On 6 August 2016 at 20:37, Ryan Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I feel like the changes in structure are fantastic, definitely filling > some gaps that we've discovered. It's solid a step in maturing the > organization. > > I would, however, love to see the addition of core principles make their > way into FIG 3.0. Include a set of change*less* principles (a fundamental > truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief > or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.) that the organization can operate > on from a communication perspective. > > Similar to what we have done with FIG voting and technical operations. > > I think this is important because the organization as a whole, in order to > be healthy and *effective* with the PHP community in it's mission > statement, needs to cultivate a healthy and synergistic environment around > it. For both our internal members and in our community relationships. > > We've seen this break down more and more recently. Often times it comes > from outside of our boundaries of influence (Twitter / Redit). But when > poor behavior and negative communication makes it's way into the FIG's > direct ring of influence we have no principles to stand on to uphold a > standard of communication. A standard of expectations from our members who > represent FIG. So instead, peoples feelings get hurt, time is wasted and > energy is wasted between us with no resolve or forward movement. In fact we > have seen *negative* movement. People get frustrated and leave or > discredit the FIG. > > If we had a set of principles to abide by in terms of communicating within > our ring of influence (within areas we are directly responsible for) we can > cut that cancerous energy and which will promote more *effectiveness*. > > We've seen the consequences of not having a core set of principles. It's > kinda like not having a conscience as a whole. What can we do to fix that? > > And to those who might say this is none of our responsibility. I would > argue this: Is it not our mission to produce quality PSRs for the community > as a whole? And does it not hinder our ability, our effectiveness in doing > just that by not withholding a core set of principles on how we communicate > both internally but also with that community as a whole? > > I hope this get's some thought from others. It's an important part of an > effective organization and it's currently missing in FIG I think. > > I would be happy to head such an effort if there is any perceived need for > it. > > - Ryan > Ryan, Thank you for your kind words on the proposed changes. A large part of these changes, although not accurately reflected in terms of the percentage of the bylaw text changes, but in terms of weight, is the new mission statement for the FIG. This aims to serve as a core changeless principle to the purpose of the FIG, and a statement by which all elements of the new structure can look to for determining what the FIG is. I do not wish the importance of the mission statement to be under-estimated, and I know there are many who believe this to be the most important change in FIG 3.0. If you had any suggestions on expansion of the mission statement, we would be more than open to receiving those ideas. What it does not cover, is how the FIG conducts itself to meet that purpose. Larry and I discussed whether or not a set of principles as to how the FIG conducts itself in something akin to the Code Manifesto or a Code of Conduct should be integrated into FIG 3.0. Ultimately, we decided against this as, whether we supported its inclusion in FIG bylaws or not, it would be better to separate the two issues as people might have varying views on the two, and it would be odd to see a vote fail on two matters if both have over 50% support, but 50% or more do not support both of them. In breaking things down we can give voting members a choice in individual issues, instead of having to take things as a take it all or leave it package; I'd liken, perhaps with a tiny amount of exaggeration, combining the FIG 3.0 and conduct principles votes to having a combined vote for PSR-6 and PSR-7. I'll be careful to avoid commenting on my personal views on this as it ventures outside the waters of what is currently FIG 3.0 and I don't want to compromise my neutrality as Secretary however on an administrative note if anyone did wish to work on something of such like then they would of course be welcome to; if FIG 3.0 passes then it would be subject to a vote of the Core Committee and Member Projects. I'd also suggest [I'm not posting as a Secretary as this topic concerns FIG 3.0, so this is not a moderator instruction] any further discussion of this is taken into a new separate topic, and perhaps now might not be the best time for that topic in that it might be best left until there is some foundation for a proposal or some suggestions on implementation to avoid outright opinions (acceptance or dismissal) on the concept without considering implementation. Many thanks, Michael C -- 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/CAAqcDMiYXp7TH9gu5%2BkYQt51F27C_r-nLk5OUzSsSNpJbLfRLQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
