is to say "well, only 50% of people hate me and
they're probably all of a kind, so you shouldn't vote for my removal."
That is, in fewer words, the entire thrust of your post.
Several of the people that have spoken out that your behavior is
problematic have said they do *not* want you kicked out for it, they
want the problem addressed. That is something that cannot happen
without your involvement. The *only* possible resolutions that do not
involve you are "do nothing" or "throw the bum out". By refusing to
engage at all, those are the only possible ways this can end.
Let me reiterate: Even taking your own "numbers" at face value (and a
numbers game is a horrible way to deal with social problems), where you
argue "only half of people hate me, so do nothing", I see "Yeesh, half
of those involved think Paul is a problem".
Yet you do not even acknowledge or recognize their complaint. Not once
in your post did you indicate even recognition that there may actually
be an issue; instead, you reduce the entire problem to "us vs. them,
50/50 let the ban battle sort it out".
If 50% of your colleagues think there's a problem with your behavior, it
is an act of extreme hubris to not even entertain the possibility that,
just maybe, there's something to it.
For the sake of those who have said they do NOT want you kicked out but
still want the situation addressed, can you address the actual issue in
the slightest? Can you, as Angie suggested, demonstrate any level of
self-awareness or self-reflection? Do you have any interest in working
WITH people who don't want you removed?
Or are you content to ignore and dismiss the dozen+ people who have said
they have a problem with your behavior but don't want you removed over it?
The holier-than-thou, "your concerns are beneath me" attitude you're
taking here is exactly what people have a problem with.
--Larry Garfield
On 06 Jul 2016, at 20:35, Glenn Eggleton <gegg...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 1:25:40 PM UTC-4, Larry Garfield wrote:On 07/05/2016 12:57 PM, Paul Jones wrote:
> Dear Voting Representatives,
*snip*
> As such, you can see that the complaint appeals to only one portion of "the PHP Community" -- perhaps a portion with which the complainants themselves identify. But there is another substantial portion, maybe as much as half, to whom the complaint does not appeal. This, along with the comments of those who see little-to-nothing objectionable revealed by the evidence raised against me, should give you reason enough to vote *against* my removal.
*snip*
> With that, I leave the fate of my status as a Voting Representative in your hands. Regardless of the result, I thank you for your time and attention.
Paul, while I am glad you finally responded I find your response
extremely disappointing.
Let's take your own numbers at face value: 70-ish people expressing an
opinion, split roughly half and half on whether your behavior is
problematic and detrimental to FIG.
Your response to that is to say "well, only 50% of people hate me and
they're probably all of a kind, so you shouldn't vote for my removal."Can you elaborate on this. Not once did I see that in his post. I believe this might be what you are interpreting and not actually what was said.What I saw was Paul reiterating what he believes are the facts presented against him and some really bad napkin math.
I would love for the secretaries to explain their process and how they came to the decision to make these complaints public was made.I did not see any section as to where they attempted to resolve this directly with Paul [I hope that some attempt was made?]If an attempt was made to reach out to Paul and he ignored it then this seems like an adequate escalation step... but otherwise it was a really poor choice.I apologize for making some assumptions, but there has been a lack of information about the process of how things were done, and I am really only interested in the facts.The facts as I see it currently:1) Secretaries have received complains about Paul2) Secretaries have decided to call for a vote regarding Paul to address the complaints.It seems quite inadequate, and likely incorrect. I would appreciate it if someone with more knowledge can fill in the blanks.
I confirmed with Michael before I did the first post in this thread that according to him offlist attempts at resolving this was in fact made. I stated this with the first post in this thread. I repeated this once more when someone else wondered about the same thing and Angie mentioned it again in our post today that this has been confirmed by me via Michael (though it was not confirmed by Paul who might have a different point of view).I saw several posts that either assumed no such attempt was made or were unsure if it was done. Short of creating an FAQ for this thread I am unsure how we can ensure that such vital information is known to every one engaging in this thread.
My main point of contention is that I feel Paul argues legalities only
when he disagrees with outcomes, which, in the past six months, seems
to be essentially every decision, judgment call, etc.
Finally, as to the punishment sought, the complainants apparently wish to "request a replacement Voting Representative" for the Aura project. (Because there is a ready replacement, the Aura project itself is not a candidate for being expelled.)
As far as I can tell, this punishment does not provide a remedy for the various elements of the complaint. It neither removes my voice from the mailing list, nor does it remove the influence of Aura from the group. I am left to imagine, then, that there is some other purpose toward which this punishment is designed. Maybe it is intended only to be symbolic, or perhaps it is a stepping-stone toward some other undisclosed end.
The complainants should specify how removing me as a Voting Representative will salve their woes.
On Jul 6, 2016 6:40 PM, "Andrew Carter" <andrewca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My main point of contention is that I feel Paul argues legalities only
>> when he disagrees with outcomes, which, in the past six months, seems
>> to be essentially every decision, judgment call, etc.
>
>
> I disagree - Paul would have voted to expel Dracony but voted against the motion because he didn't think an adequate discussion period had been fulfilled.
You and others are totally missing the point when you make observations like this. Yes, you see the situation in a particular way. Others see it in another perspective. Neither is THE ONE TRUE OPINION. They are simply different perspectives.
There is room for each, and each holds equal validity, based on our varying backgrounds. But dismissing other people's perspectives out-of-hand because you have a differing point of view does a disservice to the conversation.
Yes, I get that Paul was disagreeing over whether the requisite discussion period had occurred. I get it. The flip side of the situation is that the by-laws do (did?) not specifically address this case. A judgment call was made. The situation was nuanced, human. I'm asking that we all consider the nuances and don't rush to judgment. Paul, in my observations, has been quick to judgment, and unwilling to compromise.
Again, I think Paul is fantastic at technical discourse. I would love to see him spend his efforts there, instead of constantly debating policy. I think technical discussions tend to bring out his best self.
> --
> 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/2d18c436-a102-4660-9ff9-b631e95b47da%40googlegroups.com.