I apologize for my prior posts apparently insinuated a negative about the people involved, which was not my intent. I am saddened Matthew (and perhaps others) jumped to a negative conclusion about my motives. (I will reflect on what I may have done to warrant this.) In fact my motives were more along the lines of ensuring we have more opinions involved in decision making. If two people are in a relationship I believe it could lead more in the direction that they influence each other to the point of sharing each others opinions more often. In my opinion this would hurt the FIG, because there would be less opinions, and fewer ideas or alternatives to solving a problem.
My post in another thread was also meant along these lines, but I poorly relayed this. (see https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/jFNMb6ykn1k/yLec0XvFCAAJ) Regards, Adam Culp On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 3:09:30 PM UTC-5, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Christopher Pitt <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > I'll respond, since I was the first to bring this issue up, in > Samantha's > > nomination thread. I don't personally think it's a good idea, because it > > puts added pressure on Samantha and Graham. Not because I think they'll > be > > forced to always agree with each other but because they'll be under > > increased scrutiny. If they're happy to take that pressure on, then > that's > > fine. I'm not about to try and stop them, and I couldn't even if I > wanted > > to. > > > >> Let's NOT assume issues where non have been demonstrated. > > > > > > ...Is exactly the argument against preemptive community measures, like > codes > > of conduct. > > Funny; the line I wrote above was written based on discussions I've > had with others about CoCs. Most I have read encourage that you > respect that others have done something in good faith before assuming > otherwise. I feel that's missing with this thread. > > > Reacting isn't always the best approach, and often folks want to > > be more prepared for a situation which is indicative of a potential > problem. > > Still, I don't think this is a big enough issue that I'd pursue any kind > of > > preventative action against one or both of these fantastic people being > > elected. > > People are quickly jumping on the bandwagon of "potential conflict of > interest" in this case, *without detailing what those potential > problems could be*. All I'm hearing is, "They're in a relationship! > Conflict of interest!" Nothing about what conflict is being predicted. > > Do we have anything *demonstrable* as a potential conflict of > interest, or is it just a *feeling* that there's one? Without > something concrete for us to discuss, the thread feels hugely > nonconstructive, and disrespectful to those nominated. > > -- > Matthew Weier O'Phinney > [email protected] <javascript:> > 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/ee7ae3ac-eacb-45eb-81bd-36e1fd0de952%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
