Hi, >From the eligibility criteria : https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/blob/b2ae9e026539d0653467eb6d5d87b917c6bd0b74/bylaws/003-membership.md#eligibility-criteria
must not be: Project Representatives of a Member Project So does that mean, they can be an internal representative of a project? And can write a "disclose conflicts of interest"? *Hari K T* You can ring me : +91 9388 75 8821 http://harikt.com , https://github.com/harikt , http://www.linkedin.com/in/harikt , http://www.xing.com/profile/Hari_KT Skype : kthari85 Twitter : harikt On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Michael Cullum <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Sorry for not responding sooner, I am currently away this week with > limited internet and would normally be not handling secretary duties for a > week but this is not possible due to a Secretary vacancy and Samantha being > a candidate in the election. > > Firstly, Thanks Nate and Paul, nomination received. :) > > Secondly, I might add that whilst this has been addressed to the > candidates, I'd ask everyone keep this election fair and clean. Everyone is > aware of recent events regarding the potential expulsion of Paul as project > representative but in a few minutes I will be closing that vote and the > result will be that he is to not be removed and I'd ask people respect the > outcome of this vote. Secretaries are in the role they are in to be neutral > and I'd ask people consider the impact that bringing (for lack of a better > term) politics into a Secretary election could have on that Secretary's > ability to do their job and in the same way, candidates may very well be > expected to soon represent a neutral position so I would recommend they > keep this in mind throughout the election. In the same fashion, I'd ask > that once a Secretary is elected, whoever they may be, they are given the > chance to execute their duties properly and are given a chance *by all*; > nobody wants to see the FIG split due to who has been elected, or who > hasn't been elected, as Secretary. > > On a personal note, as I know I've been referenced a few times in this > topic (Curiously referred to as 'the other secretary'?), I am a phpBB team > member but have no influence over the vote as Marc (Project Rep) is the > Lead Developer and has the only and final decision on any FIG votes; and > the position of FIG representative lies with Lead Developer role > (previously filled by Nils). I have noted this before, and even mentioned > my personal friendship with Marc when he became representative, and that I > work on phpBB when I was nominated to be Secretary. I have clarified this > further in the conflicts of interest topic. > > Paul, I would note from your paragraph of what you wish to accomplish as > Secretary you said you wish to champion bylaw changes. Can I please just > confirm what you mean by this for eligibility reasons? As I'm sure you are > aware there is currently an ongoing discussion on the mailing list about > whether that would affect your eligibility criteria for being a Secretary. > I am of course aware that this is something that affected me personally as > a Secretary where I came in already being a collaborator with Larry on FIG > 3.0 (albeit it was in discussion phase back then) and it was raised by a > project representative (Adam) that he believed my continuing championing of > it on the mailing list was inappropriate, however I did clarify to him that > I had no intention of picking up biases on any new bylaw changes whilst a > Secretary as this would be wholly inappropriate and was just seeing FIG 3.0 > out, and I have also since stepped back from championing FIG 3.0 on the > mailing list. I also note you've just suggested your own FIG 3.0 > alternative of which you need to find an alternative person to continue to > champion should this bylaw change go through. > > On the note of Paul's nomination, there appears to be disagreement amongst > member projects/voting representatives on the matter of whether being a > project lead developer/BDFL means you have control over a vote and over who > the representative is and whether this violates the principle of > impartiality. In the past it was decided that as a project lead, you did > have influence over the vote and therefore in the case of Silex, it > couldn't have a vote exercised by Beau as it would fall under the final > influence of Fabien who controlled the vote of Symfony also; yet a number > of member projects (Adam and Paul) have highlighted they believe these > circumstances to be different. > > As right now I am the only secretary not up for re-election (Samantha > being up for re-election and after Joe's resignation) I do not feel > comfortable making any kind of even initial judgement call on my own, > particularly as it concerns Secretaries; after previous incidents the > current consensus, and something to effect Paul I believe was working on a > bylaw change for after a discussion between myself and him a number of > months ago, is that Secretaries can clarify bylaws interpretation in some > cases subject to no objections from voting members. As secretaries, we > perform all our actions together in agreement, particularly those as > important as this and I feel that this is not a call that can be made by > any individual Secretary and even should there be a full complement of > Secretaries, I would tend towards deferring it straight to a member project > vote anyway, it is a decision that should be for member projects to decide > as is standard practice (using the voting protocol) especially so as it > concerns Secretary elections. > > I'm suggesting that we proceed with the election with Paul as a candidate, > and if Paul is elected as a Secretary and does not wish Aura to resign as a > project at that time, then there can be a two week vote for Member Projects > to decide if this is considered 'okay'. The discussion period for such a > vote can be marked as commencing when Graham made his initial comment so > that the 2 week discussion period is still observed. Then, in the instance > the vote says Aura should resign, then Paul may either choose to remain as > a voting representative or become a Secretary and Aura must resign. Should > he choose to become a Secretary, he would take up office on the following > Sunday, or should he choose Aura to remain a member project then we will > hold a Secretary election again in October to fulfil the vacancy. > > Does anyone have any objections to this way of proceeding? This appears to > be the fairest way I can see to allow member projects to have their say, > without putting Paul at any disadvantage during the election. > > TL;DR: There will be no judgement suggested formally by Secretaries on > whether Aura should resign as that's something for Member Projects to > decide; so if PMJ is elected then a vote can be held after the election > result but before PMJ takes office. > > -- > Michael Cullum > FIG Secretary > > On 11 August 2016 at 21:32, <greyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I was under the impression that previous precedent was pretty clear, and >> in lieu of explicit bylaws on the situation, should suffice. It has been >> established that a being Lead Developer gives you control over a vote and >> therefore would remove his ability to be impartial. >> >> If the solution here is that we need to amend the bylaws to explicitly >> say that secretary can't have direct control over a Member Project, I'm >> okay with that but, in my opinion, that vote and amendment needs to happen >> before the Secretary elections. >> >> I'm increasingly bothered that this group seems unable or unwilling to >> make simple, logical judgement calls when there is no direct coverage by >> the by-laws. It seems pretty obvious that a member shouldn't be able to >> vote in their own expulsion. A member project should not serve as >> secretary, etc. These things seem very common sense to me, and yet, because >> they aren't explicitly and directly covered in the bylaws, they're allowed >> to continue. If we continue down this path our bylaws are going to be more >> verbose than our standards and eclipse any value that we provide to the >> community. >> >> -- Graham Daniels >> >> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 2:23:54 PM UTC-4, Adam Culp wrote: >>> >>> Agreed. And that was the point. We need to have better by-laws in place >>> to prevent over-stepping and conflict of interests, and for the rest we >>> need to accept one's word at some point when they state that the reigns >>> will be turned over so they can perform the duties at hand. ;-) >>> >>> Regards, >>> Adam Culp >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, Phil Sturgeon wrote: >>>> >>>> Adam: I think the suggestion from Graham was to delve as deeply as we >>>> have done in the past and no further. We aren't trying to find new ways to >>>> keep people out, but Paul did set a precedence in the Beau/Silex vote and >>>> as such that same concern should be just as relevant now. >>>> >>>> If we start delving further we might get to "they can't be a secretary >>>> because they stayed on their sofa one time" levels and we don't need to do >>>> that. :) >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:19:38 PM UTC-4, Adam Culp wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Oh my, would this extend to personal relationship, which could >>>>> theoretically also carry influence? >>>>> >>>>> How complex should we delve? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Adam Culp >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 12:33:01 PM UTC-4, Woody Gilk wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Hari K T <ktha...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > There is another question you need to ask, what about other >>>>>> secretary? They >>>>>> > are not lead of a project, but does that mean they don't have any >>>>>> influence >>>>>> > on voting members ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Hari, >>>>>> >>>>>> To my knowledge, none of the current secretaries are associated with >>>>>> any member project. All secretaries are required to disclose >>>>>> conflicts >>>>>> of interest. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Woody Gilk >>>>>> http://about.me/shadowhand >>>>>> >>>>> -- >> 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/ms >> gid/php-fig/453600c0-bb1b-43dc-8e96-99b4d2648ab0%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/453600c0-bb1b-43dc-8e96-99b4d2648ab0%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/CAAqcDMiKzrkw4oB9uZH8yJD9uTaFENDq-rD-4zQEkFgTaX8U6g%40mail. > gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CAAqcDMiKzrkw4oB9uZH8yJD9uTaFENDq-rD-4zQEkFgTaX8U6g%40mail.gmail.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/CAESZFt%2B7jP85-qbEtS%3DZiMaZzm13DOZovNqvXkXevxQjeS5daA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
