Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

Hi Matthew, I believe there's been a misunderstanding (either in my reading of your response - or your reading of mine). To clarify my response - I wasn't trying to discuss the way that he voted or behaved in these discussions and whether it was right or wrong. I was just providing a counter

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

On Jul 6, 2016 6:40 PM, "Andrew Carter" wrote: >> >> My main point of contention is that I feel Paul argues legalities only >> when he disagrees with outcomes, which, in the past six months, seems >> to be essentially every decision, judgment call, etc. > > > I

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

Paul, Finally, as to the punishment sought, the complainants apparently wish to > "request a replacement Voting Representative" for the Aura project. > (Because there is a ready replacement, the Aura project itself is not a > candidate for being expelled.) As far as I can tell, this punishment

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

> > My main point of contention is that I feel Paul argues legalities only > when he disagrees with outcomes, which, in the past six months, seems > to be essentially every decision, judgment call, etc. > I disagree - Paul would have voted to expel Dracony but voted against the motion because

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Paul Jones wrote: > - On 08 Jun, Matthew Weier O'Phinney sent an email encouraging me in the > friendliest possible way to resign. To paraphrase, he opined that I had three > options: adapt to recent changes and/or submit to proposed changes

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

Lukas, I do apologize I see now that I had forgotten some facts in your original post. Paul, thank you for the timeline, it is very informative. While I do feel as if private resolution was attempted, there was not sufficient time given to you to change. Instead you were blind-sided by the

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

Dear Voting Representatives, You have heard it said that there were offlist attempts to resolve with me, privately, the matter now at hand. On review of the past 6 months of my email archives and other records, I find only the following relevant communications from FIG members. - On 28 May,

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 3:14:42 PM UTC-5, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: [snip] > I confirmed with Michael before I did the first post in this thread that > according to him offlist attempts at resolving this was in fact made. I > stated this with the first post in this thread. I repeated

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

> On 06 Jul 2016, at 20:35, Glenn Eggleton wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 1:25:40 PM UTC-4, Larry Garfield wrote: > On 07/05/2016 12:57 PM, Paul Jones wrote: > > Dear Voting Representatives, > > *snip* > > > As such, you can see that the complaint appeals to only

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 1:25:40 PM UTC-4, Larry Garfield wrote: > On 07/05/2016 12:57 PM, Paul Jones wrote: > > Dear Voting Representatives, > > *snip* > > > As such, you can see that the complaint appeals to only one portion of > "the PHP Community" -- perhaps a portion with which the

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 09:26:28 UTC-7, Chris Johnson wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:14:35 AM UTC-5, Angie Byron / webchick > wrote: > > [snip] > > >> However, the fact that this accusation has this many other signatories >> from leaders in the PHP community who are *not*

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

On 07/05/2016 12:57 PM, Paul Jones wrote: Dear Voting Representatives, *snip* As such, you can see that the complaint appeals to only one portion of "the PHP Community" -- perhaps a portion with which the complainants themselves identify. But there is another substantial portion, maybe as