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. > > 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? > As far as I am aware even despite all of this Paul still wants to actively contribute to FIG, I believe is a sponsor or coordinator of the Middleware PSR. > > 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 > I simply do not see the same thing as you in Paul's post, I hope that's okay. I do believe that some or most of us have been biased about this from the start. FWIW from an fig-outsider; I think a large part of this could have been handled internally among the leadership of the FIG group [what I would assume is the secretaries]. I don't know the by-laws of the fig. Posting content like this in publish created a drama level over 9000 and is unwarranted until Paul refused to engage with the leadership of the FIG Group [ I am only assuming that this part did not happen. ] I still assign blame to the secretaries on the incorrect handling of this issue. Any good manager [in my opinion] never scolds in front of the them, always in private... Or at least that's how I run. 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 Paul 2) 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. Thank you, Glenn -- 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/a3b32dfb-9876-43d7-95bf-50920e64a55c%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
