As I was directly addressed and asked to respond to some points, I'll respond here but as noted previously, I'm not speaking in a secretarial capacity.
N.B When I refer to ‘FIG Member’ I mean people with voting rights essentially, so depending on the context either core committee members and member projects (FIG 3.0 context) or just member projects (FIG 2.0/status quo context). On the note of giving secretaries more powers, I'd note the only real change at all was we restricted the previously much too open "Clarifying any interpretation of bylaw text" to what it is now (See https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/752/files#diff-b58538881047f8ede6b65a2ca2e01261R58 and https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/752/files#diff-b58538881047f8ede6b65a2ca2e01261R64). There was no addition of 'powers', just a restriction on them added. Larry has touched on this note briefly but I'll reiterate, with regards to working group discussions, as Secretaries we'd be working to ensure that discussions took place on *a medium* that is well publicised and we're working towards this already with the current PSRs but we didn't want to micromanage this in the bylaws. Regarding secretaries being able to start any vote, this isn't a change from the status quo. Larry and I discussed this and ultimately, just because the secretaries have an ability, it doesn't mean they should always be using it, but it's possibly better for them to be able to than have to face potential bureaucratic tanglement later on (this was my rationale for not removing the current blanket statement). In addition to just being an ability in case it is needed, there are also a number of times when it makes sense for secretaries to be able to open votes as standard, for example: - If a bylaw clarification needs doing and we ascertain it's beyond the remit of secretaries - For clearing up misc. items such as the vote about 11 months ago to remove translations - When a bylaw amendment vote that affects the contents of PSRs is requested by a PSR Editor who cannot open a vote (Interface suffix) It's important here to note that a Secretary opening a vote doesn't mean they are advocating for the change either, it just means they want members to make a decision on something through a vote, and the ability to be able to defer things to members is important as secretaries - it's like passing a decision up to your boss at work because you know it's not your call. I think this ultimately comes down to do you trust Secretaries to not do stupid things (or if they do, realise this, apologise and reverse it), and if you don't, then recall votes should be used or you shouldn't elect them in the first place. On 5 September 2016 at 17:37, Paul Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > Michael, > The proposal, and the vote, themselves create "drama." I assert there can > be nothing *but* "drama" as the result of this proposal, and the ensuing > vote. Of course, if avoiding drama is a key point, the proposal can be > withdrawn at any time. > The contention arises from you and Larry (and perhaps others) who want to > re-constitute the FIG *in toto* and *in situ*, to conform to a new vision > of your own, rather than to incrementally perfect an expression of the > existing founding vision. Without the proposal, there is no contention. You > and Larry are the ones who have brought the contention here. > You, and Larry, and any member projects that agree with you, can > "transition into FIG 3.0" right now, by resigning and starting a new group > with a new name. Doing so will leave here all those who support the > founding vision, to pursue that vision unperturbed. You all, for your part, > can pursue your new-and-different vision in your new-and-different group in > any way you like. The contention exists from the general utterances about what a number of people have identified as general problems in the FIG. FIG 3.0 aims to fix a number of those 'problems' and it was neither me nor Larry that started these discussions back in January (or before; these discussions have circulated for years as we all know) about changes to FIG structure nor initially raised many of these comments. We just researched PEP, IETF etc. (as others had suggested) and helped put those suggestions into the text of a series of bylaw changes. Contention does not have to mean drama though and it will only be made so if people insist on making it so; contention and disagreement can be healthy for a standards body (as you've regularly pointed out), so long as it is not done in a detrimental fashion. FIG 3.0 will go to a vote, as the decision for what to happen to the FIG is neither Larry's nor yours as no one person controls the FIG; the entire body of member projects do. I'd ask you have respect for that sovereignty; after all, you wrote the voting protocol that essentially defines that sovereignty. If member projects wish it to be a separate organisation, that's entirely fine, but they deserve a chance to vote on it, as I think these topics on the mailing clearly show that some or many people disagree with you. It’s not democratic in the slightest to prevent a vote from even taking place, and nobody has the power to do so, so lets stop beating the same bush and just proceed. People can make their relevant cases and people can discuss what they think is best, a vote can take place [as is our way], and then move on from there. -- Many thanks, Michael C N.B. I do not post this message as a secretary but as a co-author of a spec and the person who compiled the secretary job description initially in the bylaws to explain why things were written as they were, but not to advocate for them. I do this in line with my declared conflicts of interest. -- Michael C On 5 September 2016 at 17:37, Paul Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > Michael, > > > On Aug 29, 2016, at 03:56, Michael Cullum <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > The proposal, and the vote, themselves create "drama." I assert there can > be nothing *but* "drama" as the result of this proposal, and the ensuing > vote. Of course, if avoiding drama is a key point, the proposal can be > withdrawn at any time. > > > > 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. > > The contention arises from you and Larry (and perhaps others) who want to > re-constitute the FIG *in toto* and *in situ*, to conform to a new vision > of your own, rather than to incrementally perfect an expression of the > existing founding vision. Without the proposal, there is no contention. You > and Larry are the ones who have brought the contention here. > > > > It is up to the member projects to decide if they wish the FIG to > transition into FIG 3.0 or not. > > You, and Larry, and any member projects that agree with you, can > "transition into FIG 3.0" right now, by resigning and starting a new group > with a new name. Doing so will leave here all those who support the > founding vision, to pursue that vision unperturbed. You all, for your part, > can pursue your new-and-different vision in your new-and-different group in > any way you like. > > > -- > > 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 php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to php-fig@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/php-fig/39F84D4A-6F91-4F3F-A2E7-B2B5DB2A4F72%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 php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to php-fig@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CAAqcDMgsPUgyFhpn4DjdfGKRG%3D8Ty%2BbcVPuAc%2BVe1rSgB42H%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
