On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Adam Culp <thegeeky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael, > > Please self-throttle a bit. It seems you are over-communicating/defending > rather than allowing members to flesh this out. > > Perhaps a topic for a different thread, but I'm becoming increasingly > concerned about the direction I see things going. Not to be alarmist, but I > feel I should speak up. I am seeing more and more posts where Secretaries > (namely Michael) are increasingly playing a much more active role in > decisions and direction through their communication. Additionally, in the > TL;DR (topic of this thread) it states the Secretaries will be doing > "exactly same as present", which by it's definition is vague. I think > current activity, as well as these posts, by secretaries, is already > bordering on being "too much". Please be cautious of "cheering" versus > aiding members understanding of issues at hand. > I will second this point, and add I am seeing the secretaries roles becoming more Authoritative instead of Assistive. I want us, as a group, to make sure that it's always the latter case. I also want to say thank you to Michael for putting together the TLDR and the diagrams that I requested for FIG 3.0 > > Regards, > Adam Culp, IBMiToolkit > > > > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 12:28:18 PM UTC-4, Michael Cullum wrote: >> >> I apologise for the double post, I had not seen Matthieu's last post, >> after this post I will self-throttle as I have been previously and not >> reply for the rest of the day. I'm also about to go away for a few days so >> I will be responding less but Larry is of course still around. >> >> On 7 August 2016 at 09:31, Matthieu Napoli <matt...@mnapoli.fr> wrote: >>> >>> >>> My last concern would then be: are we confident that the scope of the >>> Core Committee vote is well defined and cannot be abused even a little? >>> Here is an extreme scenario: could a Core Committee member vote -1 on a >>> standard because that member has an implementation in their framework that >>> is different, and the new standard could threaten somehow their de-facto >>> existing standard in the community? Do those vote need to be justified >>> somehow, and is their a recourse if their's a doubt or flagrant abuse? >>> Sorry for bringing such a "dark" question up :) >>> >>> In any case all of this is a very good improvement, thanks to those >>> working on that. >>> >> >> Thank you also for your kind words and raising such important points for >> addressing. >> >> You bring up an entirely valid point, people in any position of >> responsibility are subject to abusing that power and responsibility they >> hold, whether they are Secretaries or Core Committee Members. There are >> mechanisms in place for calling for what is essentially a removal vote/vote >> of no confidence (Recall Vote) in Core Committee Members and Secretaries, >> and of course they will be subject to forced re-election once their terms >> end, a good time to elect people who will be voting within their remit and >> taking the FIG in the desired direction of the wider FIG community and >> structure. I'd also note that with 12 of them, 4 of them would need to vote >> -1 for a motion to fail. I'd imagine that the Secretaries and Core >> Committee would all work closely together to ensure that everyone is >> fulfilling their role properly. I would also imagine that whilst it is not >> required in the bylaws, those electing the Core Committee would expect any >> -1 votes to be appropriately justified to the rest of the Core Committee >> and the wider FIG community; similarly to how judges in a supreme court >> might publish a dissent >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissenting_opinion>. >> >> Many thanks, >> Michael C >> > -- > 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/fe83afcf-c6fe-4a83-9d3e-6b89b568f7aa%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/fe83afcf-c6fe-4a83-9d3e-6b89b568f7aa%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/CAKxcST_xMLuwFvEFYaza3opyCNFXuDrFvr6eR0E7Zy%3DWs_uXFg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
