I've been holding my opinion on this whole thing thought I would just keep my mouth shut. However, I have now read through every single thread, and read through every single example of "wrong doing", or "dickishness", or whatever you want to call it and I still felt I could just keep my mouth shut and see how this played out. That was until this comment:
"Based on this assumption I would propose that Paul, at least for a certain amount if time submit his postings to a form of “advice process”: http://guides.shiftbase.net/advice-process-2/ (note I didn’t really find a nice and compact explanation and this is the best I found). The fundamental idea is that Paul would submit his postings to a subgroup to get advice on the wording. He is however not obligated to integrate said advice." That has to be a joke right? You cannot be seriously suggesting institution of a language police sub-forum. I mean... I am seriously hoping that this was sarcasm that didn't translate through the internet correctly. A lot of the posts to this thread have been about how 1 person's supposed actions can supposedly drive people away from this group, or keep people from wanting to participate for fear of being Judged, ridiculed, spoken meanly too, or having their feelings hurt by Paul. I have a counter point for you. Anyone who truly knows me knows that I typically do not fear saying things bluntly, that may offend people. As a combat veteran I long ago realized that life is too short to tiptoe around every little thing in life. All that being said... the reason it took me so long to stand up and write something on this thread was out of fear of being put down, or silenced, or looked at as a lesser person... not by Paul, but by a couple of you who seem to want nothing more than the man gone because you don't agree with his politics or his direct communication style. It's ridiculous, and it makes me sad for this group. If you don't like the guy or what he has to say... ignore him. In this day and age you can't go anywhere on the internet without someone possibly offending you. Are you all declaring war on every person on every site on the internet that offends you in some way? I highly doubt it. So why here, why now? Frankly, I wish the effort spent screwing around with this nonsense was directed toward continued work on PSRs. Especially since most of you say it's his voice on these forums that is the problem, and in the same breath recognize that removing his vote doesn't remove his voice.... Sorry... I know I have rambled. I got fired up and that's what happens sometimes. Hopefully some of this is clear enough to express my point. On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:20:37 AM UTC-5, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > > On 10 Jul 2016, at 16:13, Rafael Dohms <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 4:57:58 AM UTC+2, pmjones wrote: >> >> >> > On Jul 9, 2016, at 16:28, Anthony Ferrara <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > *I think the ball is in Paul's court, if I was in his shoes I would really > do some soul searching, talk to the people on this list and try to figure > out what is really wrong, those conversations alone could help a lot.* > > *Now if these 2 weeks do not end up with a viable solution, then the vote > for removal would be another message.* > > > Honestly I find this a bit unrealistic. ie. even if Paul has done said > soul searching, a 2 week timeline on some epiphany is a bit unrealistic to > ask, let alone its not clear to me how he would be able to communicate said > epiphany unless it would entail him basically recanting is entire past. > > At any rate let me try and propose another approach. > > Here are a few core assumptions on which my suggestion is based: > > 1) posting to this list is not time sensitive in the sense that a few > hours, or even a day delay is no problem (unless of course a vote is about > to expire) > 2) Paul does not intend to bring about the consequences that people > attribute to his communication style > > Based on this assumption I would propose that Paul, at least for a certain > amount if time submit his postings to a form of “advice process”: > http://guides.shiftbase.net/advice-process-2/ (note I didn’t really find > a nice and compact explanation and this is the best I found). > > The fundamental idea is that Paul would submit his postings to a subgroup > to get advice on the wording. He is however not obligated to integrate said > advice. > > This way Paul’s technical abilities should remain available to the group > un-altered. Paul’s ability to critique things he finds worthy of critique > also remains un-altered, albeit with a bit of a delay due to the advice > process. It would also potentially indirectly help with the accusation of > insufficient throttling. All the while Paul could, within a safe space get > feedback on what part his communication could be problematic and he can > then choose to use this feedback to remove the problematic bits, while > keeping his intended message intact. The long term goal is of course that > through this process, we get to a point where this advice process is no > longer necessary. > > I am not sure how to implement this from a technology implementation or > who a sensible subgroup is for this. But I wonder if this is even a > feasible remedy for all parties involved in theory? > > regards, > Lukas Kahwe Smith > [email protected] <javascript:> > > > > -- 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/94e5ec41-2477-49a7-975b-b5312645d063%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
