Paul, The intention of the vote is that it will resolve contention, not create it; and this should be the case so long as people don't intend to create drama as a result of the vote. Right now there is contention of ideas as to what the FIG is about and FIG 3.0 is a proposal to resolve that, as are other proposals. It is up to the member projects to decide if they wish the FIG to transition into FIG 3.0 or not. If the vote fails, then voting members will have spoken they do not wish the FIG to transition into FIG 3.0 and would prefer other options (dropping the idea of any change all together, FIG 3.0 in it's own organisation in a similar or different manner to that which you suggest). On the other hand, if it passes, then member projects will have decided that they would prefer the FIG to transition.
It is not up to you, Larry, myself or any other single individual to define what the FIG 'is' or 'should be' or 'is not'. It is up to the member projects to decide by majority vote, as is our way. -- Michael C On 28 August 2016 at 22:07, Paul Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Aug 24, 2016, at 00:13, Michael Cullum <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I pulled the vote for FIG 3.0 in order to give people a chance to > provide more feedback as people expressed a wish to give it a bit more > time. The vote will open on the 10th September. > > I'll say it again: this proposal is effectively a re-constitution of the > FIG, and is better suited to an entirely new organization. > > Further, this vote leads in only one direction: more contention. Whether > it passes or fails, the different sets of vision holders will continue to > champion their opposing causes. > > If the vote fails, the "grand" vision holders will continue to try to pass > it in other ways. If it passes, the "founding" vision holders will try to > roll it back. (Indeed, I am interested in rolling back some of the more > recent changes, such as the over-empowering of secretaries, if not the > position itself.) > > One way out of this contention is for one of visions is explicitly and > permanently retract itself. But neither do I expect to retract the > "founding" vision, nor do I expect Larry & Michael (et al.) to retract the > "grand" vision. (If they do, so much the better for the group and its > way-of-working.) > > The only other way out is for the group to dissolve, its mission being > largely accomplished, and now experiencing scope-creep. Disband the group; > let there be an archivist appointed to safeguard the FIG name and the > finished PSRs; encourage *-interop projects to form in the FIG's place; and > if Larry & Michael (et al.) wish to start a new group based on FIG 3.0, > they can do so without a pre-existing FIG as competition. > > > -- > > Paul M. Jones > http://paul-m-jones.com > > -- > 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/569E1E9F-C321-4F55-B063-9BE28F6628FE%40gmail.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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/CAAqcDMjN%3DrHT2gXTb34HUk799zDiZ5sb61ARoc00_k0Y8mAd-w%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
