Please stop adding conjecture and breeding more drama? Regards, Adam Culp
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 2:30:24 PM UTC-4, pedrofr...@gmail.com wrote: > > Even in the middle of such heated argument, Paul refuses to have a private > conversation with the secretaries and Woody, to see if they can reach an > agreement on the sponsorship of PSR-17. > > That's unwillingness to take the most productive and conflict-free road, > to compromise even on the little things and to keep this list technical. > > Em quinta-feira, 30 de junho de 2016 13:05:31 UTC-3, Pádraic Brady > escreveu: > >> I'm alive? I'm alive! ;) >> >> On 30 June 2016 at 09:27, Phil Sturgeon <pjstu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I wanted to swing by and thank everyone for keeping this conversation >> so >> > constructive. Many people like Larry, Michael and Matt have said >> exactly >> > what I would have loved to have said, but done it far more eloquently. >> > >> > Sadly, I find the amount of victim blaming going on in here to be >> bizarre >> > and gross. The FIG has lost so many good quality contributors, all >> because >> > of one specific person, and none of them needed to be lost. You can >> have the >> > thickest skin in the world, but eventually you get fed up with it and >> wander >> > off. >> >> Not a voting member anymore, but I'd urge folk not to fall into >> thinking that hard work, a thick skin, and a keen intellect solves >> everything. It's 2016 after all and we should know better. There are >> lots of people with "thin skins", and that's just how people are. The >> reality is that we all work with people who are widely varied across >> personality and other characteristics. Some have mild to serious >> mental illnesses or have other things which play on their mental >> health. >> >> The point is that "growing a thicker skin" is a nice convenient myth >> when you spin it as applicable to the entire population of the planet. >> Myths are not real things. They don't have substance simply because >> you believe them. >> >> Our mental health is as important as the physical side of the health >> coin. Abrasiveness, disruptive behaviour, life's trials, bullying and >> many more are the bacteria, viruses and cancers of the mental world. >> All of them generated by people, sometimes unwittingly, sometimes very >> wittingly. What you might call a "thin skin", others would call their >> immune systems getting to work to protect them from harm. The >> alternative is avoiding infectious bags of noxiousness entirely. >> Quarantine works. >> >> As Mike put it back in an earlier email "mutual empathy" would bring >> the group closer together as a working unit. >> >> So far, so good... >> >> However, mutual empathy must unfailingly go both ways for everyone to >> be treated fairly and I was, and remain, disappointed to see >> complaints about a voting member being made public with the force of >> FIG behind them in this manner. You cannot write an email without >> input from an accused member and maintain a neutral position. >> Appearances do matter. It therefore follows, that there is little >> neutrality evident in this call for a vote. It presents one side, and >> one side only. So we have a jury, but no judge, a prosecution, but the >> defence is missing in action (well, here anyway) other than supporting >> amici curiae. It's looking just a tad bit lopsided... >> >> I know Paul and I do not agree over having Codes of Conduct. We're >> probably complete opposites on every point about them! However, my >> support for COCs in general does yet rely on being as fair as is >> realistically possible in a community, and that carries over even in >> the absence of a COC as a personal belief. So, how about some >> clarification. Was Paul notified of this incoming bombshell prior to >> the email? Were there any private interactions before a decision was >> made to bring this public notice forward? Were complaints put to him >> before being made public? Was he afforded some time to respond, and >> how much? And yes, I assume you would have documented and summarised >> this. >> >> I could go on, but the point is: Was Paul given an informed >> opportunity and sufficient time to defend himself in preparation for >> this vote discussion? >> >> I honestly hope the answer is a clear "yes, but of course". Lots of >> private emails, etc. Bent over backwards to reach a private >> resolution. I'm almost assuming it, but assumptions are devilish >> things and better replaced with documented facts. >> >> Finally, I would suggest that the group (at the risk of more "drama") >> give some consideration to appearances. Public votes can be, in and of >> themselves, a punitive consequence. If you're going to mete them out, >> then document all the things you tried to resolve the problem prior to >> such a vote. Don't provide fodder for conspiracy theories that should >> be easily debunked. >> >> Paddy >> >> -- >> Pádraic Brady >> > -- 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/5470d822-55d3-4825-aaf3-2a411b7c593d%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
