Dear Voting Representatives, Since the secretaries have seen fit to summarize the complainants' responses so far, but not my own, I will do so here.
First, I said in <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/w38tCU4mdgU/KNY9lbNSCgAJ>: > Indeed, since not everyone here agrees that my speech was objectionable, > perhaps you can say specifically (in reference to the many points you raised) > what you would have *liked* me to have said instead of what I *actually* > said. That would probably be the best indicator of your desires. None of the complainants has yet volunteered how they would modify my messages (as linked in Larry Garfield's points-of-complaint) to make my words conform to their sensibilities regarding "tone." Second, I said in <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/w38tCU4mdgU/j7G5Sx_dCQAJ>: > There has been no clarification from the complainants on exactly what they > think removing me from voting status will achieve. Aura will still have a > vote, and I will still be present on the mailing list to speak as I will. I > ask again: how exactly do the complainants feel this action will provide > redress for their complaint? The complainants have continuously failed to address this. At least, they have failed to address it directly. It is possible that Larry Garfield addressed it indirectly when he said in <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/w38tCU4mdgU/92la9MM7CgAJ>: > FIG currently has no explicit "ban from the list" bylaw. That was a flaw in > its original construction, frankly, albeit a common one for such a loose > group in its early days. At the moment, the closest we have is this ability > of the Secretaries: "Moderate discussions on github, the mailing list and IRC > channels to ensure that an appropriate environment is maintained". Whether > "moderate" includes "ban" is not specified, but over the last 6 months we've > decently-well established by precedent that it can. It's also easier to do > with a non-voting-rep than a voting rep, since a voting rep, well, needs to > be able to post in order to vote. I infer from this that the complainants' intent is to (1) strip me of my status as a Voting Representative, then (2) attempt to ban me from the mailing list as a non-Voting Representative. The complainants should confirm or deny this inference, and then proceed to say how they think removing me as a Voting Representative will provide redress for their complaint. * * * Regarding the secretaries' summary of the complainants' responses: > Paul, could you please respond to (reject or accept) each of the suggestions > laid down by other parties. From a flick through the mailing list, the > following things appear to have been requested or suggested by individuals: > > (1) Accepting there is a problem > > (2) Attempting to conduct yourself in a more friendly and welcoming way, > whilst still making the same valid points > > (3) Avoid FIG internal debates and focus on technical discussions > > (4) Take a break period from the FIG of 6 months > > (5) Get a group of people to review and provide you with feedback on messages > and possible perception of tone to your mailing list/PR comments > > (6) Resign as a voting representative I note first that the secretaries left out the suggestions that I should "do some soul searching" and "reflect"; I will of course ignore those suggestions, and the moral narcissism they imply. As for suggestions (1) and (2), this discussion thread has revealed that roughly half of the participants find either no problem with my words that is removal-worthy, or that the complainants' behavior itself is a problem. (Indeed, since the opinions are so split, perhaps the complainants themselves should "accept there is a problem" and "attempt to conduct themselves in a more friendly and welcoming way.") Given that, I neither find, nor do I admit to, any misconduct on my part. As for suggestions (3), (4), and (6), these are all variations on "get out, or be quiet; if you must speak, only speak on the topics the complainants allow you to." I reject them categorically. Finally, as for suggestion (5), I reiterate what I said earlier in this message: the complainants have had my messages available to them for many weeks now, and have not volunteered any editing they would do to make my words suit their preferences on "tone." The opportunity has been before them all along, and they have declined to take it. Further, the suggestion carries just a whiff of an allusion to censorship and speech policing, to which I will not submit. * * * If "we're not the problem, you are" and "you should only talk the way we want you to talk, on the subjects we'll let you talk about" are the best responses the complainants can muster, then we are at an impasse. In that case, the secretaries (or one of the complaining Voting Representatives) should call the vote, as I said should have been done 14 days ago, and as the secretaries suggested might be done 11 days ago. As always, thank you for your time and attention. -- Paul M. Jones http://paul-m-jones.com -- 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/2EBDBAE1-222E-4149-AE44-DBEF770C76D8%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
