Notice: Based on Gary's feedback, we've made a few small-ish changes to
the FIG 3 PR:
1) Tightened up the language of the mission statement. It still says
essentially the same thing but with fewer words. (Largely based on
input from Gary off list.)
https://github.com/michaelcullum/fig-standards/compare/3fd06bbd924a0a07fb3fe81ab8651511aa07caca...c28f8dbf7bd908c01fa3012eb6c98c5144f9002c
2) Added a recommended 2 week discussion period for "non-trivial"
votes. It's not a hard requirement, but it formalizes the "unwritten
rule that we should usually have one" into a written rule that we should
usually have one. :-)
https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/752/commits/c4214ab0e1af0ec9668130f4c1b1bfd8482dae72
I don't expect either of these to be controversial, but just to be safe
I will let it sit a few more days before calling the vote. Constructive
feedback still welcome.
--Larry Garfield
On 09/08/2016 03:30 PM, Michael Cullum wrote:
As I was directly addressed and asked to respond to some points, I'll
respond here but as noted previously, I'm not speaking in a
secretarial capacity.
N.B When I refer to ‘FIG Member’ I mean people with voting rights
essentially, so depending on the context either core committee members
and member projects (FIG 3.0 context) or just member projects (FIG
2.0/status quo context).
On the note of giving secretaries more powers, I'd note the only real
change at all was we restricted the previously much too open
"Clarifying any interpretation of bylaw text" to what it is now (See
https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/752/files#diff-b58538881047f8ede6b65a2ca2e01261R58and
https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/752/files#diff-b58538881047f8ede6b65a2ca2e01261R64).
There was no addition of 'powers', just a restriction on them added.
Larry has touched on this note briefly but I'll reiterate, with
regards to working group discussions, as Secretaries we'd be working
to ensure that discussions took place on *a medium* that is well
publicised and we're working towards this already with the current
PSRs but we didn't want to micromanage this in the bylaws.
Regarding secretaries being able to start any vote, this isn't a
change from the status quo. Larry and I discussed this and ultimately,
just because the secretaries have an ability, it doesn't mean they
should always be using it, but it's possibly better for them to be
able to than have to face potential bureaucratic tanglement later on
(this was my rationale for not removing the current blanket
statement). In addition to just being an ability in case it is needed,
there are also a number of times when it makes sense for secretaries
to be able to open votes as standard, for example:
*
If a bylaw clarification needs doing and we ascertain it's beyond
the remit of secretaries
*
For clearing up misc. items such as the vote about 11 months ago
to remove translations
*
When a bylaw amendment vote that affects the contents of PSRs is
requested by a PSR Editor who cannot open a vote (Interface suffix)
It's important here to note that a Secretary opening a vote doesn't
mean they are advocating for the change either, it just means they
want members to make a decision on something through a vote, and the
ability to be able to defer things to members is important as
secretaries - it's like passing a decision up to your boss at work
because you know it's not your call. I think this ultimately comes
down to do you trust Secretaries to not do stupid things (or if they
do, realise this, apologise and reverse it), and if you don't, then
recall votes should be used or you shouldn't elect them in the first
place.
On 5 September 2016 at 17:37, Paul Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com
<mailto:pmjone...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Michael,
The proposal, and the vote, themselves create "drama." I assert
there can be nothing *but* "drama" as the result of this proposal,
and the ensuing vote. Of course, if avoiding drama is a key point,
the proposal can be withdrawn at any time.
The contention arises from you and Larry (and perhaps others) who
want to re-constitute the FIG *in toto* and *in situ*, to conform
to a new vision of your own, rather than to incrementally perfect
an expression of the existing founding vision. Without the
proposal, there is no contention. You and Larry are the ones who
have brought the contention here.
You, and Larry, and any member projects that agree with you, can
"transition into FIG 3.0" right now, by resigning and starting a
new group with a new name. Doing so will leave here all those who
support the founding vision, to pursue that vision unperturbed.
You all, for your part, can pursue your new-and-different vision
in your new-and-different group in any way you like.
The contention exists from the general utterances about what a number
of people have identified as general problems in the FIG. FIG 3.0 aims
to fix a number of those 'problems' and it was neither me nor Larry
that started these discussions back in January (or before; these
discussions have circulated for years as we all know) about changes to
FIG structure nor initially raised many of these comments. We just
researched PEP, IETF etc. (as others had suggested) and helped put
those suggestions into the text of a series of bylaw changes.
Contention does not have to mean drama though and it will only be made
so if people insist on making it so; contention and disagreement can
be healthy for a standards body (as you've regularly pointed out), so
long as it is not done in a detrimental fashion. FIG 3.0 will go to a
vote, as the decision for what to happen to the FIG is neither Larry's
nor yours as no one person controls the FIG; the entire body of member
projects do. I'd ask you have respect for that sovereignty; after all,
you wrote the voting protocol that essentially defines that
sovereignty. If member projects wish it to be a separate organisation,
that's entirely fine, but they deserve a chance to vote on it, as I
think these topics on the mailing clearly show that some or many
people disagree with you. It’s not democratic in the slightest to
prevent a vote from even taking place, and nobody has the power to do
so, so lets stop beating the same bush and just proceed. People can
make their relevant cases and people can discuss what they think is
best, a vote can take place [as is our way], and then move on from there.
--
Many thanks,
Michael C
N.B. I do not post this message as a secretary but as a co-author of a
spec and the person who compiled the secretary job description
initially in the bylaws to explain why things were written as they
were, but not to advocate for them. I do this in line with my declared
conflicts of interest.
--
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/8986c104-8b38-1555-59f6-f2c3a5e78e6b%40garfieldtech.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
