> On 06 Jul 2016, at 20:35, Glenn Eggleton <[email protected]> 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 also did not see anywhere in Paul’s post any consideration given that any 
behavior change would be considered by him. So I agree with Larry’s summary 
though I think the word “hate” is misplaced. I surely hope that nobody takes 
any of this seriously enough that they would get to a point where they would 
“hate” someone.

> 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.

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.

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
[email protected]



-- 
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/45F9CFDD-C7F8-4E70-AE3A-5C4479333109%40pooteeweet.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to