First, I'd like to state the goal and intention of this post is not to create drama and is not intended to point fingers at anybody. We have all been learning as we go. I'm legitimately concerned we did not fully define the eligibility criteria for the secretary role, and think we should enhance it now. Therefore, rather than stating instances and hashing over who/what/where I think we should try diligently to stick to the intent.
Further, as to the timing, I think now is a great time to tackle this...when nominations and voting of secretaries will be happening. This will ensure we do not repeat mistakes of yesterday with the new blood coming in. I am not a good legal person, but see a problem, so I created this thread in hopes that others would step up and help flesh this out. To this end here is a stab at some new verbiage: #### The role should be filled by three people (working together to ensure impartiality in all matters and continuous availability) at any one time and those individuals must not be: - Project Representatives of a Member Project - An Editor of a PSR that is in Draft phase - Contributor to any by-law creation/addition at any phase - A current contributor to activities influencing the authority of the Secretary role #### Hopefully you can see my intent is to prevent someone in a secretary role from assigning themselves more power, or changing their role mid-stream. This sort of protection is needed regardless of role. There are many out there smarter than me who can really help this become better. Please contribute. Regards, Adam Culp On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 6:56:07 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: > > What are the proposed changes to the eligibility, exactly? Do you have > wording or an example? I have trouble understanding exactly what you're > trying to avoid. > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 4:20:18 PM UTC-4, Adam Culp wrote: >> >> FIG members, >> >> We have a conflict, and I think it is time we fixed it. In particular I'm >> speaking about the bylaws governing secretary eligibility. ( >> http://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/membership/#eligibility-criteria) >> >> The oversight we are guilty of is that while a secretary cannot be an >> editor of a PSR in draft phase, I think the stipulation should be broader >> than that. The secretary role is a very important and time consuming >> position, not to mention the secretary must remain non-biased to properly >> aid the FIG members. This would include anything related bylaws, PSRs, >> and/or other actions being carried out by the FIG. Not only could these >> things distract a secretary from their given duties, but it hurts the FIG >> preventing a secretary of non-bias. >> >> I have heard some comments related to, "This is why we have 3 >> secretaries." But I would contest this is not the case, but has been >> twisted. The reason we have 3 is to help pick up the pieces if one has >> problems that were unplanned. NOT to selectively decide what one of the 3 >> secretaries would or would not be a part of, and therefore able to hand >> things off to the others. By allowing secretaries to stray from their given >> task and randomly decide bias, it hurts the FIG and prevents the >> secretaries from doing what they were voted on to do. >> >> Therefore I am calling that we enhance the eligibility criteria to >> eliminate this bias and confusion of duties in the secretary role. >> >> Regards, >> Adam Culp >> IBMiToolkit >> > -- 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/9d978816-77cb-489c-9dca-1ebab0cae23e%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
