I think this discussion has derailed. It's not about politics, it's not about technicalities. It's about the bylaws.
> If, *in the judgement of PHP-FIG*, a Voting Representative is acting inappropriately and* to the detriment of PHP-FIG's ability to meet its objectives*, a vote may be taken to request a replacement Voting Representative in accordance with the Voting Protocol bylaw or to expel the Member Project where replacing a Voting Representative is not possible. It's not about technicalities or if Paul's political views are right or wrong. It's about members discussing whether* he's acting to the detriment of their abilities to meet its objectives*. It's quite simple, actually. So, all these "I don't find anything wrong with Paul's posts" are mostly irrelevant, because there needs not to be anything technically wrong with his posts, if the majority of members judge his overall behavior disruptive and detrimental to the group's ability to meet its objetives. The only question is: how many members find his overall behavior counterproductive? If it's more than half, than the project should replace its representative. If it's not more than half, than Paul stays. Quite simple, actually. Like I said before, if name-calling or specific slurs are needed for this to happen, then FIG should have a bot patrolling the mailing list and autobanning people saying those words. If the intelligent human beings that run FIG can't distinguish between productive behavior and behavior "detrimental to its abilities to meet its objectives", then this specific bylaw should be removed. To whoever was saying "I couldn't find anything innapropriate", I'll leave this here. 1. Paul has been very sarcastic towards members in this list: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/RwFMv1NokBQ/7XPPLEDJDwAJ 2. Paul has been very aggressive towards other members in this list: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/RwFMv1NokBQ/Mkna9CLJDwAJ 3. Paul has flooded this list with irrelevant sarcastic/acidic remarks: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/RwFMv1NokBQ/sfe47DfJDwAJ 4. Paul has brought his personal fights with people who are not members of this group to this list: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/RwFMv1NokBQ/XKGfyjDDDwAJ / https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/RwFMv1NokBQ/MWpxepLIDwAJ / https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/RwFMv1NokBQ/tdXoFNvIDwAJ 5. Well, if name-calling is needed to ban a user from this group, there he is, calling Phil a "drama-queen" within this very mailing list: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/cjLBp2weYaA/up8nw9fXDQAJ Yea, I know Phil hasn't been restrained on his remarks about Paul either, but that's a whole different subject, as Phil is no longer a member here. If it takes banning Phil from this mailing list to improve things, ban him too. I don't really care what members do outside this list as long as they don't bring their personal fights/agendas here. But IMHO, Paul has been provenly disruptive. Note that all these examples date from the last two months, and all these examples are from two threads alone. I didn't even have to dig deep to find those. Not to mention all the passive-aggressiveness, properly disguised as 'educated remarks', for plausible deniability. Just to reiterate, I'll respond to Joshua: > However, you must define what inappropriate behavior is before you can even attempt to determine where on the spectrum the behavior falls. No, you don't. You just have to vote if the member is acting in detriment of the group's abilities to meet its goal. It's a subjective phrase for a reason. There is absolutely no way to define what is objectively detrimental and what's not. Paul has avoided coming here to post on his behalf (and I do applaud his attitude on this, far better than Roman's). If you are all expecting a decision based on objectivity, you won't get one. Discuss, make the case for both sides, vote on the subject and get this over with. Calling for a vote is NOT dictatorial, it's NOT against freedom of speech. The secretaries IGNORING 20+ complaints because they had defined amongst themselves what is acceptable and what is not is what would have been dictatorial and against free speech. They made the right call here, opening the discussion and allowing members to speak their mind. - Pedro. Em terça-feira, 28 de junho de 2016 14:57:21 UTC-3, Matthew Weier O'Phinney escreveu: > > 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 > <javascript:>> 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 and others have indicated that folks on the list should "grow a > thicker > skin". This makes the assumption that the only people valued in the group > are: > > - those with strong, often intractable, opinions > - those willing and capable of defending their opinions vocally when > met with opposition > > Additionally, those two points lead to another mentality: that every > discussion > is an either/or situation, without compromise. > > So, instead of drawing attention to behavior and attitudes that makes > others > uncomfortable... you write these other contributors off as "just not being > tough > enough"? Considering the prevalence of both the Dunning-Kruger effect and > Imposter Syndrome in tech workers, that seems like a recipe for an echo > chamber > that many newcomers and skilled professionals will find unwelcoming. > > You go on to say: > > > Anyone can call Paul out, publicly and respectfully for behavior they > don't > > think is appropriate > > This makes the assumption that all people on the list are equally > comfortable > with conflict. > > Calling out behavior is difficult, because it's subjective and personal. > At the > same time, it often opens up the person pointing out the problem behaviors > to > attack by the other person, particularly if that person's behavior is > combative. > I've seen many examples of these conflicts resulting in the stalking and > harrasing of the person reporting the behavior. If it were me, I'd walk > away > rather than call it out - which does nobody any good, as silence is often > interpreted as tacit approval. > > This sort of situation is incredibly unwelcoming to some people, myself > included > (I shy away from conflict), and I think that's the point to realize about > this > discussion: what should the group do if one or more members make > contribution > unpalatable to others by being strong-willed, intractable of opinion, and > legalistic in every thread they participate in? > > I absolutely agree that not everyone on the list will agree with one > another on > every detail. The question is if disagreement can be done with respect, > vs: > > - passive-aggression, snark, ad hominem attacks, etc. > - legalistic interpretations of rules in attempts to reframe them to > suit one's own purposes > - questioning of motives as a basis for invalidation > - ridiculing designs one finds "inferior" or "flawed" > > These are all behaviors I've observed on this list repeatedly, and, > personally, > I left the group for more than a year because of them. > > What this thread started off with is a list of many individuals who have > made > complaints, or flat out left the community ... > > over one specific individual's behavior. > > Let that sink in. > > You can make all sorts of aspersions about "fluffy bunnies," but the fact > that > so many reports have occurred belies the fact that there's a serious issue > to > consider here. > > I've known Paul for 11 years now, and consider him a friend. But when I > look at > this thread, I have to ask: is his continued participation worth the loss > of > participation of *many*? > > I'd like to see this resolved amicably. But I also think this is a good > time for > all parties to reflect on what the group values, and who it wants to have > involved. I personally value a group that is welcoming of a diverse set of > backgrounds (both professionally and personally), and that is capable of > healthy, respectful debate that can lead to reasonable compromises. > > -- > Matthew Weier O'Phinney > mweiero...@gmail.com <javascript:> > https://mwop.net > -- 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to php-fig@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/5980c6dd-544f-4e89-a113-9d502d07b3e7%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
