Hi Michael, First off, I wanted to give you a well deserved hat tip for what you've been doing in this thread (and as a secretary) in helping keep this topic in the proper direction, that is, to its conclusion. I'm sure you've had to listen/read to more than your ears/eyes wanted to handle and given up plenty of time better spent elsewhere in the process. Moderation is a thankless task and piling that on with your other FIG duties, even while shorthanded, deserves some appreciation.
If I may ask, I have two questions for you. First - I'm curious why you have asked for no further discussion in this topic. The reason for my curiosity is because Paul has twice now asked specifically for voting members to point out some particular statements he has made and how they could have been better framed/worded/etc. The only people I see that took the care to partially address that request are Larry Garfield when he linked some statements he took issue with and Pedro who actually chimed in on how he felt those replies should've been handled. It feels like after a second request for feedback from the group on how he should've worded some of his statements the request is being ignored in favor of an expulsion vote over bilateral negotiation - which would seem is counter to the purpose of why this thread was created. Second - In the spirit of neutrality and impartiality, why is a secretary going to submit the expulsion vote? There are well over 30 people who could start such a vote. To be clear, I'm not saying you would be wrong to call the vote in their stead, the bylaws specifically allow you to call such a vote. However, to me it feels like a secretary calling a vote is in poor form. This is a spat among the voting members and a such should be called by a voting member. Again, not saying your are doing wrong, but if I were in your shoes I would remind a voting member asking me to call a vote that they can call the same vote themselves. To the FIG - I've been lurking around here for maybe a year and a half or so. I must say the lot of you are quite the intelligent bunch. I've learned quite a bit from reading through PSR discussions and seeing all the various sides of a proposal, psuedo-code, actual code, arguments, etc. That said - this whole debate is very disappointing. Many of you are great minds with expertise in not only code, but organization and structure too. In my opinion the issue here is plain stubbornness combined with the inability to communicate during heated arguments....which is when you need that skill the most. Paul has certainly made a number of statements that I've read that contained snark and sarcasm at times when it wasn't appropriate. This includes some posts where he simply replied to add nothing constructive to an already heated argument. On the other hand I've watched a similar attitude come out of other voting members at times when Paul brought perfectly valid discussion points up. The counting of votes thread (or lack thereof) comes to mind in as an example. That thread heated up very quickly and Paul was not the only contributor to that. For many of Paul posts that he could've done without, there is an equally bad post by another voting rep here that they could've also done without. Obviously people will have their own perspectives on any subject, but in a collaborative environment extra care needs to be taken to take each other's perspective into account the best you can. I suggest that the members of this group take a step back and go read through some of those heated threads again with an open mind. Put your perspective in the back seat for a bit and try to see the argument from a different angle. If you can truly re-approach those threads with objectivity you will see that those arguments cannot be blamed solely on Paul. In the spirit of closing, there is clearly a communication issue awry, but it isn't isolated to Paul. If the FIG chooses to punish one member for the contribution of many the FIG fails as a whole in my eyes. Thank you, Jason On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 2:11:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Cullum wrote: > > Okay, thanks Paul for your response. I will put this to a vote on Tuesday; > currently I am at a conference in Barcelona and Samantha is on php[cruise] > so our availability and access is limited. If anyone wishes to make any > closing remarks, you are welcome to do so before then, but I'd ask that > responses are limited to closing remarks, not further discussion. > > Thanks, > Michael > > On 22 Jul 2016 8:15 p.m., "'Brian Teeman' via PHP Framework > Interoperability Group" <php...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> It seems quite clear that pmj wants to force this to a vote. >> >> -- >> 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/55b1fb22-feb7-49dd-a66c-ba9f0da4aea1%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/55b1fb22-feb7-49dd-a66c-ba9f0da4aea1%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> 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/1ee6c155-659d-451b-97cc-70f0db8a0fe7%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
