Hi all, Firstly, as a secretary note, as Paul has only responded two/three days ago to this thread and since then there has been a high volume of emails, and there are both numerous people who wish to respond to Paul, and Paul might wish to respond back, we're going to extend this discussion to Monday.
Self-throttling rules Could you please provide the URL to the clearly-defined rules for > self-throttling on this group? If not, this is nothing but an unenforceable > suggestion and it would be inappropriate to restrict posting privileges > arbitrarily or based on high-school level popularity contest rules or > simple whims. Yes, and I would challenge that they are unwritten, an adjective many people prepend when referencing them. - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/php-fig/_kDjIayUpyM stickied in the google group - First post of this topic: "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." - And we [the secretaries] are working on a sticky for the google group outlining mailing list etiquette better Previous communication, discussion with Paul and advance notification/warning of this topic On the other hand, with no advance notice of the action against me, a mix > of current and former Voting Representatives (along with other prestigious > members of the wider community) spoke up > > I could go on, but the point is: Was Paul given an informed opportunity > and sufficient time to defend himself in preparation for this vote > discussion? I had a google hangout with Paul on the 4th June in which we discussed a number of topics avoiding public drama and we solved a number of outstanding issues and I thank Paul for his co-operation on those. The main topic of conversation was that we [the secretaries] had received a large number of complaints about Paul's behaviour over the past few months. I explained, from what I could discern from the complainants, were the primary reasons for the complaints. The summarised points in my initial email were mentioned and the core of what I said is that people felt that whilst he is very intelligent and good technically, the way he presented his points was more the issue and that this was putting off people from contributing and therefore detrimental to the overall aims of the FIG. To summarise the response, which of course is a subjective summary, Paul believed he had done nothing wrong, that if the complaints had a problem with him, they should go ahead with a vote to remove him as a project representative. He briefly summarised his ‘defence’ to me, similar to that which he has now posted, in that he believes he is one of the oldest and the most productive member of the FIG and that should outweigh any potential effect he has on the willingness of others to be involved or contribute to the FIG and that other members (he specifically referred to a couple of Editors with PSRs currently unfinished) were simply "fulfilling their ego-quota" by getting them through entrance votes and that their lack of current involvement in the FIG was actually unrelated to his involvement. I once again clarified that I, and the other secretaries, were not supporting the complaints, but simply that because we'd received such a volume, we felt we had to reach out to Paul. Furthermore, on a lack of any private conflict resolution between the two parties (as was the case at the end of our discussion), that we would have to simply put the complaints to the wider mailing list (as continuous backroom complaining doesn't help anyone), where the FIG members can decide what to do, as it is not up to us as secretaries. I also said in my first email in this topic, that we'd put it to a vote unless parties came to some agreement beforehand (which would be preferable). I then explained that if this was to be the case, what the timeline would be for this discussion (I discussed it almost with exact dates so he was perfectly aware this was coming for a number of weeks, contrary to a number of tweets and implications in this thread), and that we, the secretaries would moderate it to try and keep the topic balanced and that the vote or discussion would hopefully serve as an end to the current situation, whichever way it goes. Tl;dr: We received complaints, we discussed them, we thought we had do something about them, I reached out to Paul and I discussed the complaints with Paul, he didn’t believe he had done anything wrong and he was productive and his involvement helps the FIGs aims. I then informed him of where we’d end up going next with no resolution which included timelines and details of an open discussion and vote which would happen unless some arrangement could come to beforehand, more detailed information than most complaintants had. Process for deciding to do something We between us [the secretaries] had received a number of complaints throughout May and beforehand and on the 25th May (When we had our monthly FIG secretaries meeting/hangout) we discussed it and decided unanimously that the current situation (with continuous complaints in private) was untenable. We therefore (in that meeting) decided that we needed to do *something* about it as we couldn't simply keep ignoring the complaints. So we then spoke to these individuals about the way forward, meanwhile I reached out to Paul to ask if he could join me on a google hangout, and the discussion detailed above ensued. After this members were still pushing ahead with complaints so we reached back out to most complainants to check if they were happy to make their names known when we brought their complaints to the mailing list to bring it out into an open discussion, as we didn't wish to violate anyone’s trust if they had come to us in confidence. After which, we posted this topic (although it was delayed slightly later than the date we told Paul due to personal availability so both sides ended up with more time to ‘prepare’). On the references to our impartiality in this topic, as Samantha has reiterated, this vote is about putting an end to this debate and finding a resolution to the current situation, it is not an effort from us [the secretaries] to remove Paul [we are neutral and do not advocate for either, but we do advocate for the situation to be resolved] but simply that all other options (privately reaching out, public discussion etc.) had not come to any sort of conflict resolution between the two parties but a resolution of some kind is necessary. The one opinion we will express is that we [the secretaries] honestly had all hoped it wouldn't end up in a vote and would have been resolved in some way by both parties at an earlier point. I'd also request those of you who assume that you know our opinions to take note of Paddy's previous words "but assumptions are devilish things and better replaced with documented facts". Reminder what we are discussing Finally, I'd like to just point out the core point of the bylaws regarding this, as certain tweets[1] and other mailing list posts confuse what this is about. This discussion is not about whether you like or dislike Paul. The point of this discussion is to solve this dispute, hopefully with something everyone involved is content with. And this dispute is about whether Paul being a member is detrimental to the aims of the FIG. If you believe his technical contributions outweigh any negative impact on contributors or any contributors who may be deterred from involvement in the FIG then you should support him remaining. If you believe that Paul no longer being a voting representative (which is what is being discussed here, not a ban, although there are more moderation tools [likes bans] we can implement on non-members than members) would help the FIG achieve its aims through a better environment, then you should be supporting his leaving. Whether or not you like Paul shouldn't have any bearing on any such vote and that's not what this should be about (the bylaws don't allow for expulsion because you don't like someone). I hope this explains the background a little better to you all and I'm sorry for the very long email. We didn't go into detail initially because it would have been a very long initial email, but we understand this was a mistake and in the future we will try and be more verbose and transparent initially (This is still a learning curve for us all). -- Michael C & Samantha Q PHP FIG Secretaries [1]: https://twitter.com/pmjones/status/746346175373119488 -- Michael C On 7 July 2016 at 04:50, Andrew Carter <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Matthew, > > I believe there's been a misunderstanding (either in my reading of your > response - or your reading of mine). > > To clarify my response - I wasn't trying to discuss the way that he voted > or behaved in these discussions and whether it was right or wrong. I was > just providing a counter example to your assertion that he only argues > legalities when he disagrees with the outcomes. This was the only part of > your post that I was responding to, and you described it as your main point > of contention. > > Regarding the PHPixie vote, Paul made it clear > <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/TDX--AVR45c/o-6FPokwDgAJ> that > his -1 vote to expulsion was because of the way that the vote and > discussion period had been handled. He argued legalities regarding the > legitimacy of the vote and the way it was counted out of principle, despite > personally agreeing (it appears) with the proposed motion. > > I've been reading this thread carefully and trying to stay clear - but I > do feel that this particular part of your response was demonstrably unfair. > > This also isn't a minor counter example. The way Paul expressed objection > to the way that vote was counted is a significant factor (or at the least a > triggering factor) in the current complaint. > > I'm not making any comment on the way Paul handled any of these situations > (or the opinions he expressed) - but it clearly wasn't him bending the > rules to suit his point of view, as he didn't disagree with the point of > view that was suggested (that Dracony should no longer be a voting member). > > Last post from me as I'm aware of unwritten self throttling rules. > > On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 3:51:58 AM UTC+1, Matthew Weier O'Phinney > wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 6, 2016 6:40 PM, "Andrew Carter" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> My main point of contention is that I feel Paul argues legalities only >> >> when he disagrees with outcomes, which, in the past six months, seems >> >> to be essentially every decision, judgment call, etc. >> > >> > >> > I disagree - Paul would have voted to expel Dracony but voted against >> the motion because he didn't think an adequate discussion period had been >> fulfilled. >> >> You and others are totally missing the point when you make observations >> like this. Yes, you see the situation in a particular way. Others see it in >> another perspective. Neither is THE ONE TRUE OPINION. They are simply >> different perspectives. >> >> There is room for each, and each holds equal validity, based on our >> varying backgrounds. But dismissing other people's perspectives out-of-hand >> because you have a differing point of view does a disservice to the >> conversation. >> >> Yes, I get that Paul was disagreeing over whether the requisite >> discussion period had occurred. I get it. The flip side of the situation >> is that the by-laws do (did?) not specifically address this case. A >> judgment call was made. The situation was nuanced, human. I'm asking that >> we all consider the nuances and don't rush to judgment. Paul, in my >> observations, has been quick to judgment, and unwilling to compromise. >> >> Again, I think Paul is fantastic at technical discourse. I would love to >> see him spend his efforts there, instead of constantly debating policy. I >> think technical discussions tend to bring out his best self. >> >> > >> > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:43:46 PM UTC+1, Matthew Weier >> O'Phinney wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Paul Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> > - On 08 Jun, Matthew Weier O'Phinney sent an email encouraging me in >> the friendliest possible way to resign. To paraphrase, he opined that I had >> three options: adapt to recent changes and/or submit to proposed changes in >> FIG, continue to argue against those changes, or leave the group entirely. >> His advice was (again paraphrasing) to stop fighting and go my own way. >> (Please note that this arrived *after* I had been informed that a complaint >> would be presented to the group by the secretaries.) >> >> >> >> From my side, I was unaware of any other contact with Paul by other >> >> FIG members or by the FIG secretaries when I emailed Paul. My missive >> >> was based solely on my personal observations of Paul's interactions >> >> with the list, with no prompting from anybody else. >> >> >> >> Further, I've yet to have a response. No acknowledgment whatsoever. I >> >> can understand why at this point, knowing that the conversation with >> >> the secretaries had already occurred, but it has been disheartening >> >> nonetheless. >> >> >> >> My main point of contention is that I feel Paul argues legalities only >> >> when he disagrees with outcomes, which, in the past six months, seems >> >> to be essentially every decision, judgment call, etc. This feels like >> >> he's attempting to bend the rules to suit *his* point of view, versus >> >> those of a consensual group. At the same time, I see him accusing >> >> others of playing politics, which feels frankly hypocritical. >> >> >> >> I think it's natural for the direction and make-up of a group to >> >> change over time; if it didn't, something is wrong. My feeling is that >> >> Paul is pining for the days before the group had as many members, and >> >> when the word of those who founded the group or were most active was >> >> law. The group today, however, is far different, and has taken on more >> >> and greater responsibilities over time; change is necessary. >> >> >> >> I would be quite happy for Paul's continued involvement. I just would >> >> rather his involvement be on debating technical specifications. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Matthew Weier O'Phinney >> >> [email protected] >> >> 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 [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/2d18c436-a102-4660-9ff9-b631e95b47da%40googlegroups.com >> . >> > >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> -- > 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/edd25fbf-b3c0-4462-add2-ec2e3881738b%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/edd25fbf-b3c0-4462-add2-ec2e3881738b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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/CAAqcDMjwBB39jcdiQP%2BqT2gftLgux9nP9xn75szfn411tHcQJA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
