Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Andrew Carter]

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 example to your assertion that he only argues 
legalities when he disagrees with the outcomes. This was the only part of 
your post that I was responding to, and you described it as your main point 
of contention.

Regarding the PHPixie vote, Paul made it clear 
 that his 
-1 vote to expulsion was because of the way that the vote and discussion 
period had been handled. He argued legalities regarding the legitimacy of 
the vote and the way it was counted out of principle, despite personally 
agreeing (it appears) with the proposed motion.

I've been reading this thread carefully and trying to stay clear - but I do 
feel that this particular part of your response was demonstrably unfair.

This also isn't a minor counter example. The way Paul expressed objection 
to the way that vote was counted is a significant factor (or at the least a 
triggering factor) in the current complaint.

I'm not making any comment on the way Paul handled any of these situations 
(or the opinions he expressed) - but it clearly wasn't him bending the 
rules to suit his point of view, as he didn't disagree with the point of 
view that was suggested (that Dracony should no longer be a voting member).

Last post from me as I'm aware of unwritten self throttling rules.

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 3:51:58 AM UTC+1, Matthew Weier O'Phinney 
wrote:
>
>
> 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 expel Dracony but voted against 
> the motion because he didn't think an adequate discussion period had been 
> fulfilled.
>
> You and others are totally missing the point when you make observations 
> like this. Yes, you see the situation in a particular way. Others see it in 
> another perspective. Neither is THE ONE TRUE OPINION. They are simply 
> different perspectives. 
>
> There is room for each, and each holds equal validity, based on our 
> varying backgrounds. But dismissing other people's perspectives out-of-hand 
> because you have a differing point of view does a disservice to the 
> conversation. 
>
> Yes, I get that Paul was disagreeing over whether the requisite discussion 
> period had occurred. I get it. The flip side of the situation is  that the 
> by-laws do (did?) not specifically address this case. A judgment call was 
> made. The situation was nuanced, human. I'm asking that we all consider the 
> nuances and don't rush to judgment. Paul, in my observations, has been 
> quick to judgment, and unwilling to compromise.
>
> Again, I think Paul is fantastic at technical discourse. I would love to 
> see him spend his efforts there, instead of constantly debating policy. I 
> think technical discussions tend to bring out his best self.
>
> >
> > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:43:46 PM UTC+1, Matthew Weier O'Phinney 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 to argue against those changes, or leave the group entirely. 
> His advice was (again paraphrasing) to stop fighting and go my own way. 
> (Please note that this arrived *after* I had been informed that a complaint 
> would be presented to the group by the secretaries.) 
> >>
> >> From my side, I was unaware of any other contact with Paul by other 
> >> FIG members or by the FIG secretaries when I emailed Paul. My missive 
> >> was based solely on my personal observations of Paul's interactions 
> >> with the list, with no prompting from anybody else. 
> >>
> >> Further, I've yet to have a response. No acknowledgment whatsoever. I 
> >> can understand why at this point, knowing that the conversation with 
> >> the secretaries had already occurred, but it has been disheartening 
> >> nonetheless. 
> >>
> >> 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. This feels like 
> >> he's attempting to bend the rules to suit *his* point of view, versus 
> >> those of a consensual group. At the same time, I see him accusing 
> >> others of playing politics, which feels 

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Matthew Weier O'Phinney]

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 expel Dracony but voted against the
motion because he didn't think an adequate discussion period had been
fulfilled.

You and others are totally missing the point when you make observations
like this. Yes, you see the situation in a particular way. Others see it in
another perspective. Neither is THE ONE TRUE OPINION. They are simply
different perspectives.

There is room for each, and each holds equal validity, based on our varying
backgrounds. But dismissing other people's perspectives out-of-hand because
you have a differing point of view does a disservice to the conversation.

Yes, I get that Paul was disagreeing over whether the requisite discussion
period had occurred. I get it. The flip side of the situation is  that the
by-laws do (did?) not specifically address this case. A judgment call was
made. The situation was nuanced, human. I'm asking that we all consider the
nuances and don't rush to judgment. Paul, in my observations, has been
quick to judgment, and unwilling to compromise.

Again, I think Paul is fantastic at technical discourse. I would love to
see him spend his efforts there, instead of constantly debating policy. I
think technical discussions tend to bring out his best self.

>
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:43:46 PM UTC+1, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
wrote:
>>
>> 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 to argue against those changes, or leave the group entirely.
His advice was (again paraphrasing) to stop fighting and go my own way.
(Please note that this arrived *after* I had been informed that a complaint
would be presented to the group by the secretaries.)
>>
>> From my side, I was unaware of any other contact with Paul by other
>> FIG members or by the FIG secretaries when I emailed Paul. My missive
>> was based solely on my personal observations of Paul's interactions
>> with the list, with no prompting from anybody else.
>>
>> Further, I've yet to have a response. No acknowledgment whatsoever. I
>> can understand why at this point, knowing that the conversation with
>> the secretaries had already occurred, but it has been disheartening
>> nonetheless.
>>
>> 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. This feels like
>> he's attempting to bend the rules to suit *his* point of view, versus
>> those of a consensual group. At the same time, I see him accusing
>> others of playing politics, which feels frankly hypocritical.
>>
>> I think it's natural for the direction and make-up of a group to
>> change over time; if it didn't, something is wrong. My feeling is that
>> Paul is pining for the days before the group had as many members, and
>> when the word of those who founded the group or were most active was
>> law. The group today, however, is far different, and has taken on more
>> and greater responsibilities over time; change is necessary.
>>
>> I would be quite happy for Paul's continued involvement. I just would
>> rather his involvement be on debating technical specifications.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthew Weier O'Phinney
>> mweiero...@gmail.com
>> https://mwop.net/
>
> --
> 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/2d18c436-a102-4660-9ff9-b631e95b47da%40googlegroups.com
.
>
> 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/CAJp_myVX9%3DtpNF5%2BNUMpaN7j1N8iE2Qy3nzFt9O47YaRETHS0A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Stephen Rees-Carter]

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 does not provide a remedy for the
> various elements of the complaint. It neither removes my voice from the
> mailing list, nor does it remove the influence of Aura from the group. I
> am left to imagine, then, that there is some other purpose toward which
> this punishment is designed. Maybe it is intended only to be symbolic, or
> perhaps it is a stepping-stone toward some other undisclosed end.

The complainants should specify how removing me as a Voting Representative
> will salve their woes.


These comments tell me two very important things:

1. There have been many who have used your technical skills as the basis of
an argument for maintaining your status as a voting representative, however
you appear to be suggesting that you will still continue to contribute to
the FIG, regardless of the outcome of the vote. This tells me that your
technical skills should not be taken into account in this discussion, as
they will not be lost if you are voted against.

2. It also tells me that even if a majority of the voting representatives
of this group vote decide that your behaviour in this group is
unacceptable, you will continue to ignore their complaints and continue to
behave in exactly the same way as before the vote.

I personally believe that this vote is symbolic and will set a benchmark
for the level of behaviour that the FIG deems acceptable from their voting
members. It is important for the official representatives (i.e. voting
members) of the FIG to foster the sort of community they wish the FIG to
be. If people see a voting member behaving (in their opinion) badly, they
will form that view of the FIG itself. Some may find your behaviour
acceptable, but others (including myself) do not, and this reflects on the
FIG as a whole.

That said, there is still time for you to open a discussion to seek to
actually improve things for everyone, rather than simply holding your
ground and making careful arguments designed to sway voters to your side.
You (and many others!) expect those who find your behaviour unacceptable to
change, but you yourself refuse to change to make things easier for them
too. It's hard to find a middle ground when you won't come out from behind
your walls to negotiate.

Thanks,
~Stephen

-- 
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/CA%2BCYtpkVhLPfqBu7U6XZaNiv3tgdiiLEAvWo-bSPBX6scdLMiQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Andrew Carter]

>
> 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 he didn't think an adequate discussion period had been 
fulfilled.

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:43:46 PM UTC+1, Matthew Weier O'Phinney 
wrote:
>
> 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 to argue against those changes, or leave the group entirely. 
> His advice was (again paraphrasing) to stop fighting and go my own way. 
> (Please note that this arrived *after* I had been informed that a complaint 
> would be presented to the group by the secretaries.) 
>
> From my side, I was unaware of any other contact with Paul by other 
> FIG members or by the FIG secretaries when I emailed Paul. My missive 
> was based solely on my personal observations of Paul's interactions 
> with the list, with no prompting from anybody else. 
>
> Further, I've yet to have a response. No acknowledgment whatsoever. I 
> can understand why at this point, knowing that the conversation with 
> the secretaries had already occurred, but it has been disheartening 
> nonetheless. 
>
> 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. This feels like 
> he's attempting to bend the rules to suit *his* point of view, versus 
> those of a consensual group. At the same time, I see him accusing 
> others of playing politics, which feels frankly hypocritical. 
>
> I think it's natural for the direction and make-up of a group to 
> change over time; if it didn't, something is wrong. My feeling is that 
> Paul is pining for the days before the group had as many members, and 
> when the word of those who founded the group or were most active was 
> law. The group today, however, is far different, and has taken on more 
> and greater responsibilities over time; change is necessary. 
>
> I would be quite happy for Paul's continued involvement. I just would 
> rather his involvement be on debating technical specifications. 
>
>
> -- 
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney 
> mweiero...@gmail.com  
> https://mwop.net/ 
>

-- 
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/2d18c436-a102-4660-9ff9-b631e95b47da%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Matthew Weier O'Phinney]

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 to argue against those changes, or leave the group entirely. His 
> advice was (again paraphrasing) to stop fighting and go my own way. (Please 
> note that this arrived *after* I had been informed that a complaint would be 
> presented to the group by the secretaries.)

>From my side, I was unaware of any other contact with Paul by other
FIG members or by the FIG secretaries when I emailed Paul. My missive
was based solely on my personal observations of Paul's interactions
with the list, with no prompting from anybody else.

Further, I've yet to have a response. No acknowledgment whatsoever. I
can understand why at this point, knowing that the conversation with
the secretaries had already occurred, but it has been disheartening
nonetheless.

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. This feels like
he's attempting to bend the rules to suit *his* point of view, versus
those of a consensual group. At the same time, I see him accusing
others of playing politics, which feels frankly hypocritical.

I think it's natural for the direction and make-up of a group to
change over time; if it didn't, something is wrong. My feeling is that
Paul is pining for the days before the group had as many members, and
when the word of those who founded the group or were most active was
law. The group today, however, is far different, and has taken on more
and greater responsibilities over time; change is necessary.

I would be quite happy for Paul's continued involvement. I just would
rather his involvement be on debating technical specifications.


-- 
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
mweierophin...@gmail.com
https://mwop.net/

-- 
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/CAJp_myUMg2xFTw8BOU%2BKy2gFix48cG6g-26Uut9tguhYmxX8Ng%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Glenn Eggleton]

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 
governing body of the list, likely because they a) did not know about your 
conversation with Lukas, and b) did not try to resolve it with you directly.

What this shows is inadequate communication at the highest levels of this 
group, which might be resolved next month when we vote in 2 secretary 
members.

Finally, I feel as if there's progress in this thread, and I thank all of 
you for taking the time.

Cheers,
Glenn

PS. Lukas, please run for secretary. ty.

>
>
>

-- 
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/6616c7ba-cc5a-44cd-93db-3ebfe804dd00%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Paul Jones]

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 received an email from Lukas Kahwe Smith regarding my comments 
on the decision by the secretaries not to count the vote of a Voting 
Representative. He was gracious and instructive, and I feel the interaction was 
both positive and educational for me. There was no mention of attempting to 
remove me as a Voting Representative.

- On 04 Jun, Michael Cullum invited me to a Google Hangout. Among other topics 
in a 90-minute discussion, he noted that about 20 people had contacted the 
secretaries, asking that I be expelled. He went on to declare that the 
secretaries would in fact be presenting their complaint to the list. Further, 
he stated that the secretaries would definitely call for a vote on the 
complaint, and opined that the vote would settle the matter one way or another. 
To be clear, the message was not "you should think about changing your 
interaction style"; it was "this is going to happen, and you cannot stop it".

- 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 to argue against those changes, or leave the group entirely. His 
advice was (again paraphrasing) to stop fighting and go my own way. (Please 
note that this arrived *after* I had been informed that a complaint would be 
presented to the group by the secretaries.)

I admit to imperfect memory, and so I may have failed to recall or discover 
other messages from FIG members. If there are private emails from FIG members 
that I have missed, I trust they will bring those communications to my 
attention on this thread.

You may decide for yourself if these constitute adequate attempts at private 
conflict-resolution.


-- 

Paul M. Jones
http://paul-m-jones.com



-- 
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/24E0DE74-D2D8-4D20-864C-6EDEB7CFC9CC%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Chris Johnson]

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 this once more 
> when someone else wondered about the same thing and Angie mentioned it 
> again in our post today that this has been confirmed by me via Michael 
> (though it was not confirmed by Paul who might have a different point of 
> view).
>
> I saw several posts that either assumed no such attempt was made or were 
> unsure if it was done. Short of creating an FAQ for this thread I am unsure 
> how we can ensure that such vital information is known to every one 
> engaging in this thread.
>


Did anyone pick up a telephone, call Paul, and say "Hey, we need to talk 
about the FIG.  I'm feeling that your style of writing is detrimental to 
the group, and personally affects me in a negative way.  How can we work 
this out?" 

If you contacted Paul off list in an attempt to resolve this, would you be 
so kind as to state that you did so, via what means, and how it went?  

I think that would tell us more than speculation as to motives and meaning 
based on parsing the vagaries of the written English grammar in this forum.



That's my 2 posts for the day, more than I planned.


-- 
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/af691e06-2429-49fe-906d-49333e34b829%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

> 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 
> > PHP Community" -- perhaps a portion with which the complainants themselves 
> > identify. But there is another substantial portion, maybe as much as half, 
> > to whom the complaint does not appeal. This, along with the comments of 
> > those who see little-to-nothing objectionable revealed by the evidence 
> > raised against me, should give you reason enough to vote *against* my 
> > removal.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> > With that, I leave the fate of my status as a Voting Representative in your 
> > hands. Regardless of the result, I thank you for your time and attention.
> 
> Paul, while I am glad you finally responded I find your response
> extremely disappointing.
> 
> Let's take your own numbers at face value: 70-ish people expressing an
> opinion, split roughly half and half on whether your behavior is
> problematic and detrimental to FIG.
> 
> Your response to that is to say "well, only 50% of people hate me and
> they're probably all of a kind, so you shouldn't vote for my removal."
> 
> Can you elaborate on this. Not once did I see that in his post. I believe 
> this might be what you are interpreting and not actually what was said.
> What I saw was Paul reiterating what he believes are the facts presented 
> against him and some really bad napkin math.

I also did not see anywhere in Paul’s post any consideration given that any 
behavior change would be considered by him. So I agree with Larry’s summary 
though I think the word “hate” is misplaced. I surely hope that nobody takes 
any of this seriously enough that they would get to a point where they would 
“hate” someone.

> I would love for the secretaries to explain their process and how they came 
> to the decision to make these complaints public was made.
> I did not see any section as to where they attempted to resolve this directly 
> with Paul [I hope that some attempt was made?]
> 
> If an attempt was made to reach out to Paul and he ignored it then this seems 
> like an adequate escalation step... but otherwise it was a really poor choice.
> 
> I apologize for making some assumptions, but there has been a lack of 
> information about the process of how things were done, and I am really only 
> interested in the facts.
> 
> The facts as I see it currently:
> 
> 1) Secretaries have received complains about Paul
> 2) Secretaries have decided to call for a vote regarding Paul to address the 
> complaints.
> 
> It seems quite inadequate, and likely incorrect. I would appreciate it if 
> someone with more knowledge can fill in the blanks.

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 this once more when someone 
else wondered about the same thing and Angie mentioned it again in our post 
today that this has been confirmed by me via Michael (though it was not 
confirmed by Paul who might have a different point of view).

I saw several posts that either assumed no such attempt was made or were unsure 
if it was done. Short of creating an FAQ for this thread I am unsure how we can 
ensure that such vital information is known to every one engaging in this 
thread.

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
sm...@pooteeweet.org



-- 
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/45F9CFDD-C7F8-4E70-AE3A-5C4479333109%40pooteeweet.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Glenn Eggleton]

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 complainants 
> themselves identify. But there is another substantial portion, maybe as 
> much as half, to whom the complaint does not appeal. This, along with the 
> comments of those who see little-to-nothing objectionable revealed by the 
> evidence raised against me, should give you reason enough to vote *against* 
> my removal. 
>
> *snip* 
>
> > With that, I leave the fate of my status as a Voting Representative in 
> your hands. Regardless of the result, I thank you for your time and 
> attention. 
>
> Paul, while I am glad you finally responded I find your response 
> extremely disappointing. 
>
> Let's take your own numbers at face value: 70-ish people expressing an 
> opinion, split roughly half and half on whether your behavior is 
> problematic and detrimental to FIG. 
>
> Your response to that is to say "well, only 50% of people hate me and 
> they're probably all of a kind, so you shouldn't vote for my removal." 
>

Can you elaborate on this. Not once did I see that in his post. I believe 
this might be what you are interpreting and not actually what was said.
What I saw was Paul reiterating what he believes are the facts presented 
against him and some really bad napkin math.
 

>
> That is, in fewer words, the entire thrust of your post. 
>
> Several of the people that have spoken out that your behavior is 
> problematic have said they do *not* want you kicked out for it, they 
> want the problem addressed.  That is something that cannot happen 
> without your involvement.  The *only* possible resolutions that do not 
> involve you are "do nothing" or "throw the bum out".  By refusing to 
> engage at all, those are the only possible ways this can end. 
>
> Let me reiterate: Even taking your own "numbers" at face value (and a 
> numbers game is a horrible way to deal with social problems), where you 
> argue "only half of people hate me, so do nothing", I see "Yeesh, half 
> of those involved think Paul is a problem". 
>
> Yet you do not even acknowledge or recognize their complaint.  Not once 
> in your post did you indicate even recognition that there may actually 
> be an issue; instead, you reduce the entire problem to "us vs. them, 
> 50/50 let the ban battle sort it out".  


> If 50% of your colleagues think there's a problem with your behavior, it 
> is an act of extreme hubris to not even entertain the possibility that, 
> just maybe, there's something to it. 


> For the sake of those who have said they do NOT want you kicked out but 
> still want the situation addressed, can you address the actual issue in 
> the slightest?  Can you, as Angie suggested, demonstrate any level of 
> self-awareness or self-reflection?  Do you have any interest in working 
> WITH people who don't want you removed? 
>

As far as I am aware even despite all of this Paul still wants to actively 
contribute to FIG, I believe is a sponsor or coordinator of the Middleware 
PSR.
 

>
> Or are you content to ignore and dismiss the dozen+ people who have said 
> they have a problem with your behavior but don't want you removed over it? 
>
>
The holier-than-thou, "your concerns are beneath me" attitude you're 
> taking here is exactly what people have a problem with. 
>
> --Larry Garfield 
>

I simply do not see the same thing as you in Paul's post, I hope that's 
okay.
I do believe that some or most of us have been biased about this from the 
start.

FWIW from an fig-outsider;

I think a large part of this could have been handled internally among the 
leadership of the FIG group [what I would assume is the secretaries]. I 
don't know the by-laws of the fig.
Posting content like this in publish created a drama level over 9000 and is 
unwarranted until Paul refused to engage with the leadership of the FIG 
Group [ I am only assuming that this part did not happen. ] 
I still assign blame to the secretaries on the incorrect handling of this 
issue. Any good manager [in my opinion] never scolds in front of the them, 
always in private... Or at least that's how I run.

I would love for the secretaries to explain their process and how they came 
to the decision to make these complaints public was made.
I did not see any section as to where they attempted to resolve this 
directly with Paul [I hope that some attempt was made?]

If an attempt was made to reach out to Paul and he ignored it then this 
seems like an adequate escalation step... but otherwise it was a really 
poor choice.

I apologize for making some assumptions, but there has been a lack of 
information about the process of how things were done, and I am really only 
interested in the facts.

The facts as I see it currently:

1) Secretaries have received 

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Angie Byron / webchick]

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* generally known for causing 
>> drama for no reason, saying that this person is being disruptive to their 
>> work, demonstrates to me that this person must actually be pretty 
>> (actually, majorly) disruptive to other peoples’ work.
>>
>
> Angie, I have to respectfully disagree on this point.  Later in your post, 
> you criticize the counting of supporters versus non-supporters.  Yet you 
> just counted signatories and "leaders" (a very subjective category). 
>

Well, again from my outsider POV, I know most of these people as the 
"leaders" of their respective projects (Symfony, Composer, etc.). I'm 
really sorry if I'm missing some nuance there, I definitely don't mean any 
offense. But my point was, *despite* how conflict-averse most humans are, 
these folks nonetheless put their respective necks on the line to make a 
stand against this person; meaning, it seems like there has to be something 
truly serious going on, not just some kind of silly personal grudge or 
whatever.
 

>
>  [snip]
>
> It is absolutely, unequivocally, 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, 
>> It is NOT on the person *reading* the communication to take on the extra 
>> mental headache to “read between the lines” and try and find the nugget of 
>> truth buried somewhere in aggressive/patronizing/whatever words. Those 
>> who’ve said that the conduct of members of this group reflect on the group 
>> as a whole are absolutely bang on about this.
>>
>
>
> Again I disagree.  There is no way for a writer/speaker to know and avoid 
> every single thing which may or may not alienate or frustrate one of her 
> many readers/listeners.  That's an impossible ideal.
>

I truly do not understand this. Why is it then that only Paul is being 
singled out here for his disruptive behaviour, and not the dozens or 
hundreds of other people who use this mailing list? It seems like everyone 
else has figured out how to hold a conversation, even about sometimes 
heated topics, in a way that does not involve roughly half of their readers 
getting pissed off enough to escalate it to a conflict resolution mediator.

Also, it's *really* not rocket science. :) Simply talk the way you would 
want the douchiest person you know to talk to you. ;)
 

> Sadly, I've lost a lot of respect for a few people whom I've admired for 
> many years as a result of this -- and all among those trying to oust Paul 
> Jones.  I was shocked to see their names on the list of people who 
> complained.  I wondered how it got to this point and yet those people 
> haven't spoken privately with Paul Jones in a constructive fashion?
>
> Imagine you are employed with 10 co-workers all working for the same boss. 
>  Imagine you make a perceived mistake.  Do you want your boss to angrily 
> chew you out in front of the 10 co-workers, or do you want to have a 
> private, calm, conversation with that boss about the situation?  This whole 
> thing appears to me to be the former.
>
 

> Yes, people like to avoid conflict, as Angie suggested.  
>
> That does not however mean they necessarily try to solve the problem in a 
> productive manner in quiet, off-channel ways.  Instead, they often stew in 
> their complaints and then begin to share bitter thoughts with others who 
> have them -- which only magnifies the problem, instead of solving it.  It's 
> human nature, because it's easier.  It's less time consuming.  It even has 
> it's own personal emotional rewards.  Doing the right thing often takes 
> courage and effort.
>


Given that said private, quiet, off-channel conversations would've happened 
in private, quiet, and off-channel, and thus been outside the purview of 
this mailing list, I'm inclined to believe that they probably happened at 
least 3-4 "last straws" before this... perhaps not from everyone in the 
list of "accusers," but certainly with at least some of them, or a 
designated, neutral third-party. (If I'm wrong about this, that certainly 
should be step 2 or 3. But Lukas seems to have confirmed that less 
combative channels were tried first up above, which would only be logical.)
 

>
> I would advocate that everyone involved needs to cool off for a while, and 
> then make a real courageous attempt to find their best selves, take the 
> long view and see if a better solution can't be found.
>

A "time out" ban could indeed be a good middle-ground that communicates the 
seriousness of the offence, without permanently kicking someone 
well-respected from the community, which I think is making people 
uncomfortable. But again, I think 

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Larry Garfield]

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 much as half, to whom the complaint does 
not appeal. This, along with the comments of those who see little-to-nothing 
objectionable revealed by the evidence raised against me, should give you reason enough 
to vote *against* my removal.


*snip*


With that, I leave the fate of my status as a Voting Representative in your 
hands. Regardless of the result, I thank you for your time and attention.


Paul, while I am glad you finally responded I find your response 
extremely disappointing.


Let's take your own numbers at face value: 70-ish people expressing an 
opinion, split roughly half and half on whether your behavior is 
problematic and detrimental to FIG.


Your response to that is to say "well, only 50% of people hate me and 
they're probably all of a kind, so you shouldn't vote for my removal."


That is, in fewer words, the entire thrust of your post.

Several of the people that have spoken out that your behavior is 
problematic have said they do *not* want you kicked out for it, they 
want the problem addressed.  That is something that cannot happen 
without your involvement.  The *only* possible resolutions that do not 
involve you are "do nothing" or "throw the bum out".  By refusing to 
engage at all, those are the only possible ways this can end.


Let me reiterate: Even taking your own "numbers" at face value (and a 
numbers game is a horrible way to deal with social problems), where you 
argue "only half of people hate me, so do nothing", I see "Yeesh, half 
of those involved think Paul is a problem".


Yet you do not even acknowledge or recognize their complaint.  Not once 
in your post did you indicate even recognition that there may actually 
be an issue; instead, you reduce the entire problem to "us vs. them, 
50/50 let the ban battle sort it out".


If 50% of your colleagues think there's a problem with your behavior, it 
is an act of extreme hubris to not even entertain the possibility that, 
just maybe, there's something to it.


For the sake of those who have said they do NOT want you kicked out but 
still want the situation addressed, can you address the actual issue in 
the slightest?  Can you, as Angie suggested, demonstrate any level of 
self-awareness or self-reflection?  Do you have any interest in working 
WITH people who don't want you removed?


Or are you content to ignore and dismiss the dozen+ people who have said 
they have a problem with your behavior but don't want you removed over it?


The holier-than-thou, "your concerns are beneath me" attitude you're 
taking here is exactly what people have a problem with.


--Larry Garfield

--
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/577D3F0D.6070700%40garfieldtech.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.