> On 10 Jul 2016, at 16:13, Rafael Dohms <rdo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 4:57:58 AM UTC+2, pmjones wrote: > > > On Jul 9, 2016, at 16:28, Anthony Ferrara <ircm...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > > wrote: > > > I think the ball is in Paul's court, if I was in his shoes I would really do > some soul searching, talk to the people on this list and try to figure out > what is really wrong, those conversations alone could help a lot. > > Now if these 2 weeks do not end up with a viable solution, then the vote for > removal would be another message.
Honestly I find this a bit unrealistic. ie. even if Paul has done said soul searching, a 2 week timeline on some epiphany is a bit unrealistic to ask, let alone its not clear to me how he would be able to communicate said epiphany unless it would entail him basically recanting is entire past. At any rate let me try and propose another approach. Here are a few core assumptions on which my suggestion is based: 1) posting to this list is not time sensitive in the sense that a few hours, or even a day delay is no problem (unless of course a vote is about to expire) 2) Paul does not intend to bring about the consequences that people attribute to his communication style Based on this assumption I would propose that Paul, at least for a certain amount if time submit his postings to a form of “advice process”: http://guides.shiftbase.net/advice-process-2/ (note I didn’t really find a nice and compact explanation and this is the best I found). The fundamental idea is that Paul would submit his postings to a subgroup to get advice on the wording. He is however not obligated to integrate said advice. This way Paul’s technical abilities should remain available to the group un-altered. Paul’s ability to critique things he finds worthy of critique also remains un-altered, albeit with a bit of a delay due to the advice process. It would also potentially indirectly help with the accusation of insufficient throttling. All the while Paul could, within a safe space get feedback on what part his communication could be problematic and he can then choose to use this feedback to remove the problematic bits, while keeping his intended message intact. The long term goal is of course that through this process, we get to a point where this advice process is no longer necessary. I am not sure how to implement this from a technology implementation or who a sensible subgroup is for this. But I wonder if this is even a feasible remedy for all parties involved in theory? regards, Lukas Kahwe Smith sm...@pooteeweet.org -- 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/2561AD66-3BEF-416D-BAF5-C78F1C0EA313%40pooteeweet.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
