I was under the impression that previous precedent was pretty clear, and in lieu of explicit bylaws on the situation, should suffice. It has been established that a being Lead Developer gives you control over a vote and therefore would remove his ability to be impartial.
If the solution here is that we need to amend the bylaws to explicitly say that secretary can't have direct control over a Member Project, I'm okay with that but, in my opinion, that vote and amendment needs to happen before the Secretary elections. I'm increasingly bothered that this group seems unable or unwilling to make simple, logical judgement calls when there is no direct coverage by the by-laws. It seems pretty obvious that a member shouldn't be able to vote in their own expulsion. A member project should not serve as secretary, etc. These things seem very common sense to me, and yet, because they aren't explicitly and directly covered in the bylaws, they're allowed to continue. If we continue down this path our bylaws are going to be more verbose than our standards and eclipse any value that we provide to the community. -- Graham Daniels On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 2:23:54 PM UTC-4, Adam Culp wrote: > > Agreed. And that was the point. We need to have better by-laws in place to > prevent over-stepping and conflict of interests, and for the rest we need > to accept one's word at some point when they state that the reigns will be > turned over so they can perform the duties at hand. ;-) > > Regards, > Adam Culp > > > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, Phil Sturgeon wrote: >> >> Adam: I think the suggestion from Graham was to delve as deeply as we >> have done in the past and no further. We aren't trying to find new ways to >> keep people out, but Paul did set a precedence in the Beau/Silex vote and >> as such that same concern should be just as relevant now. >> >> If we start delving further we might get to "they can't be a secretary >> because they stayed on their sofa one time" levels and we don't need to do >> that. :) >> >> >> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:19:38 PM UTC-4, Adam Culp wrote: >>> >>> Oh my, would this extend to personal relationship, which could >>> theoretically also carry influence? >>> >>> How complex should we delve? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Adam Culp >>> >>> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 12:33:01 PM UTC-4, Woody Gilk wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Hari K T <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > There is another question you need to ask, what about other >>>> secretary? They >>>> > are not lead of a project, but does that mean they don't have any >>>> influence >>>> > on voting members ? >>>> >>>> Hari, >>>> >>>> To my knowledge, none of the current secretaries are associated with >>>> any member project. All secretaries are required to disclose conflicts >>>> of interest. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> -- >>>> Woody Gilk >>>> http://about.me/shadowhand >>>> >>> -- 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/453600c0-bb1b-43dc-8e96-99b4d2648ab0%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
