On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Adam Culp <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I know. There have been a few brought up over these past months, but we > condoned them all. We even have a pinned thread for those in relation to > Secretaries. I'd rather not get into it again. Our membership has made it > clear that conflicts of interest are acceptable.
My question to you is: what sort of conflict of interest do you envision, exactly? I've seen plenty of public and private boards of directors and governing bodies that included married couples or family members (heck, my own parents served as president and vice president of a local non-profit organization this past year!). How is the CC of PHP-FIG any different? If both parties have the betterment of the PHP ecosystem in mind, what negative ramifications do you foresee by having both involved? If the CC involves 12 members, how do you see two members in relationships as tipping the balance of a vote? Do you assume they would *necessarily* always vote the same? Again, why would you assume that? I'd expect to see conflict of interest in CC members primarily based on their *employment* or the *organizations they already represent*, not the relationships they have with others. As an example, were you or I to be nominated, the bigger question on others minds is whether our employment by Zend/RogueWave might lead to inability to vote our conscience on proposals that might negatively impact the products from our employer. *That* is a more tangible conflict of interest than a relationship, as it has actual impact on our ability to vote. My point is: I think this is spurious. If and/or when a real conflict arises we can address it. Let's assume that folks are well intentioned, unless proven otherwise through concrete actions. Let's NOT assume issues where non have been demonstrated. > On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 9:29:17 AM UTC-5, Larry Garfield wrote: >> >> Adam, I'm curious. What other conflict of interest issues are you >> referring to? You make it sound like we're drowning in conflict of interest >> problems, but I don't see that at all. >> >> --Larry Garfield >> >> On 11/06/2016 11:42 AM, Adam Culp wrote: >> >> Thus the spiral of more and more conflict of interests continues, >> condoned. >> >> I will discontinue because others appear not to care, or do not see the >> problem. I have better things to do than tilting windmills. Moving on. >> >> Regards, >> Adam Culp >> >> >> On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 12:25:36 PM UTC-5, Magnus Nordlander wrote: >>> >>> Adam, >>> >>> According to the bylaws, there is no provision allowing for >>> non-recognition of a nomination based on conflict of interest (or any other >>> basis). The only option in cases like this (save for the rescinding >>> nominations/acceptances, and barring a bylaw change) would be to recognize >>> the nomination, and then campaign against the election of the person in >>> question. I believe this is what has been referred to in this thread as >>> letting the voters decide. >>> >>> Magnus >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Adam Culp <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm sorry, but I do not feel this nomination should be recognized. Not >>>> because Graham is not capable, because he is very capable. But rather >>>> because of the personal relationship between Graham and Samantha, a current >>>> Secretary. See further comment at >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/jFNMb6ykn1k/yLec0XvFCAAJ >>>> >>>> I think Graham can contribute a great deal, but should do so as an >>>> outside contributor rather than in a leadership role due to this conflict >>>> of >>>> interests. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Adam Culp >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 8:21:37 PM UTC-4, Matthew Weier >>>> O'Phinney wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hereby nominate Graham Daniels for a position on the Core Committee. >>>>> >>>>> Graham has excellent development skills, as evidenced by his activity >>>>> in the >>>>> League of Extraordinary Packages, as well as his work at refinery29. He >>>>> speaks >>>>> often at conferences on development topics, but, also, and arguably >>>>> more >>>>> importantly, the human aspects of development. Related, he is the >>>>> original >>>>> author of The Code Manifesto, a set of value propositions for safe, >>>>> equal, and >>>>> effective collaboration as developers. >>>>> >>>>> I think these skills make him an excellent candidate for FIG. > > -- > 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/4a69a783-a70f-44e4-a367-ec7c0c7f5a6b%40googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney [email protected] https://mwop.net/ -- 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/CAJp_myXXsewfuqWm0RNGbyxRLqOub3p8CQFae-O8SLvw%2Bw4jcQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
