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 example to your assertion that he only argues legalities when he disagrees with the outcomes. This was the only part of your post that I was responding to, and you described it as your main point of contention. Regarding the PHPixie vote, Paul made it clear <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/TDX--AVR45c/o-6FPokwDgAJ> that his -1 vote to expulsion was because of the way that the vote and discussion period had been handled. He argued legalities regarding the legitimacy of the vote and the way it was counted out of principle, despite personally agreeing (it appears) with the proposed motion. I've been reading this thread carefully and trying to stay clear - but I do feel that this particular part of your response was demonstrably unfair. This also isn't a minor counter example. The way Paul expressed objection to the way that vote was counted is a significant factor (or at the least a triggering factor) in the current complaint. I'm not making any comment on the way Paul handled any of these situations (or the opinions he expressed) - but it clearly wasn't him bending the rules to suit his point of view, as he didn't disagree with the point of view that was suggested (that Dracony should no longer be a voting member). Last post from me as I'm aware of unwritten self throttling rules. On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 3:51:58 AM UTC+1, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > > > On Jul 6, 2016 6:40 PM, "Andrew Carter" <andrewca...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> 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 disagree - Paul would have voted to expel Dracony but voted against > the motion because he didn't think an adequate discussion period had been > fulfilled. > > You and others are totally missing the point when you make observations > like this. Yes, you see the situation in a particular way. Others see it in > another perspective. Neither is THE ONE TRUE OPINION. They are simply > different perspectives. > > There is room for each, and each holds equal validity, based on our > varying backgrounds. But dismissing other people's perspectives out-of-hand > because you have a differing point of view does a disservice to the > conversation. > > Yes, I get that Paul was disagreeing over whether the requisite discussion > period had occurred. I get it. The flip side of the situation is that the > by-laws do (did?) not specifically address this case. A judgment call was > made. The situation was nuanced, human. I'm asking that we all consider the > nuances and don't rush to judgment. Paul, in my observations, has been > quick to judgment, and unwilling to compromise. > > Again, I think Paul is fantastic at technical discourse. I would love to > see him spend his efforts there, instead of constantly debating policy. I > think technical discussions tend to bring out his best self. > > > > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:43:46 PM UTC+1, Matthew Weier O'Phinney > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Paul Jones <pmjo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> <snip> > >> > - 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 in > FIG, continue to argue against those changes, or leave the group entirely. > His advice was (again paraphrasing) to stop fighting and go my own way. > (Please note that this arrived *after* I had been informed that a complaint > would be presented to the group by the secretaries.) > >> > >> From my side, I was unaware of any other contact with Paul by other > >> FIG members or by the FIG secretaries when I emailed Paul. My missive > >> was based solely on my personal observations of Paul's interactions > >> with the list, with no prompting from anybody else. > >> > >> Further, I've yet to have a response. No acknowledgment whatsoever. I > >> can understand why at this point, knowing that the conversation with > >> the secretaries had already occurred, but it has been disheartening > >> nonetheless. > >> > >> 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. This feels like > >> he's attempting to bend the rules to suit *his* point of view, versus > >> those of a consensual group. At the same time, I see him accusing > >> others of playing politics, which feels frankly hypocritical. > >> > >> I think it's natural for the direction and make-up of a group to > >> change over time; if it didn't, something is wrong. My feeling is that > >> Paul is pining for the days before the group had as many members, and > >> when the word of those who founded the group or were most active was > >> law. The group today, however, is far different, and has taken on more > >> and greater responsibilities over time; change is necessary. > >> > >> I would be quite happy for Paul's continued involvement. I just would > >> rather his involvement be on debating technical specifications. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Matthew Weier O'Phinney > >> mweiero...@gmail.com > >> 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 php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/2d18c436-a102-4660-9ff9-b631e95b47da%40googlegroups.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/edd25fbf-b3c0-4462-add2-ec2e3881738b%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
