Can I address a question directly to the secretaries?
Your message here seems to imply an "aut aut": this thread should end with
a vote about Paul's expulsion and nothing else.
I see on this thread many (me included, but I'm no voting member, so...)
advocating a more useful and soft approach, so
> This action is not about Paul vs the secretaries, nor is it about Paul
> vs any individual in the community, nor is it about Paul's character
> in general. This organization, which Michael and I serve as
> secretaries, has been asked for an opportunity to discuss and vote
> solely on the future
It has been 12 days and over 70 posts. Can we all agree that there simply
isn't enough push for this to pass anyway and lock this thread?
The only thing the vote would achieve at this point is ignite reddit and
twitter for 3 days, cause some posts of people making fun of the FIG and
not pass anyway
On 05/07/2016 18:57, Paul Jones wrote:
Dear Voting Representatives,
My name is Paul M. Jones; I am one of the founders of this group.
Even hating the "legal speaking" and the "lawyering", I think you are right.
Removing you from the voting members achieves nothing.
I propose a simple, old,
Who would decide on the strikes then?
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Alessandro Pellizzari
wrote:
> On 05/07/2016 18:57, Paul Jones wrote:
>
> Dear Voting Representatives,
>>
>> My name is Paul M. Jones; I am one of the founders of this group.
>>
>
> Even hating the "legal speaking" and the "l
Here’s an absolute, complete outsider’s view. FWIW. But someone with
extensive experience with conflicts in open source communities (chiefly,
Drupal). I don’t know Paul, and I don’t know most FIG members. But I know a
fair bit about humans, and I have read through this entire thread thanks to
>
> 500% on the person *doing the communicating* to do said communicating in a
> way that doesn’t alienate and frustrate others, *particularly* in an
> “official” standards body like this
But, this isn't a clearly laid out responsibility or rule for the FIG
members. Yes, one would think it is
On 06/07/2016 11:36, Roman Tsjupa wrote:
Who would decide on the strikes then?
Common sense.
I think it's pretty clear, also in this case, that a lot of people have
had problems with his behaviour.
Doesn't matter if it's the majority.
If a community is made of toxic or toxic-tolerant peop
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:14:35 AM UTC-5, Angie Byron / webchick
wrote:
[snip]
> However, the fact that this accusation has this many other signatories
> from leaders in the PHP community who are *not* generally known for causing
> drama for no reason, saying that this person is being
Hi Everyone,
My opinion doesn't hold much weight here but I felt obligated to give my 2
cents.
I am not in favor of expulsion. In my experience Paul is a very thoughtful
and logical person. His principals and opinions have remained consistent
over the years. Even if I don't always agree with h
On 07/05/2016 12:57 PM, Paul Jones wrote:
Dear Voting Representatives,
*snip*
As such, you can see that the complaint appeals to only one portion of "the PHP
Community" -- perhaps a portion with which the complainants themselves identify. But
there is another substantial portion, maybe as m
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 09:26:28 UTC-7, Chris Johnson wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:14:35 AM UTC-5, Angie Byron / webchick
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>> However, the fact that this accusation has this many other signatories
>> from leaders in the PHP community who are *not* genera
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 1:25:40 PM UTC-4, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 07/05/2016 12:57 PM, Paul Jones wrote:
> > Dear Voting Representatives,
>
> *snip*
>
> > As such, you can see that the complaint appeals to only one portion of
> "the PHP Community" -- perhaps a portion with which the c
> On 06 Jul 2016, at 20:35, Glenn Eggleton wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 1:25:40 PM UTC-4, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 07/05/2016 12:57 PM, Paul Jones wrote:
> > Dear Voting Representatives,
>
> *snip*
>
> > As such, you can see that the complaint appeals to only one portion of "the
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 3:14:42 PM UTC-5, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
[snip]
> I confirmed with Michael before I did the first post in this thread that
> according to him offlist attempts at resolving this was in fact made. I
> stated this with the first post in this thread. I repeated th
Dear Voting Representatives,
You have heard it said that there were offlist attempts to resolve with me,
privately, the matter now at hand. On review of the past 6 months of my email
archives and other records, I find only the following relevant communications
from FIG members.
- On 28 May, I
Lukas, I do apologize I see now that I had forgotten some facts in your
original post.
Paul, thank you for the timeline, it is very informative.
While I do feel as if private resolution was attempted, there was not
sufficient time given to you to change. Instead you were blind-sided by the
gove
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Paul Jones wrote:
> - On 08 Jun, Matthew Weier O'Phinney sent an email encouraging me in the
> friendliest possible way to resign. To paraphrase, he opined that I had three
> options: adapt to recent changes and/or submit to proposed changes in FIG,
> continue t
>
> My main point of contention is that I feel Paul argues legalities only
> when he disagrees with outcomes, which, in the past six months, seems
> to be essentially every decision, judgment call, etc.
>
I disagree - Paul would have voted to expel Dracony but voted against the
motion because
Paul,
Finally, as to the punishment sought, the complainants apparently wish to
> "request a replacement Voting Representative" for the Aura project.
> (Because there is a ready replacement, the Aura project itself is not a
> candidate for being expelled.)
As far as I can tell, this punishment do
On Jul 6, 2016 6:40 PM, "Andrew Carter" wrote:
>>
>> My main point of contention is that I feel Paul argues legalities only
>> when he disagrees with outcomes, which, in the past six months, seems
>> to be essentially every decision, judgment call, etc.
>
>
> I disagree - Paul would have voted to
Hi Matthew,
I believe there's been a misunderstanding (either in my reading of your
response - or your reading of mine).
To clarify my response - I wasn't trying to discuss the way that he voted
or behaved in these discussions and whether it was right or wrong. I was
just providing a counter e
22 matches
Mail list logo
