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. 

When you say: "You cannot write an email without input from an accused 
member and maintain a neutral position.", if you are referring to the 
secretaries then I would disagree with you. The secretaries are passing on 
complaints from ~20 former and current members/contributors, not forming 
their own stance or opinions. Anyone with that many people complaining 
against them should be removed regardless.  


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. :)

-- 
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/cecdbfc6-dfe0-4a22-8c1e-49630273923c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to