Hey folks, Nominations appear to be proceeding well. Given how many people (and diverse personalities) have been nominated, it seems appropriate to discuss the issue of harmony between secretaries. Let me give two examples:
1. Paul and Phil get voted in at the same time. What does that mean for the discussions they are now forced to have? As far as I know, they are not on speaking terms outside of recent threads. I have high regard for their technical prowess, but they just don't seem to get along at the moment, so might this negatively impact their ability to function as an effective team (http://i.vimeocdn.com/video/435660973_1280x720.jpg)? 2. One of Paul's aims (which it pretty good as far as I'm concerned) is to act as a check against secretaries over-stepping the bounds of their role. Could the combative conversational style Paul has on occasion demonstrated* create division between the secretaries? There is currently no documented mediation process or code of conduct which defines appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. How could this be managed? * Links in the pre-vote discussion thread. It has not officially been closed, but at this stage it looks like Paul will remain the representative of the Aura project. I don't mention "combative conversational style" as a disqualifier for the position of secretary, as it's clear Paul has enough support to converse as he pleases. It's simply to illustrate a perceived gap in process for how secretaries resolve conflict. -- 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/dc10fa51-dc90-4497-bd57-8bda738e2153%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
