Non-FIG member here, but an ex "personality" on the Zendcon circuit and I just wanted to ask a question for clarification. Is the purpose of your example to point out egregious behavior on the part of Paul or to point out that this is a vote based on politics and politics only? I find no examples of poor behavior or poor interaction in the examples you post. Further, the point you made: Paul's primary objection to the FIG 3 proposal was an oblique claim that more rules == bad[3] - is specifically posted with numbers to support his hyopthesis and is phrased as a question/observation, rather than a statement of fact.
I, for one, find that FIG seems to be more worried about internal politics rather than actually creating interop standards, as such, from an outsider perspective this group has survived past its usefulness and should be re-evaluated. I also find that a community discussion on reddit that's currently ongoing is slowly drawing to the same conclusion. Please consider both the public image and the usefulness with the mass of politics that are ongoing before proceeding. /Shawn Stratton On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 4:16:39 PM UTC-4, Larry Garfield wrote: > > On 06/23/2016 02:52 PM, 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 > - > > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/6rZPZ8VglIM/uf3JHrgJNgAJ> > [2] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/f2-FppEpRJs/PvA5WZoKNgAJ > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/f2-FppEpRJs/PvA5WZoKNgAJ> > [3] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/h3wrQePdzfc/3ryZCAtlCAAJ > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/h3wrQePdzfc/3ryZCAtlCAAJ> > [4] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/FV4aL-noVZk/mg8qcuAtCgAJ > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/FV4aL-noVZk/mg8qcuAtCgAJ> > [5] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/K9KyPzCNmss/HIEJG7YPAgAJ > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/K9KyPzCNmss/HIEJG7YPAgAJ> > [6] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/K9KyPzCNmss/nkNG6vxnAgAJ > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/K9KyPzCNmss/nkNG6vxnAgAJ> > [7] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/wPePxyC8vHA/Czwu80icEAAJ > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/wPePxyC8vHA/Czwu80icEAAJ> > [8] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/vTtGxdIuBX8/dIG7KVCADQAJ > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/vTtGxdIuBX8/dIG7KVCADQAJ> > [9] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/php-fig/oqO1ZH5tJKU%5B76-100%5D > <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 > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/php-fig/VVZe7eI0Clg%5B51-75%5D> > [11] http://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/membership/#voting-representatives > <http://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/membership/#voting-representatives> * > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/1a788460-0257-4a38-b7bc-ea3f6b803207%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
