Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Larry Garfield]

On 06/23/2016 02:52 PM, Michael Cullum wrote:


Hi all,


Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of 
voting members, former project representatives and well known 
community members alike approach us regarding a situation they believe 
is being detrimental to the continued success of the FIG and the 
harmony in the group. It is, essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones 
on the harmony of the mailing list and the impact his contribution is 
having on making this group welcoming or pleasant to be involved with.



To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common 
grievances, we’ll quote from those who have complained:


 *

“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly
affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”

 *

“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of
respect and members for the FIG”

 *

“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”

 *

“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute
or get involved with to the PHP FIG”

 *

“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads
lately to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over
small meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but
honestly I don't even care whether he is right or wrong. They is
just plainly disrupting the FIG at this stage. He used to be
annoying, but I was fine with that, this is just disruptive though.”


The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody 
asked not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to 
be named):


 *

Ross Tuck - Community figure

 *

Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative

 *

Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative

 *

Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative

 *

Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative

 *

Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative

 *

Anthony Ferrara - Community figure

 *

Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure

 *

Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure

 *

Rafael Dohms - Community figure

 *

Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative

 *

Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative


In total the number of complaints about this individual totals about 
20 however there have also been other concerns aired about this 
individual publicly and a number of individuals who contacted us said 
they in turn had heard complaints about Paul from others; as a result 
of this, and being explicitly asked what we can do/to do something 
about this situation, including requests of this specific course of 
action we are starting this discussion on PMJ’s membership. It is not 
the role of the secretaries to handle this kind of thing or pass 
judgement on member projects so we are posting this topic to invite 
discussion from both sides of the table out in the open.



We believe having this discussion going on for too long will not be 
conducive to the FIG so a vote [to request a new representative from 
Aura, which will result in Aura’s expulsion unless a new 
representative is provided] will then commence unless a conclusion has 
been reached agreeable by all sides before that point. That vote 
should then put an end to the current situation.



To clarify further, this topic does not indicate the opinion of 
secretaries that this project representative should be expelled, but 
that we have been asked by a significant number of voting members and 
community members to do something about it so we are moving those 
complaints into public for discussion by voting members as we can do 
nothing but move the discussion and complaints to the mailing list for 
the attention of voting members.



I know this is a difficult discussion to avoid making personal, but 
please try and keep it civil and respect self-throttling. People have 
requested we ensure we always have two week discussion periods before 
voting on matters which means that we will not lock this topic unless 
we have no other option open to us but will be issuing temporary 
mailing list bans on anyone not respecting rules about civility or 
self throttling; more than 3 responses in a 24 hour period will result 
in a 24 hour temporary ban, as will repeatedly making posts that cross 
boundaries into flaming. If rules are broken multiple times, we will 
increase the time period of bans.



Many thanks,

The Secretaries



This is an important moment for FIG, as we look to hold one of the 
group's founders accountable for his actions.  I therefore want to lay 
out why it is imperative that we do so.



"The culture of any organization is shaped by the worst behavior the 
leader is willing to tolerate."


-- Gruenter and Whitaker (undated), as circulated widely on the Internet 
in the past year



By design, FIG doesn't have a single leader.  It was foun

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Dracony]

Well, personalities clash, it's life. As long as it's not like outright 
aggression or whatever it should really not be expell-worthy at all imho. I 
think 90% of these problems arise from the fact that the medium for 
discussion is a mailing list and not e.g. a chat room. If these disputes, 
including all his arguing with Phil happened in a chat format, it would 
take far less time and bother less people.
I guess it would be better for him to just blog about his opiniions 
somewheree and link the post in a thread oncee and be done with it, then it 
would definitly not bother anyone. But I definitely won't support expelling 
oover these things. 

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 9:53:03 PM UTC+2, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
> pleasant to be involved with.
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>- 
>
>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>- 
>
>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>respect and members for the FIG”
>- 
>
>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>- 
>
>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>- 
>
>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately 
>to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
> the 
>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this 
>is just disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked 
> not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
>
>- 
>
>Ross Tuck - Community figure
>- 
>
>Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>- 
>
>Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>- 
>
>Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>- 
>
>Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>- 
>
>Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>- 
>
>Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>- 
>
>Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Rafael Dohms - Community figure
>- 
>
>Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
>- 
>
>Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
>
>
> In total the number of complaints about this individual totals about 20 
> however there have also been other concerns aired about this individual 
> publicly and a number of individuals who contacted us said they in turn had 
> heard complaints about Paul from others; as a result of this, and being 
> explicitly asked what we can do/to do something about this situation, 
> including requests of this specific course of action we are starting this 
> discussion on PMJ’s membership. It is not the role of the secretaries to 
> handle this kind of thing or pass judgement on member projects so we are 
> posting this topic to invite discussion from both sides of the table out in 
> the open.
>
> We believe having this discussion going on for too long will not be 
> conducive to the FIG so a vote [to request a new representative from Aura, 
> which will result in Aura’s expulsion unless a new representative is 
> provided] will then commence unless a conclusion has been reached agreeable 
> by all sides before that point. That vote should then put an end to the 
> current situation.
>
> To clarify further, this topic does not indicate the opinion of 
> secretaries that this project representative should be expelled, but that 
> we have been asked by a significant number of voting members and community 
> members to do something about it so we are moving those complaints into 
> public for discussion by voting members as we can do nothing but move the 
> discussion and complaints to the mailing list for the attention of voting 
> members.
>
> I know this is a difficult discussion to avoid making personal, but please 
> try and keep it civil and respect self-throttling. People have requested we 
> ensure we always have two week di

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Shawn Stratton]

Non-FIG member here, but an ex "personality" on the Zendcon circuit and I 
just wanted to ask a question for clarification.  Is the purpose of your 
example to point out egregious behavior on the part of Paul or to point out 
that this is a vote based on politics and politics only?  I find no 
examples of poor behavior or poor interaction in the examples you post. 
 Further, the point you made:
Paul's primary objection to the FIG 3 proposal was an oblique claim that 
more rules == bad[3] - is specifically posted with numbers to support his 
hyopthesis and is phrased as a question/observation, rather than a 
statement of fact.  

I, for one, find that FIG seems to be more worried about internal politics 
rather than actually creating interop standards, as such, from an outsider 
perspective this group has survived past its usefulness and should be 
re-evaluated.  I also find that a community discussion on reddit that's 
currently ongoing is slowly drawing to the same conclusion.  Please 
consider both the public image and the usefulness with the mass of politics 
that are ongoing before proceeding.

/Shawn Stratton

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 4:16:39 PM UTC-4, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> On 06/23/2016 02:52 PM, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
> pleasant to be involved with.
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>- 
>
>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>- 
>
>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>respect and members for the FIG”
>- 
>
>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>- 
>
>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>- 
>
>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately 
>to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
> the 
>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this 
>is just disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked 
> not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
>
>- 
>
>Ross Tuck - Community figure
>- 
>
>Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>- 
>
>Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>- 
>
>Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>- 
>
>Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>- 
>
>Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>- 
>
>Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>- 
>
>Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Rafael Dohms - Community figure
>- 
>
>Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
>- 
>
>Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
>
>
> In total the number of complaints about this individual totals about 20 
> however there have also been other concerns aired about this individual 
> publicly and a number of individuals who contacted us said they in turn had 
> heard complaints about Paul from others; as a result of this, and being 
> explicitly asked what we can do/to do something about this situation, 
> including requests of this specific course of action we are starting this 
> discussion on PMJ’s membership. It is not the role of the secretaries to 
> handle this kind of thing or pass judgement on member projects so we are 
> posting this topic to invite discussion from both sides of the table out in 
> the open.
>
> We believe having this discussion going on for too long will not be 
> conducive to the FIG so a vote [to request a new representative from Aura, 
> which will result in Aura’s expulsion unless a new representative is 
> provided] will then commence unless a conclusion has been reached agreeable 
> by all sides before that point. That vote should then put an end to the 
> current situation.
>
> To clarify further, this topic does not indicate the opinion of 
> secretaries that this project representative should be expe

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Dracony]

> Seeing that he was part of the establishment (FIG), I figured he spoke 
for the community.

Wow, really? What "establishment" ?

i actually checked that thread and there is nothing inappropriate in what 
Paul said there. If you post your project on reddit you have to be open to 
criticism, if you can't handle that, don't post it there. It's that simple. 
Actually you should appreciate that he took the time to look through your 
code, and comment on it multiple times, especially since all his points are 
actually valid. And if you are not grateful for that kind of contribution 
to your project you really should reconsider opensource involvement in the 
first place.

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 9:53:03 PM UTC+2, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
> pleasant to be involved with.
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>- 
>
>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>- 
>
>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>respect and members for the FIG”
>- 
>
>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>- 
>
>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>- 
>
>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately 
>to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
> the 
>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this 
>is just disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked 
> not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
>
>- 
>
>Ross Tuck - Community figure
>- 
>
>Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>- 
>
>Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>- 
>
>Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>- 
>
>Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>- 
>
>Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>- 
>
>Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>- 
>
>Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Rafael Dohms - Community figure
>- 
>
>Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
>- 
>
>Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
>
>
> In total the number of complaints about this individual totals about 20 
> however there have also been other concerns aired about this individual 
> publicly and a number of individuals who contacted us said they in turn had 
> heard complaints about Paul from others; as a result of this, and being 
> explicitly asked what we can do/to do something about this situation, 
> including requests of this specific course of action we are starting this 
> discussion on PMJ’s membership. It is not the role of the secretaries to 
> handle this kind of thing or pass judgement on member projects so we are 
> posting this topic to invite discussion from both sides of the table out in 
> the open.
>
> We believe having this discussion going on for too long will not be 
> conducive to the FIG so a vote [to request a new representative from Aura, 
> which will result in Aura’s expulsion unless a new representative is 
> provided] will then commence unless a conclusion has been reached agreeable 
> by all sides before that point. That vote should then put an end to the 
> current situation.
>
> To clarify further, this topic does not indicate the opinion of 
> secretaries that this project representative should be expelled, but that 
> we have been asked by a significant number of voting members and community 
> members to do something about it so we are moving those complaints into 
> public for discussion by voting members as we can do nothing but move the 
> discussion and complaints to the mailing list for the attention of voting 
> members.
>
> I know this is a difficult discussion to avoid making personal, but please 
> try and keep it civil and respect self-throttling. People have requested we 
> ensure we al

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

Hello,

First up I am not in favor of expulsion because even if you agree that Paul is 
“toxic”, I doubt that a standards committee will really remain relevant if it 
cannot deal with supposedly “toxic” people, ie. we would need to find other 
solutions for this. Also even if he is no longer a member of FIG, would he then 
get banned from all list?

Now I do agree that Paul’s communication style is collides with the discussion 
style with the vast majority of the rest of the members and observers. Which in 
turn leads to frustration and as stated people leaving FIG. And this is clearly 
not good.

I would urge (and have done so already in the past) that Paul (and anyone else) 
attempt to deal with “politics” or “administrative” concerns in a bilateral 
fashion first before launching a discussion thread here. As such the first 
thing I did when I read the original post was the ask Michael if there were 
off-list attempts as resolving or at least improving the situation. it seems 
there has been, which I appreciate quite a lot.

Now I of course do not mean that we need to play shadow politics by lots of 
off-list lobbying but minor issues (like the not counting of the vote) imho 
could have probably be solved by a direct message to one of the secretaries, 
they could have then posted a single message apologizing (potentially noting 
who informed them) and we would have saved all of us 30+ increasingly 
aggressive messages.

I would also urge Paul to invest a bit of time in reviewing his messages for 
simple courtesy and more actively self-throttle (it is sad that the secretaries 
need to threaten with temporary bans when people do not follow this, but I fear 
its necessary as a way to train proper behavior). I know this is a technical 
committee, we are not here to become best friends. But we are also humans who 
do not get paid to be here that are motivated to make the PHP world a better 
place but also have lots of other places we could invest our energy into. I 
have given Paul examples of this in a previous off-list exchange already. In 
the same way I also urge people to work towards accepting Paul as someone that 
communicates on a very technical and abstract level. he is driven by 
technology, not by making other people lives miserable.

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/54601395-79A9-4247-94F7-7D1B6F6F80CA%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

[Adam Culp]

Brad,

I see nothing in that thread that would prompt me to think that was a 
negative experience. The conversation was very well thought out and helpful.


On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 5:02:40 AM UTC-4, Brad Ito wrote:
>
> Speaking towards open source leaders needing to foster community, I had a 
> pretty negative experience myself with Paul M Jones:
>
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/PHP/comments/2eh7c7/squirt_php_dependency_injection_with_parameter/
>
> I had an idea on something I'd found useful, wrote up a library, and was 
> mocked pretty hard by him.  Seeing that he was part of the establishment 
> (FIG), I figured he spoke for the community.  It was really not fun to be 
> immediately confronted with a condescending debate, when I just wanted to 
> build something interesting and useful.  Have since found folks more 
> welcoming in the React.js community
>
>

-- 
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/f2612bfb-f313-40ab-96c3-bbc727695239%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Adam Culp]

Larry,

I see nothing in the posts you reference that would lead me to the line of 
thinking you are outlining. In all cases Paul spoke very frank, 
non-confrontational, and in a very well thought out manor to facilitate the 
subjects at hand.




On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 4:16:39 PM UTC-4, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> On 06/23/2016 02:52 PM, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
> pleasant to be involved with.
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>- 
>
>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>- 
>
>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>respect and members for the FIG”
>- 
>
>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>- 
>
>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>- 
>
>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately 
>to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
> the 
>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this 
>is just disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked 
> not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
>
>- 
>
>Ross Tuck - Community figure
>- 
>
>Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>- 
>
>Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>- 
>
>Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>- 
>
>Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>- 
>
>Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>- 
>
>Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>- 
>
>Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Rafael Dohms - Community figure
>- 
>
>Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
>- 
>
>Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
>
>
> In total the number of complaints about this individual totals about 20 
> however there have also been other concerns aired about this individual 
> publicly and a number of individuals who contacted us said they in turn had 
> heard complaints about Paul from others; as a result of this, and being 
> explicitly asked what we can do/to do something about this situation, 
> including requests of this specific course of action we are starting this 
> discussion on PMJ’s membership. It is not the role of the secretaries to 
> handle this kind of thing or pass judgement on member projects so we are 
> posting this topic to invite discussion from both sides of the table out in 
> the open.
>
> We believe having this discussion going on for too long will not be 
> conducive to the FIG so a vote [to request a new representative from Aura, 
> which will result in Aura’s expulsion unless a new representative is 
> provided] will then commence unless a conclusion has been reached agreeable 
> by all sides before that point. That vote should then put an end to the 
> current situation.
>
> To clarify further, this topic does not indicate the opinion of 
> secretaries that this project representative should be expelled, but that 
> we have been asked by a significant number of voting members and community 
> members to do something about it so we are moving those complaints into 
> public for discussion by voting members as we can do nothing but move the 
> discussion and complaints to the mailing list for the attention of voting 
> members.
>
> I know this is a difficult discussion to avoid making personal, but please 
> try and keep it civil and respect self-throttling. People have requested we 
> ensure we always have two week discussion periods before voting on matters 
> which means that we will not lock this topic unless we have no other option 
> open to us but will be issuing temporary mailing list bans on anyone not 
> respecting rules about civility or self throttling; more than 3 responses 
> in a 24 hour period will result in a 24 hour temporary ban, as will 
> repeatedl

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[pedro . cordeiro]

I think the main point is that Paul is an unpleasant person to work with. 
Demonstrably, some members want him out. The community has already lost a 
few contributors because of him, and the group is now calling for a vote to 
check if *most* members want him out, or if *just a few* do.

It's alright to start this discussion, IMO, even if he's done nothing 
*technically* wrong. Like some people said, he hasn't *technically* 
attacked anyone specifically, but people are just fed up with his attitude.

Also, note that if the members *feel* like he's being detrimental to its 
ability to contribute, he can be expelled according to the bylaws. We're 
all humans here, not computers, so we can detect the intended effect of 
some sentences, even if it's not explicit in said sentence. There is no 
need for names to be called for us to detect aggresive behavior. It's not 
like we have a blacklist of words that cannot be said and if we manage to 
take these words out of our vocabulary, then anything we say is ok. It's 
not.

Summing up, even if he's managed to get plausible deniability by avoiding 
slurs and name-calling, it is possible for someone to find his behavior 
aggressive, and IMO, that should be discussed.

@geggleto, I saw nothing offensive in this thread. Larry, who spoke for 
Paul's expulsion, was incredibly polite and even called Paul a very 
intelligent person (which is undeniable). His argument is based entirely on 
Paul's behavior within this list, not on his personal beliefs or even on 
him, as a person.

Em sexta-feira, 24 de junho de 2016 09:31:22 UTC-3, Adam Culp escreveu:
>
> Brad,
>
> I see nothing in that thread that would prompt me to think that was a 
> negative experience. The conversation was very well thought out and helpful.
>
>
> On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 5:02:40 AM UTC-4, Brad Ito wrote:
>>
>> Speaking towards open source leaders needing to foster community, I had a 
>> pretty negative experience myself with Paul M Jones:
>>
>>
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/PHP/comments/2eh7c7/squirt_php_dependency_injection_with_parameter/
>>
>> I had an idea on something I'd found useful, wrote up a library, and was 
>> mocked pretty hard by him.  Seeing that he was part of the establishment 
>> (FIG), I figured he spoke for the community.  It was really not fun to be 
>> immediately confronted with a condescending debate, when I just wanted to 
>> build something interesting and useful.  Have since found folks more 
>> welcoming in the React.js community
>>
>>

-- 
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/eb7f1400-a6ef-4cd1-a695-958eaa3099a5%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Gregory Wilson]

Given the documentation, discussion, reddit, and other aspects, there is 
one simple conclusion: this process has failed.

I am not a FIG member, but some of you know me (or think I am my brother 
for that matter) even though I mostly keep to myself. I have heard many of 
you speak at conferences, and had personal conversations with some as well. 
I first met Paul around 10 years ago. I do not know him very personally. I 
agree that he can be abrasive, but I have not seen him to be abusive. 

If Paul is a pain in the side (or other body parts) I would recommend you 
keep him on based upon the Argumentative Theory 
(https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-argumentative-theory) popularized in 
World War Z as the "10th Man Rule". A dissenting voice is helpful and 
productive, and I am sure he has a thick enough skin to absorb any abuse 
that gets thrown his way.

Greg Wilson



On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 3:53:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
> pleasant to be involved with.
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>- 
>
>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>- 
>
>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>respect and members for the FIG”
>- 
>
>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>- 
>
>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>- 
>
>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately 
>to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
> the 
>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this 
>is just disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked 
> not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
>
>- 
>
>Ross Tuck - Community figure
>- 
>
>Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>- 
>
>Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>- 
>
>Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>- 
>
>Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>- 
>
>Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>- 
>
>Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>- 
>
>Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Rafael Dohms - Community figure
>- 
>
>Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
>- 
>
>Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
>
>
> In total the number of complaints about this individual totals about 20 
> however there have also been other concerns aired about this individual 
> publicly and a number of individuals who contacted us said they in turn had 
> heard complaints about Paul from others; as a result of this, and being 
> explicitly asked what we can do/to do something about this situation, 
> including requests of this specific course of action we are starting this 
> discussion on PMJ’s membership. It is not the role of the secretaries to 
> handle this kind of thing or pass judgement on member projects so we are 
> posting this topic to invite discussion from both sides of the table out in 
> the open.
>
> We believe having this discussion going on for too long will not be 
> conducive to the FIG so a vote [to request a new representative from Aura, 
> which will result in Aura’s expulsion unless a new representative is 
> provided] will then commence unless a conclusion has been reached agreeable 
> by all sides before that point. That vote should then put an end to the 
> current situation.
>
> To clarify further, this topic does not indicate the opinion of 
> secretaries that this project representative should be expelled, but that 
> we have been asked by a significant number of voting members and community 
> members to do something about it so we are moving those complaints into 
> public for discussion by voting members as we can do nothing but move the 
> discussion and complaints to the mailing list for

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Adam Culp]

OK, this is going too far. This is wrong. But I will weigh in because 
silence creates the perception of approval, and I do not approve.

I would add the following to the discussion:

   1. Paul is passionate about the FIG. On a technical level he has added a 
   great deal, and continues to do so.
   2. Paul is very active, and responds quickly and concisely. He is not 
   afraid to dive in when emotions are high, or his view is controversial. 
   This can inflame others that are passionate about a given topic. Comments 
   made by Paul can "feel" confrontational when things are passionate. But 
   upon reading many of Paul's comments, at a later time when emotions have 
   subsided, they are not confrontational as originally perceived.
   3. Paul has been known to include politics and other topics in comments, 
   generally instigated by others.
   4. There are bound to be personality conflicts in any group. Paul and 
   some others in, and out of, the FIG have personality conflicts due to 
   political concerns and otherwise. This is not cause for expulsion.
   5. Paul has political views that some disagree with, and freely shares 
   them outside of the group. This is not cause for expulsion.
   6. We should be focused on what happens inside this group, and not be 
   overly influenced by buzz from the general public. This is our decision.
   7. The fact that others have chosen to leave the FIG when small 
   conflicts arose is more of a reflection on them, not Paul.

We are adults discussing passionate things, and there will be conflict. 
Expulsion should not be the answer, otherwise the FIG will become a group 
of muppets and like-minded people agreeing on everything which would carry 
no value.

When the vote starts I urge folks to not simply join the pitchfork mob, but 
weigh the accusations and evidence from a non-emotional point of view.

Thank you for reading.

I will self-throttle now and not post on this thread unless addressed 
personally.

-- Adam Culp


On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 3:53:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
> pleasant to be involved with.
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>- 
>
>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>- 
>
>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>respect and members for the FIG”
>- 
>
>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>- 
>
>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>- 
>
>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately 
>to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
> the 
>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this 
>is just disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked 
> not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
>
>- 
>
>Ross Tuck - Community figure
>- 
>
>Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>- 
>
>Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>- 
>
>Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>- 
>
>Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>- 
>
>Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>- 
>
>Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>- 
>
>Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Rafael Dohms - Community figure
>- 
>
>Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
>- 
>
>Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
>
>
> In total the number of complaints about this individual totals about 20 
> however there have also been other concerns aired about this individual 
> publicly and a number of individuals who contacted us said they in turn had 
> heard complaints about Paul from others; as a result of this, and being 
> explicitly asked what we can do/to do something about this situation, 
> including requests of

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[greydnls]

My name is on the list of supporters of this action, so it's pretty obvious 
where I stand, but I'll explain it anyway. 

This isn't about Paul's politics, or SJWs, or CoCs. This is about civil 
discourse or the lack there of. When people talk to me about the FIG 
recently, and even not so recently, it's usually to talk about drama and 
Paul. It has gotten to the point where this is no longer constructive (if 
it ever was). It's hampering the ability of this group to do the things 
that we're supposed to be doing. 

People have left this organization because of this (Chris Pitt comes to 
mind, but I believe there have been others). People who aren't in this 
organization have lost respect for it over this. People have come forward 
saying that they do not participate in our discussions because of this 
[https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/gMnU02lU1D0/f_iT_ChMDQAJ]. 

The PHP community as a whole watches what we do and what we say and because 
of our inability to communicate with each other and actually get things 
done we're losing effectiveness and respect. 

No one is claiming that Paul does not have great technical merit (he does), 
or that he hasn't done good things for this group (he has), but he has done 
and continues to do a great amount of harm, in my opinion. For that reason 
I think this discussion is warranted and will hopefully have a constructive 
outcome. 

-- Graham Daniels

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 3:53:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
> pleasant to be involved with.
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>- 
>
>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>- 
>
>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>respect and members for the FIG”
>- 
>
>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>- 
>
>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>- 
>
>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately 
>to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
> the 
>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this 
>is just disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked 
> not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
>
>- 
>
>Ross Tuck - Community figure
>- 
>
>Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>- 
>
>Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>- 
>
>Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>- 
>
>Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>- 
>
>Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>- 
>
>Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>- 
>
>Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Rafael Dohms - Community figure
>- 
>
>Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
>- 
>
>Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
>
>
> In total the number of complaints about this individual totals about 20 
> however there have also been other concerns aired about this individual 
> publicly and a number of individuals who contacted us said they in turn had 
> heard complaints about Paul from others; as a result of this, and being 
> explicitly asked what we can do/to do something about this situation, 
> including requests of this specific course of action we are starting this 
> discussion on PMJ’s membership. It is not the role of the secretaries to 
> handle this kind of thing or pass judgement on member projects so we are 
> posting this topic to invite discussion from both sides of the table out in 
> the open.
>
> We believe having this discussion going on for too long will not be 
> conducive to the FIG so a vote [to request a new representative from Aura, 
> which will result in Aura’s expulsion unless a new representative is 
> provided] will then commence unless a conclusion has been reached ag

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Roman Tsjupa]

Here goes:

> When people talk to me about the FIG recently, and even not so recently,
it's usually to talk about drama and Paul.

People talk about drama because they like talking about it, and it is way
more entertaining. Sans the drama a lot of people wouldn't have much to say
about the FIG anyway.

> People have left this organization because of this (Chris Pitt comes to
mind, but I believe there have been others).

Well, that was their choice. If you come to a party and see somebody you
don't like (idk a former ex) and you leave that party, that is your choice
alone. It should not be a reason to ban that person from attending that
party the next time.

> The PHP community as a whole watches what we do and what we say and
because of our inability to communicate with each other and actually get
things done we're losing effectiveness and respect.

By that logic, please, lets also ban all the other people who argue a lot
on FIG. Having a heated conversation is normal.

*Also, riddle me this:*

You want to expel Paul because he is arguing a lot, etc. How will this be
fixed by him not having a vote? Everything he says, he can also say without
being a voting member, so there is no win for you either way.
Unless of course your end goal is to actually ban him from the mailing list
altogether? And that is a whole new level of stupid tbh.


On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Adam Culp  wrote:

> OK, this is going too far. This is wrong. But I will weigh in because
> silence creates the perception of approval, and I do not approve.
>
> I would add the following to the discussion:
>
>1. Paul is passionate about the FIG. On a technical level he has added
>a great deal, and continues to do so.
>2. Paul is very active, and responds quickly and concisely. He is not
>afraid to dive in when emotions are high, or his view is controversial.
>This can inflame others that are passionate about a given topic. Comments
>made by Paul can "feel" confrontational when things are passionate. But
>upon reading many of Paul's comments, at a later time when emotions have
>subsided, they are not confrontational as originally perceived.
>3. Paul has been known to include politics and other topics in
>comments, generally instigated by others.
>4. There are bound to be personality conflicts in any group. Paul and
>some others in, and out of, the FIG have personality conflicts due to
>political concerns and otherwise. This is not cause for expulsion.
>5. Paul has political views that some disagree with, and freely shares
>them outside of the group. This is not cause for expulsion.
>6. We should be focused on what happens inside this group, and not be
>overly influenced by buzz from the general public. This is our decision.
>7. The fact that others have chosen to leave the FIG when small
>conflicts arose is more of a reflection on them, not Paul.
>
> We are adults discussing passionate things, and there will be conflict.
> Expulsion should not be the answer, otherwise the FIG will become a group
> of muppets and like-minded people agreeing on everything which would carry
> no value.
>
> When the vote starts I urge folks to not simply join the pitchfork mob,
> but weigh the accusations and evidence from a non-emotional point of view.
>
> Thank you for reading.
>
> I will self-throttle now and not post on this thread unless addressed
> personally.
>
> -- Adam Culp
>
>
> On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 3:53:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Cullum wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting
>> members, former project representatives and well known community members
>> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental
>> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is,
>> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list
>> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or
>> pleasant to be involved with.
>>
>> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances,
>> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>>
>>-
>>
>>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly
>>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>>-
>>
>>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of
>>respect and members for the FIG”
>>-
>>
>>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>>-
>>
>>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or
>>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>>-
>>
>>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads
>>lately to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small
>>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't
>>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
>> the
>>FIG at this stage. 

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Michael Babker]

>From the outside looking in, because I honestly can't find it in myself 
right now to be a bigger part of the PHP community, here's my two cents.
>
>
Paul is a smart guy, and you could probably call him rather stubborn.  His 
opinions are strong and he lets people know it.  In reading some of his 
posts, I honestly get some of the same feelings others have expressed of me 
in how I communicate online sometimes; that I'm a bit abrasive, only see 
things one way, want things done a specific way, am not open to arguments 
or opinions another way, etc.  In general though, I don't think Paul's 
actions have malicious intent.

I do think though that the perceived issues with his personality might 
warrant the two parties (Paul and FIG) taking a break from one another. 
 It's obvious there are folks here who think Paul's involvement is more 
disruptive than productive, and to some extent I can't disagree with that 
opinion.  I don't think Paul or Aura/Solar/whatever-he-represents need to 
be voted out of FIG.  A temporary suspension, perhaps, only to enforce the 
suggested break.

This might not earn a lot of popularity points, but in some ways when 
reading Paul's online posts you kind of need to grow some thick skin, in 
part because of his strong opinions and manner of communication.  At the 
same time though, I feel like Paul could tone it down a notch to convey 
what he wants to without causing the personality conflicts that have come 
up.

Long and short, I don't think FIG or PHP are better off without his 
involvement.  I do think a cooling off period and a willingness to make 
small changes would help things.

-- 
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/96c0d189-b9a4-4f6e-92d8-9fa5e5fe764a%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Woody Gilk]

Initially I resisted responding to this thread because I have avoided the
politics of FIG as much as possible. However, I do have strong feelings
about this topic and feel the need to take a stand. I'll save those that
want a quick quote the trouble of trying to paraphrase what I am about to
say:

tl;dr: It is my opinion that PMJ should be expelled from FIG.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, this is why...

The link that Larry put in his response [1] is very good and generally
covers why I think PMJ hasn't already been removed. He has a lot of
knowledge, he's active, and he maintains a lot of open source projects.

For those of us that have been reading the list for a long time there is a
clear pattern of antagonism, bullying, and condescension towards other
members. PMJ regularly complains about the drama but is also a significant
source of it. Things that should be totally unimportant immediately get
called out, such as when Graham opened the voting thread to remove PHPixie
and used the wrong word. Yet PMJ himself has told others that "commenting
in voting threads is not allowed". The drama over secretary selection was,
in my estimation, entirely a product of PMJ making a stink out of something
that had already been resolved privately and amicably. It isn't hard to
find more examples of this.

In addition to issues with communication style, I don't think that PMJ is
the type of person that we want to be considered a leader in the PHP
community. I suspect that PMJ would say that he favors meritocracy in open
source. I do not, because meritocracy is an excuse for all kinds of bad
behavior and doesn't acknowledge the real problems that come from lack of
diversity and support for said diversity [2]. PMJ is entitled to his own
opinions but that does not mean I need to respect those opinions. In my
professional life, I would not be willing to work alongside someone who was
openly a misogynist or racist, no matter how smart they were. I'm not
saying that PMJ is either of those things but several of his blog posts
about non-technical subjects have made me very uncomfortable. As a white
male with many advantages, I can only imagine what less advantaged people
feel about the same material.

Many people are commenting (see r/php) that FIG has been consumed by drama
and is no longer producing anything useful. I would not hesitate to say
that PMJ is the reason for this. Despite that fact that he is listed as a
sponsor on both PSR-15 and PSR-17, which I am editing, he has contributed
very little in the way of actual feedback or suggestions. From my point of
view, it seems PMJ wants to be part of FIG more for the drama and less for
actually contributing anything of technical value.

Ultimately, this is not about whether PMJ shows technical merit. Everyone
should be able to agree that he does. I think PMJ is an extremely good
programmer. However, that is not sufficient for leadership and working with
others. At the end of the day, we need to acknowledge that we are all
humans and we need empathy and trust to collaborate effectively. PMJ has
not shown that he cares about either of those things and therefore I think
he should be expelled.

[1]:
https://blog.vanillaforums.com/help/how-to/dealing-with-toxic-community-member/
[2]:
https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-dehumanizing-myth-of-the-meritocracy

--
Woody Gilk
http://about.me/shadowhand

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Michael Cullum  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting
> members, former project representatives and well known community members
> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental
> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is,
> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list
> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or
> pleasant to be involved with.
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances,
> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>-
>
>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly
>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>-
>
>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of
>respect and members for the FIG”
>-
>
>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>-
>
>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or
>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>-
>
>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately
>to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small
>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't
>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting the
>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this
>is just disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants sa

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Stefano Torresi]

Hey list,

FWIW, this issue was briefly discussed during the FIG meeting held at
PHPDay (time context: during the "phpixiegate"), and no one disagreed when
Paul M. Jones' behaviour was generally deemed unconstructive, if not
unpleasant. The discussion was quickly dismissed to avoid further "drama"
talk, though.

Furthermore, not that it matters much, during that same period I personally
confronted Paul on this very list [1]; predictably, his reply looked quite
dismissive and arrogant to me, which made me not want to interact with him any
further [2].

A few weeks after that episode, I briefly expressed some concerns on this
issue with one of the FIG representatives, during a private email
exchange regarding
the summary of said PHPDay FIG meeting, between some of those who were
present at the meeting itself. The comments about Paul were eventually left
out of the summary because they held little to no relevance in comparison
to the other topics (i.e. Simple Cache PSR and FIG 3.0).

Having said that, I've been following the FIG since not long after its
inception, and Paul has undoubtedly given a lot of useful technical input
to this group; nevertheless, this shouldn't grant him the right to drive
people away with this sort of "deal with it" attitude, nor to flood the
list with 40ish email in 3 days, deliberately ignoring every single warning
about self-throttling.

Now, opinions about behaviour are very subjective of course, but the fact
that we've come to this thread should ring a bell. In fact, if this
discussion has been brought up, there are probably legitimate reasons.

Ultimately, though, I don't think he should be voted out; I hope this
matter can be addressed without resorting to such measure, and I hope Paul
will acknowledge that there is a problem with his contributions to the
group, both in form and - as of lately - in contents.
This doesn't mean that he should always agree and be cheerful, it just
means "please stop being abrasive and be more constructive", which is
basically what I wanted to express when I confronted him in the first place.

Also, for the record, I hold no personal grudge, and no political/social
beliefs/ideas have any involvement whatsoever with these opinions, I just
want to this group to thrive and be successful in its mission to improve
the software ecosystem I work with.

Best regards.

[1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/php-fig/RwFMv1NokBQ/7XPPLEDJDwAJ
[2] https://twitter.com/storresi/status/732361070979911680

-- 
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/CAFojS1uSbT1vmpFQaZqqvDq49XWNa7xopCzkqt7UuERkchyXFg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Cal Evans]

Greetings FIG members and interested parties,

I am no longer a member of this group so I am posting as nothing more 
than member of the PHP community. 

I find the idea of ejecting Paul Jones on the grounds that you have given 
to be a very bad idea. 

I will be honest, after the FIG failed to reach a consensus on ejecting a 
member for fraud, I disengaged. Up til that point I had read many of the 
emails and most that Paul has posted. So I went back and read some of the 
recent ones.

I cannot find any that are toxic. I can't find any argument that he has 
made that would cause this group to lose respect. If you step back and 
divorce your feelings about Paul from the arguments, you find them to be 
well researched and well-reasoned opinions, almost always lacking personal 
attacks or emotion. You may not agree with all of them - I certainly don't 
- but you can't find fault in his words. You can find fault, however, in 
how they make you feel. That, is not Paul's problem.

So the real problem seems to be that some of you just don't like Paul. I do 
not find personal feelings to be a reason to eject any member of this 
group, much less one of the founders. 

In our industry, we talk a lot about diversity. Diversity of thought is 
just as important as any other form of diversity. You can't 
simply eject someone because you don't like them or their arguments. That's 
not diversity. 

I wish I was as eloquent as my friend Adam Culp. Since I am no, I will 
simply end by quoting him.

"Expulsion should not be the answer, otherwise the FIG will become a group 
of muppets and like-minded people agreeing on everything which would carry 
no value."

My two cents. 

By the way, I urge the voting members to ignore all outside input on this 
matter, including this email. Find your own way. This is purely an internal 
matter. How you deal with this will decide the future of this group. 

Sincerely,
Cal Evans


On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 3:53:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
> pleasant to be involved with.
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>- 
>
>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>- 
>
>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>respect and members for the FIG”
>- 
>
>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>- 
>
>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>- 
>
>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately 
>to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
> the 
>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this 
>is just disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked 
> not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
>
>- 
>
>Ross Tuck - Community figure
>- 
>
>Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>- 
>
>Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>- 
>
>Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>- 
>
>Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>- 
>
>Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>- 
>
>Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>- 
>
>Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Rafael Dohms - Community figure
>- 
>
>Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
>- 
>
>Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
>
>
> In total the number of complaints about this individual totals about 20 
> however there have also been other concerns aired about this individual 
> publicly and a number of individuals who contacted us said they in turn had 
> heard complaints about Paul from others; as a result of this, and being 
> explicitly asked what we can do/to do something about this situation, 
> including requests of this specific course of action we are starting this 
> discussion on PMJ’s

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Mike van Riel]

Since my name is on the list as well and I disagree with some of the points 
that Adam made below I am inclined to respond and also to shine some light on 
how I perceive this situation.

First of all: my name is on the list as someone who has indicated that there is 
a situation that needs to be resolved; expulsion would definitely not be my 
preference since Paul is indeed an active member, even though his most recent 
contributions to this list have given me the impression that he is no longer 
active when it comes to furthering PSRs but rather some kind of political 
agenda.

Despite the current situation I would prefer to see the issue resolved without 
the need for drama but that a solid understanding of the issue and mutual 
empathy will bring us as a FIG closer together. I do however have to 
acknowledge that from my perspective some things need to change. At the very 
least an increased level of empathy (though in my opinion this applies strongly 
to Paul Jones but we can all benefit from applying a bit more of it).

> On 24 Jun 2016, at 18:32, Adam Culp  wrote:
> 
> OK, this is going too far. This is wrong. But I will weigh in because silence 
> creates the perception of approval, and I do not approve.
> 
> I would add the following to the discussion:
> Paul is passionate about the FIG. On a technical level he has added a great 
> deal, and continues to do so.
> Paul is very active, and responds quickly and concisely. He is not afraid to 
> dive in when emotions are high, or his view is controversial. This can 
> inflame others that are passionate about a given topic. Comments made by Paul 
> can "feel" confrontational when things are passionate. But upon reading many 
> of Paul's comments, at a later time when emotions have subsided, they are not 
> confrontational as originally perceived.
I am afraid I very much disagree with you on this specific item. Paul’s conduct 
in the PHP-FIG is indeed one where he seldomly crosses the boundary and starts 
to flame, interactions with Phil and outside this group aside, yet I find his 
tone, with an uncomfortable frequency, to be condescending and headstrong up to 
the point of being childish.

The first example that comes to mind is where the Secretaries decided to not 
included the Dracony’s vote. Even though the Secretaries had given an 
explanation and even an apology Paul insisted repeatedly that more apologies 
needed to be made in a very specific way otherwise he would not be satisfied.

This is but one example where I concluded that his behaviour was not helping 
this group and it would have been more helpful if he would have taken this to a 
private channel much earlier. As far as I am concerned he didn’t even have to 
concede but indicate that he disagreed on the mailing list and start demanding 
his requested apology privately.

This type of, what I regard as, unprofessional and disruptive behaviour is not 
something I can appreciate and does not give me a feeling that topics can 
always be discussed in a constructive manner.
> Paul has been known to include politics and other topics in comments, 
> generally instigated by others.
This does not match my perception. Within this group I experience that a topic 
arises that does not seem to match Paul Jones point of view in life he himself 
is the instigator of emitting his personal beliefs and on occasion gives off 
the impression that he attempts to enforce those on others without regard of 
the general consensus or with respect of others' beliefs.
> There are bound to be personality conflicts in any group. Paul and some 
> others in, and out of, the FIG have personality conflicts due to political 
> concerns and otherwise. This is not cause for expulsion.
> Paul has political views that some disagree with, and freely shares them 
> outside of the group. This is not cause for expulsion.
I agree that Paul has the right to hold his own views and to communicate them 
to the world. I as well hold views that can be considered unpopular in some 
circles. Yet I do have my doubts whether the way these views are communicated 
or the, perceived, extremity of that conviction is desirable.
> We should be focused on what happens inside this group, and not be overly 
> influenced by buzz from the general public. This is our decision.
> The fact that others have chosen to leave the FIG when small conflicts arose 
> is more of a reflection on them, not Paul.
I find this last statement either condescending or insulting; I am not sure 
which one yet.

a) In the text above you declare that the conflicts arising to people’s 
resignation are ‘small’. I’m not sure whether you are qualified to provide a 
measurement of the impact that one conflict or the other has on people. By 
labeling the conflicts that other feel are important to them as small means 
seems to indicate that the views of others need to be diminished to a level 
that fits your frame of reference.

b) as someone who has decided to take a leave of absen

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Evert Pot]

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 3:53:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
> pleasant to be involved with.
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>- 
>
>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>- 
>
>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>respect and members for the FIG”
>- 
>
>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>- 
>
>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>- 
>
>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately 
>to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
> the 
>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this 
>is just disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked 
> not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
>
>- 
>
>Ross Tuck - Community figure
>- 
>
>Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>- 
>
>Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>- 
>
>Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>- 
>
>Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>- 
>
>Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>- 
>
>Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>- 
>
>Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Rafael Dohms - Community figure
>- 
>
>Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
>- 
>
>Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
>
>
> In total the number of complaints about this individual totals about 20 
> however there have also been other concerns aired about this individual 
> publicly and a number of individuals who contacted us said they in turn had 
> heard complaints about Paul from others; as a result of this, and being 
> explicitly asked what we can do/to do something about this situation, 
> including requests of this specific course of action we are starting this 
> discussion on PMJ’s membership. It is not the role of the secretaries to 
> handle this kind of thing or pass judgement on member projects so we are 
> posting this topic to invite discussion from both sides of the table out in 
> the open.
>
> We believe having this discussion going on for too long will not be 
> conducive to the FIG so a vote [to request a new representative from Aura, 
> which will result in Aura’s expulsion unless a new representative is 
> provided] will then commence unless a conclusion has been reached agreeable 
> by all sides before that point. That vote should then put an end to the 
> current situation.
>
> To clarify further, this topic does not indicate the opinion of 
> secretaries that this project representative should be expelled, but that 
> we have been asked by a significant number of voting members and community 
> members to do something about it so we are moving those complaints into 
> public for discussion by voting members as we can do nothing but move the 
> discussion and complaints to the mailing list for the attention of voting 
> members.
>
> I know this is a difficult discussion to avoid making personal, but please 
> try and keep it civil and respect self-throttling. People have requested we 
> ensure we always have two week discussion periods before voting on matters 
> which means that we will not lock this topic unless we have no other option 
> open to us but will be issuing temporary mailing list bans on anyone not 
> respecting rules about civility or self throttling; more than 3 responses 
> in a 24 hour period will result in a 24 hour temporary ban, as will 
> repeatedly making posts that cross boundaries into flaming. If rules are 
> broken multiple times, we will increase the time period of bans.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> The Secretaries
>

For what it's worth, from an ex-member. 

I fully stand with Lukas Kahwe Smith and Adam Culp. I must admit that I've 
also see

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Alessandro Lai]

Hey list, 
I too was one of the attendees of the FIG meeting at Phpday2016 like Stefano. 
I'm not a member, but I'm following the FIG closely since nearly two years ago, 
and I do share the opinion that moved this topic to the surface. 

I must state, to start with, that I'm opposed to an expulsion, if not, just for 
the sake of the fact that PMJ should be able to post here afterwards anyway, 
like anyone else, so that wouldn't resolve the main issue, that is profess and 
effective communication. 

I do agree to the fact that some degree of confrontation is needed when a 
technical (and often difficult) decision needs to be made, but an async and 
written medium like this one warrants a special and additional level of care 
and empathy, due to the limited ways of expressions that we have at hand. On my 
opinion, PMJ has demonstrated not enough empathy and professional respect in 
this mailing list and the FIG repository on Github, as many others have pointed 
out in this thread already; and I say this even if often I agreed with his 
point of view; in fact, I was just made uncomfortable just by his way of 
express his ideas, without taking into account in any way how the other part 
would have received that. 

In the end, I think that a change of pace from him would be the best solution 
for everyone, so we wouldn't have to loose someone with such competence, 
without having all this issues with him, that are like an handbrake on al the 
FIG's efforts on putting out new PSRs. 

Thanks for your patience. 

-- 
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/de7cd5e4-b140-4e76-a889-3eefe2c3aa2b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Robert Hafner]

> First of all: my name is on the list as someone who has indicated that there 
> is a situation that needs to be resolved; expulsion would definitely not be 
> my preference since Paul is indeed an active member, even though his most 
> recent contributions to this list have given me the impression that he is no 
> longer active when it comes to furthering PSRs but rather some kind of 
> political agenda.



Could the Secretaries jump in here and specify which voting members on the list 
explicitly asked for expulsion? My understanding from reading the first message 
was that all of the people on that list explicitly wanted him out. I am sure 
that others on the list may have also misunderstood this, so I think it’s 
important to make this clear.

Rob

-- 
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/3375FE12-BE5B-4086-975B-9275EDD135C6%40tedivm.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Hari K T]

Hi all,

I am looking to find the problem.

X from country A sends an mail.
Y from country B disagrees with it and send another email.

X and Y are not from same country. So the wordings can be misinterpreted .
If both of the parties are talking face to face they could have read from
their facial expression or body language. Here mail is just text and we all
interpret differently.

Looking back at many of your messages what I guess is most of them who
disagree with Paul are from Europe ? So country / culture language all
depends on communication.

How could we improve the process?

1. We should be strict about the self throttling emails
2. People can express their opinion in their email thread. If they disagree
with others, they don't need to send many more mails regarding their
expressed view unless it has changed or need proper explanation.
3. We are here to be friends and not enemies. If you disagree with someone
don't send the email just after reading it. Keep it for a while and look
back the subject if that make sense.
4. If you consider the opinions expressed by someone is harmful consider
not replying to those messages as if it is not received at your end.

This is my opinion about this thread.

We should not bother too much about expelling any of the leaders based on
the arguments they are making.

There are leaders in this group who have no opinion, for either they are
busy or don't care about it. Those who don't have talked for a while can be
expelled. But not people who are communicating for something they disagree.

We are wasting too much of time talking about a Person and how he can be
improved rather than talking about standards. Our goal is about standard
and there can be many people who disagree / agree on those. Eg : tab vs
space , psr-6 vs simple cache etc. A coin itself have 2 faces so does
humans.

Understand each persons weakness and power and lets utilize those.

I have worked with Paul on auraphp for a while. He has his own power and
weakness. So does all of us.

Can we all forgot about these threads and look back to the things we need
to vote / discuss about standards ?

*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

-- 
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/CAESZFtKY%3D_118H%3DF2P2NfiwQZFkOuggw0StWg-NWOeqVsbs%3D%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Michael Cullum]

Robert,

Off the top of my head (without digging through every medium and logs of
each instance we were contacted) I think almost all were asking explicitly
for expulsion and almost all [including Mike] also saw the email draft to
make sure it was not conveying anything they had not intended. It is
intended to say these people complained as they believe there is a problem
that needs a resolution (of some kind, an expulsion if it comes to it). The
next step in that is having an open and honest discussion, which we are
right now, and if it still cannot be resolved, we can have a vote on
expulsion, which is the only thing we can really do if discussions do not
resolve the issue here.

I'll let those listed clarify their own intent further as I do not wish to
put words in mouths and I am aware many are currently at DPC and it is now
the weekend so replies may take some time.

Thanks,
Michael

P.S. Sorry for the top post, I'm on my phone.

On 25 Jun 2016 1:47 a.m., "Robert Hafner"  wrote:

>
> > First of all: my name is on the list as someone who has indicated that
> there is a situation that needs to be resolved; expulsion would definitely
> not be my preference since Paul is indeed an active member, even though his
> most recent contributions to this list have given me the impression that he
> is no longer active when it comes to furthering PSRs but rather some kind
> of political agenda.
>
>
>
> Could the Secretaries jump in here and specify which voting members on the
> list explicitly asked for expulsion? My understanding from reading the
> first message was that all of the people on that list explicitly wanted him
> out. I am sure that others on the list may have also misunderstood this, so
> I think it’s important to make this clear.
>
> Rob
>
> --
> 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/3375FE12-BE5B-4086-975B-9275EDD135C6%40tedivm.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/CAAqcDMj2tJ7AteHLe7vsmBTOq%3D2Xi%3D_jSdS57ryF2CD8Zok4XA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Mike van Riel]

> On 25 Jun 2016, at 11:07, Michael Cullum  wrote:
> 
> Robert,
> 
> Off the top of my head (without digging through every medium and logs of each 
> instance we were contacted) I think almost all were asking explicitly for 
> expulsion and almost all [including Mike] also saw the email draft to make 
> sure it was not conveying anything they had not intended. It is intended to 
> say these people complained as they believe there is a problem that needs a 
> resolution (of some kind, an expulsion if it comes to it). The next step in 
> that is having an open and honest discussion, which we are right now, and if 
> it still cannot be resolved, we can have a vote on expulsion, which is the 
> only thing we can really do if discussions do not resolve the issue here.
> 
> I'll let those listed clarify their own intent further as I do not wish to 
> put words in mouths and I am aware many are currently at DPC and it is now 
> the weekend so replies may take some time.
> 
> Thanks,
> Michael
> 
> P.S. Sorry for the top post, I'm on my phone.
> 
> 
> On 25 Jun 2016 1:47 a.m., "Robert Hafner"  > wrote:
> 
> > First of all: my name is on the list as someone who has indicated that 
> > there is a situation that needs to be resolved; expulsion would definitely 
> > not be my preference since Paul is indeed an active member, even though his 
> > most recent contributions to this list have given me the impression that he 
> > is no longer active when it comes to furthering PSRs but rather some kind 
> > of political agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> Could the Secretaries jump in here and specify which voting members on the 
> list explicitly asked for expulsion? My understanding from reading the first 
> message was that all of the people on that list explicitly wanted him out. I 
> am sure that others on the list may have also misunderstood this, so I think 
> it’s important to make this clear.
> 
> Rob

In an attempt to clarify and confirm: the e-mail as sent by Michael has indeed 
be proofread by me and in no way do I feel misrepresented. I consider my 
mention in the listing of people who complained to be as it is; a listing of 
people who complained. I also consider expulsion to be a very last resort and I 
do not oppose the situation as explained by the secretaries.

This does not change that I sincerely hope that we can all discuss this and 
come to a satisfactory conclusion without the need for drastic measures and as 
such my mention in the opening post is not, in my case, a de-facto +1 for 
expulsion. If another solution comes that will remove my complaints then I will 
be more than happy to accept it.

Corollary: contrary to what Cal presents; my complaints are not out of spite or 
dislike for Paul Jones. I do not share his world views and will actively 
campaign against various of them when asked to _outside_ of this group. Yet I 
will do anything in my power to minimise the influence this has on my behaviour 
within this group. So far Paul Jones has kept the views that I cannot in good 
conscience accept outside of this group and I honour him doing so. For this I 
respect him. It is his way of expressing himself and how he ‘resolves’ 
situations that do not align with his views that I find obstructive to the 
mission of the PHP-FIG.

-- 
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/BAA6DC01-5486-4E3E-991E-DE388AE1C18A%40mikevanriel.com.
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

[Roman Tsjupa]

As a side note, since throttling is coming up so frequent lately I just
want to remind you guys that we're developers here. We can finally build a
platform that enforces throttling on a technical level, like reddit does.
Almost every forum software has this feature. This would solve ALL the
problems with the flame threads really. And we could leave the IRC as a
channel for politics wars.
On Jun 25, 2016 12:14, "Mike van Riel"  wrote:

>
> On 25 Jun 2016, at 11:07, Michael Cullum  wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
> Off the top of my head (without digging through every medium and logs of
> each instance we were contacted) I think almost all were asking explicitly
> for expulsion and almost all [including Mike] also saw the email draft to
> make sure it was not conveying anything they had not intended. It is
> intended to say these people complained as they believe there is a problem
> that needs a resolution (of some kind, an expulsion if it comes to it). The
> next step in that is having an open and honest discussion, which we are
> right now, and if it still cannot be resolved, we can have a vote on
> expulsion, which is the only thing we can really do if discussions do not
> resolve the issue here.
>
> I'll let those listed clarify their own intent further as I do not wish to
> put words in mouths and I am aware many are currently at DPC and it is now
> the weekend so replies may take some time.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> P.S. Sorry for the top post, I'm on my phone.
>
> On 25 Jun 2016 1:47 a.m., "Robert Hafner"  wrote:
>
>>
>> > First of all: my name is on the list as someone who has indicated that
>> there is a situation that needs to be resolved; expulsion would definitely
>> not be my preference since Paul is indeed an active member, even though his
>> most recent contributions to this list have given me the impression that he
>> is no longer active when it comes to furthering PSRs but rather some kind
>> of political agenda.
>>
>>
>>
>> Could the Secretaries jump in here and specify which voting members on
>> the list explicitly asked for expulsion? My understanding from reading the
>> first message was that all of the people on that list explicitly wanted him
>> out. I am sure that others on the list may have also misunderstood this, so
>> I think it’s important to make this clear.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>
> In an attempt to clarify and confirm: the e-mail as sent by Michael has
> indeed be proofread by me and in no way do I feel misrepresented. I
> consider my mention in the listing of people who complained to be as it is;
> a listing of people who complained. I also consider expulsion to be a very
> last resort and I do not oppose the situation as explained by the
> secretaries.
>
> This does not change that I sincerely hope that we can all discuss this
> and come to a satisfactory conclusion without the need for drastic measures
> and as such my mention in the opening post is not, in my case, a de-facto
> +1 for expulsion. If another solution comes that will remove my complaints
> then I will be more than happy to accept it.
>
> Corollary: contrary to what Cal presents; my complaints are not out of
> spite or dislike for Paul Jones. I do not share his world views and will
> actively campaign against various of them when asked to _outside_ of this
> group. Yet I will do anything in my power to minimise the influence this
> has on my behaviour within this group. So far Paul Jones has kept the views
> that I cannot in good conscience accept outside of this group and I honour
> him doing so. For this I respect him. It is his way of expressing himself
> and how he ‘resolves’ situations that do not align with his views that I
> find obstructive to the mission of the PHP-FIG.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/php-fig/w38tCU4mdgU/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/BAA6DC01-5486-4E3E-991E-DE388AE1C18A%40mikevanriel.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/CANamvv2bfsWUzBWenXO_49wRFFfss2VnBzdOx%2BYKk4qE2Wxn-w%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://gro

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

['Alexander Makarov' via PHP Framework Interoperability Group]

I'm trying to stay out of politics but since silence could be considered an 
agreement I'd voice my opinion.

1. Expulsion would not help in any way and is pointless. The only voting 
member extra ability is to be able to vote as a representative of the 
project so it has nothing to do with a person sending rough messages **at 
all**.
2. If Paul would quit the list, PHP-FIG would lose another technically 
proficient member who contributed and probably will contribute a lot.
3. If Paul would not quit but would be expelled, PHP-FIG would lose a vote 
from a competent person and that matters. Also it would not prevent him 
posting anything he likes.

So while the issue of people being offended by Paul's writing style and 
opinions is there, solution proposed is **plain wrong** and looks more like 
a political game.

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 10:53:03 PM UTC+3, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
> pleasant to be involved with.
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>- 
>
>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>- 
>
>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>respect and members for the FIG”
>- 
>
>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>- 
>
>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>- 
>
>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately 
>to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
> the 
>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this 
>is just disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked 
> not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
>
>- 
>
>Ross Tuck - Community figure
>- 
>
>Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>- 
>
>Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>- 
>
>Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>- 
>
>Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>- 
>
>Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>- 
>
>Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>- 
>
>Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Rafael Dohms - Community figure
>- 
>
>Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
>- 
>
>Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
>
>
> In total the number of complaints about this individual totals about 20 
> however there have also been other concerns aired about this individual 
> publicly and a number of individuals who contacted us said they in turn had 
> heard complaints about Paul from others; as a result of this, and being 
> explicitly asked what we can do/to do something about this situation, 
> including requests of this specific course of action we are starting this 
> discussion on PMJ’s membership. It is not the role of the secretaries to 
> handle this kind of thing or pass judgement on member projects so we are 
> posting this topic to invite discussion from both sides of the table out in 
> the open.
>
> We believe having this discussion going on for too long will not be 
> conducive to the FIG so a vote [to request a new representative from Aura, 
> which will result in Aura’s expulsion unless a new representative is 
> provided] will then commence unless a conclusion has been reached agreeable 
> by all sides before that point. That vote should then put an end to the 
> current situation.
>
> To clarify further, this topic does not indicate the opinion of 
> secretaries that this project representative should be expelled, but that 
> we have been asked by a significant number of voting members and community 
> members to do something about it so we are moving those complaints into 
> public for discussion by voting members as we can do nothing but move the 
> discussion and complaints to the mailing list for the attention of voting 
> members.
>
> I know this is a di

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Rafael Dohms]

Since my name is on the list, I feel the need to come here and at the very 
least make some of my thinking known.
Had not done so before because i was busy enjoying DPC.

I do feel Paul's approach, writing style, discussion style, way of 
attracting attention to issues and general attitude are counter-productive 
to the work being done by the FIG (and other places as well).
I agree he has the right to hold his views and even though i have publicly 
disagreed with some of his "non-tech" view that has nothing to do with that 
happens in here.

His approach, the dismissive attitude towards disagreements, and mostly the 
lack of self-throttling (especially during the Dracony discussions) need to 
be addressed.

Does this mean I vote to remove him? Yes/no, i think the first step in this 
process is exactly what I expected, bring the issue to light and let the 
greater group of people involved with the FIG discuss it and try to:
1. Isolate incidents
2. Identify people affected by this
3. Discuss and evaluate all opinions
4. Decide on whether the vote is the way out.

Can we solve this without removing Paul? I would sure hope so, I have more 
then once apologized for my own inflammatory, heat of the moment remarks on 
twitter and I have made myself an active effort to avoid sounding 
aggressive or dismissive on the internet.
I have accepted that I do not need to agree with other people's view of me, 
but it is my role as a functioning human to try and make all I do welcoming 
of everyone and not exclusionist or aggressive to anyone.
Even I fail at this and that is ok.

I think the ball is in Paul's court, if I was in his shoes I would really 
do some soul searching, talk to the people on this list and try to figure 
out what is really wrong, those conversations alone could help a lot.

Now if these 2 weeks do not end up with a viable solution, then the vote 
for removal would be another message.

I believe we all need to think about "the greater good" and that is not 
"passing PSRs" and "getting work done", which Paul is no doubt technically 
capable of doing.
The "greater good" is creating a safe environment, a collaborative group 
and a place where everyone feels comfortable participating. This does not 
mean holding hand and singing kumbaya, but it means we have a clean table 
to sit at and no one tossing carrots at the other people.

I had a chance to read the email before it went out and I agree with it, 
and I hope the outcome of this is positive so we can end up with a better 
community regardless of what happens.
As Mike said, I'm gonna self-throttle so feel free to reach out in private 
if you need clarification on any points.

-- 
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/17e3b896-82b1-497e-b0d3-00211c5943ee%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Michiel Rook]

Adam, thanks for writing this, it describe exactly how I feel about this
situation.

regards,

Michiel

On 24-06-16 18:32, Adam Culp wrote:
> OK, this is going too far. This is wrong. But I will weigh in because
> silence creates the perception of approval, and I do not approve.
>
> I would add the following to the discussion:
>
>  1. Paul is passionate about the FIG. On a technical level he has
> added a great deal, and continues to do so.
>  2. Paul is very active, and responds quickly and concisely. He is not
> afraid to dive in when emotions are high, or his view is
> controversial. This can inflame others that are passionate about a
> given topic. Comments made by Paul can "feel" confrontational when
> things are passionate. But upon reading many of Paul's comments,
> at a later time when emotions have subsided, they are not
> confrontational as originally perceived.
>  3. Paul has been known to include politics and other topics in
> comments, generally instigated by others.
>  4. There are bound to be personality conflicts in any group. Paul and
> some others in, and out of, the FIG have personality conflicts due
> to political concerns and otherwise. This is not cause for expulsion.
>  5. Paul has political views that some disagree with, and freely
> shares them outside of the group. This is not cause for expulsion.
>  6. We should be focused on what happens inside this group, and not be
> overly influenced by buzz from the general public. This is our
> decision.
>  7. The fact that others have chosen to leave the FIG when small
> conflicts arose is more of a reflection on them, not Paul.
>
> We are adults discussing passionate things, and there will be
> conflict. Expulsion should not be the answer, otherwise the FIG will
> become a group of muppets and like-minded people agreeing on
> everything which would carry no value.
> 
> When the vote starts I urge folks to not simply join the pitchfork
> mob, but weigh the accusations and evidence from a non-emotional point
> of view.
>
> Thank you for reading.
>
> I will self-throttle now and not post on this thread unless addressed
> personally.
>
> -- Adam Culp
>
>
> On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 3:53:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of
> voting members, former project representatives and well known
> community members alike approach us regarding a situation they
> believe is being detrimental to the continued success of the FIG
> and the harmony in the group. It is, essentially, the impact of
> Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list and the impact his
> contribution is having on making this group welcoming or pleasant
> to be involved with.
>
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common
> grievances, we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>  *
>
> “This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore
> directly affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>
>  *
>
> “I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss
> of respect and members for the FIG”
>
>  *
>
> “I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>
>  *
>
> “The presence of this individual makes me not want to
> contribute or get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>
>  *
>
> “My main problem with him is that every time I opened a
> threads lately to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with
> other over small meaningless things. Sometimes he might even
> be right but honestly I don't even care whether he is right or
> wrong. They is just plainly disrupting the FIG at this stage.
> He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this is just
> disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody
> asked not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy
> to be named):
>
>  *
>
> Ross Tuck - Community figure
>
>  *
>
> Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>
>  *
>
> Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>
>  *
>
> Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>
>  *
>
> Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>
>  *
>
> Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>
>  *
>
> Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>
>  *
>
> Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>
>  *
>
> Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community
> figure
>
>  *
>
> Rafael Dohms - Community figure
>
>  *
>
> Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
>
>  *
>
> Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
>
>
> In total the number of 

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Larry Garfield]

On 06/24/2016 07:07 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

Hello,

First up I am not in favor of expulsion because even if you agree that Paul is 
“toxic”, I doubt that a standards committee will really remain relevant if it 
cannot deal with supposedly “toxic” people, ie. we would need to find other 
solutions for this. Also even if he is no longer a member of FIG, would he then 
get banned from all list?


A number of people have made similar statements here; I'm going to reply 
to them collectively in this reply, as Lukas' line above is a good 
poignant example, but it is not aimed at Lukas specifically.


"I doubt that a standards committee will really remain relevant if it 
cannot deal with supposedly “toxic” people"


I find this statement, and the sentiment behind it, extremely 
disconcerting and rather dangerous.  It, along with other comments in 
this thread, seem to suggest "FIG should deal with toxic people by just 
sucking it up; if you can't stand the heat get out of the fire."


Haven't we learned by now that is the worst possible way to deal with 
hostile or toxic individuals?  Have we learned nothing in the last few 
years, as an Internet community?


"If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen", by its very 
nature, rewards those who throw the most flames.  It drives off 
contributors and community members who, frankly, have better things to 
do with their time than deal with flames, disrespect, and negativity.  
We have people who have said they have been driven away from FIG because 
of the negative atmosphere that Paul creates.  (See Michael's initial 
email.)


Harm is being done: Is the answer really "well so be it, only the 
think-skinned will survive"?  Do we really want to say "Well man up and 
deal with it, bro"?


That's not an answer.  That's a refusal to take responsibility for your 
community.


Communities don't just survive on their own.  They require maintenance.  
They require weeding.


Do people really feel FIG would get more respect in the broader PHP 
community if we said, explicitly, "we don't mind if you're a jerk, 
people need to grow a thicker skin"?  Really?  I don't believe that for 
a second.


Conversations can get testy, sure.  The recent discussion about 
middleware styles got strained in a few points, but at no point did I 
feel like Woody or Rasmus were talking down to me.  (And I certainly 
hope they feel the same about my points in that thread, as that was 
never my intent.)  There's a huge difference between disagreeing 
strongly on a point and belittling or demeaning someone.


If someone (a hypothetical someone) came on the list and spent their 
time spewing racist epithets at people left and right, declaring 
everyone's proposal a sign that they should have been euthanized at 
birth, and generally just being abusive, I am reasonably sure we'd all 
agree that person needed to be kicked from the list and forbidden from 
returning.  There is some threshold of behavior past which a person is 
actively destructive to a community, no matter how smart or insightful 
they may be on any given topic.


To not recognize the existence of that threshold, wherever it is, is to 
create a magnet for toxic, hateful people.


See also:
http://anildash.com/2011/07/if-your-websites-full-of-assholes-its-your-fault.html

We could certainly dispute where that threshold is.  That's a fine 
conversation to have.  We could discuss whether Paul's behavior is over 
that threshold.  That's the conversation we should be having. We could 
debate whether an intervention is possible or if removal is necessary.  
That's largely dependent on Paul, who has so far been silent in this 
discussion.


But to say that it's FIG's responsibility to suck it up, "deal with" 
toxic people by letting them continue to be toxic, grow a thicker skin, 
and let people leave who can't take the heat (as a number of comments 
have suggested) just because someone happens to also have useful things 
to say is a actively self-destructive, self-defeating, and will drive 
off far more people with useful things to say than it attracts, by an 
order of magnitude or more.


A healthy and constructive debate atmosphere is our responsibility. All 
of us. That includes the reformation or removal (as appropriate) of 
those who cannot contribute toward that healthy atmosphere.


--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/57704AEF.8030309%40garfieldtech.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

['Alexander Makarov' via PHP Framework Interoperability Group]

Well said. Absolutely agree.

Anyway, revoking vote is irrelevant. What other options are there?

If it were forum engine, I'd proposed official rules that state that 
"Personal offense isn't tolerated. Each occurrence results in ban for a 
week. X repeating occurrences results in permanent ban no matter what". 
Could something like that be enforced in a mailing list?

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 12:36:55 AM UTC+3, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> On 06/24/2016 07:07 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: 
> > Hello, 
> > 
> > First up I am not in favor of expulsion because even if you agree that 
> Paul is “toxic”, I doubt that a standards committee will really remain 
> relevant if it cannot deal with supposedly “toxic” people, ie. we would 
> need to find other solutions for this. Also even if he is no longer a 
> member of FIG, would he then get banned from all list? 
>
> A number of people have made similar statements here; I'm going to reply 
> to them collectively in this reply, as Lukas' line above is a good 
> poignant example, but it is not aimed at Lukas specifically. 
>
> "I doubt that a standards committee will really remain relevant if it 
> cannot deal with supposedly “toxic” people" 
>
> I find this statement, and the sentiment behind it, extremely 
> disconcerting and rather dangerous.  It, along with other comments in 
> this thread, seem to suggest "FIG should deal with toxic people by just 
> sucking it up; if you can't stand the heat get out of the fire." 
>
> Haven't we learned by now that is the worst possible way to deal with 
> hostile or toxic individuals?  Have we learned nothing in the last few 
> years, as an Internet community? 
>
> "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen", by its very 
> nature, rewards those who throw the most flames.  It drives off 
> contributors and community members who, frankly, have better things to 
> do with their time than deal with flames, disrespect, and negativity.   
> We have people who have said they have been driven away from FIG because 
> of the negative atmosphere that Paul creates.  (See Michael's initial 
> email.) 
>
> Harm is being done: Is the answer really "well so be it, only the 
> think-skinned will survive"?  Do we really want to say "Well man up and 
> deal with it, bro"? 
>
> That's not an answer.  That's a refusal to take responsibility for your 
> community. 
>
> Communities don't just survive on their own.  They require maintenance.   
> They require weeding. 
>
> Do people really feel FIG would get more respect in the broader PHP 
> community if we said, explicitly, "we don't mind if you're a jerk, 
> people need to grow a thicker skin"?  Really?  I don't believe that for 
> a second. 
>
> Conversations can get testy, sure.  The recent discussion about 
> middleware styles got strained in a few points, but at no point did I 
> feel like Woody or Rasmus were talking down to me.  (And I certainly 
> hope they feel the same about my points in that thread, as that was 
> never my intent.)  There's a huge difference between disagreeing 
> strongly on a point and belittling or demeaning someone. 
>
> If someone (a hypothetical someone) came on the list and spent their 
> time spewing racist epithets at people left and right, declaring 
> everyone's proposal a sign that they should have been euthanized at 
> birth, and generally just being abusive, I am reasonably sure we'd all 
> agree that person needed to be kicked from the list and forbidden from 
> returning.  There is some threshold of behavior past which a person is 
> actively destructive to a community, no matter how smart or insightful 
> they may be on any given topic. 
>
> To not recognize the existence of that threshold, wherever it is, is to 
> create a magnet for toxic, hateful people. 
>
> See also: 
>
> http://anildash.com/2011/07/if-your-websites-full-of-assholes-its-your-fault.html
>  
>
> We could certainly dispute where that threshold is.  That's a fine 
> conversation to have.  We could discuss whether Paul's behavior is over 
> that threshold.  That's the conversation we should be having. We could 
> debate whether an intervention is possible or if removal is necessary.   
> That's largely dependent on Paul, who has so far been silent in this 
> discussion. 
>
> But to say that it's FIG's responsibility to suck it up, "deal with" 
> toxic people by letting them continue to be toxic, grow a thicker skin, 
> and let people leave who can't take the heat (as a number of comments 
> have suggested) just because someone happens to also have useful things 
> to say is a actively self-destructive, self-defeating, and will drive 
> off far more people with useful things to say than it attracts, by an 
> order of magnitude or more. 
>
> A healthy and constructive debate atmosphere is our responsibility. All 
> of us. That includes the reformation or removal (as appropriate) of 
> those who cannot contribute toward that healthy atmosphere. 
>
> --Larry Garfield 
>

-- 
You 

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Roman Tsjupa]

Larry, from your post, it sound like the actual topic of the proposed vote
would be actually banning Paul from the mailing list altogether?

> I am reasonably sure we'd all agree that person needed to be kicked from
the list and forbidden from returning.  There is some threshold of behavior
past which a person is actively destructive to a community, no matter how
smart or insightful they may be on any given topic.

I'm sure phrasing it as a total ban instead of just replacing a
representative is a whole new deal even for even those supporting expelling
Paul.

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:48 AM, 'Alexander Makarov' via PHP Framework
Interoperability Group  wrote:

> Well said. Absolutely agree.
>
> Anyway, revoking vote is irrelevant. What other options are there?
>
> If it were forum engine, I'd proposed official rules that state that
> "Personal offense isn't tolerated. Each occurrence results in ban for a
> week. X repeating occurrences results in permanent ban no matter what".
> Could something like that be enforced in a mailing list?
>
>
> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 12:36:55 AM UTC+3, Larry Garfield wrote:
>>
>> On 06/24/2016 07:07 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > First up I am not in favor of expulsion because even if you agree that
>> Paul is “toxic”, I doubt that a standards committee will really remain
>> relevant if it cannot deal with supposedly “toxic” people, ie. we would
>> need to find other solutions for this. Also even if he is no longer a
>> member of FIG, would he then get banned from all list?
>>
>> A number of people have made similar statements here; I'm going to reply
>> to them collectively in this reply, as Lukas' line above is a good
>> poignant example, but it is not aimed at Lukas specifically.
>>
>> "I doubt that a standards committee will really remain relevant if it
>> cannot deal with supposedly “toxic” people"
>>
>> I find this statement, and the sentiment behind it, extremely
>> disconcerting and rather dangerous.  It, along with other comments in
>> this thread, seem to suggest "FIG should deal with toxic people by just
>> sucking it up; if you can't stand the heat get out of the fire."
>>
>> Haven't we learned by now that is the worst possible way to deal with
>> hostile or toxic individuals?  Have we learned nothing in the last few
>> years, as an Internet community?
>>
>> "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen", by its very
>> nature, rewards those who throw the most flames.  It drives off
>> contributors and community members who, frankly, have better things to
>> do with their time than deal with flames, disrespect, and negativity.
>> We have people who have said they have been driven away from FIG because
>> of the negative atmosphere that Paul creates.  (See Michael's initial
>> email.)
>>
>> Harm is being done: Is the answer really "well so be it, only the
>> think-skinned will survive"?  Do we really want to say "Well man up and
>> deal with it, bro"?
>>
>> That's not an answer.  That's a refusal to take responsibility for your
>> community.
>>
>> Communities don't just survive on their own.  They require maintenance.
>> They require weeding.
>>
>> Do people really feel FIG would get more respect in the broader PHP
>> community if we said, explicitly, "we don't mind if you're a jerk,
>> people need to grow a thicker skin"?  Really?  I don't believe that for
>> a second.
>>
>> Conversations can get testy, sure.  The recent discussion about
>> middleware styles got strained in a few points, but at no point did I
>> feel like Woody or Rasmus were talking down to me.  (And I certainly
>> hope they feel the same about my points in that thread, as that was
>> never my intent.)  There's a huge difference between disagreeing
>> strongly on a point and belittling or demeaning someone.
>>
>> If someone (a hypothetical someone) came on the list and spent their
>> time spewing racist epithets at people left and right, declaring
>> everyone's proposal a sign that they should have been euthanized at
>> birth, and generally just being abusive, I am reasonably sure we'd all
>> agree that person needed to be kicked from the list and forbidden from
>> returning.  There is some threshold of behavior past which a person is
>> actively destructive to a community, no matter how smart or insightful
>> they may be on any given topic.
>>
>> To not recognize the existence of that threshold, wherever it is, is to
>> create a magnet for toxic, hateful people.
>>
>> See also:
>>
>> http://anildash.com/2011/07/if-your-websites-full-of-assholes-its-your-fault.html
>>
>> We could certainly dispute where that threshold is.  That's a fine
>> conversation to have.  We could discuss whether Paul's behavior is over
>> that threshold.  That's the conversation we should be having. We could
>> debate whether an intervention is possible or if removal is necessary.
>> That's largely dependent on Paul, who has so far been silent in this
>> discussion.
>>
>> But to say that it'

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Alessandro Lai]

Banning Paul from the ML is a last resort resolution that would "solve" the 
problem, but it would do a great deal of damage, to us, to the FIG, to Paul 
and to the PHP community at large. 

I think that anyone here is advocating for a more easy and collaborative 
solution, something that can be done WITH Paul, not against him. We want to 
set up a threshold, as Larry called it, behind which the behavior of 
_anyone_ here on the ML should be stopped, for the sake of the FIG itself. 
Previously Paul got a 24h (maybe it was 48? not sure) suspension from the 
ML because he wasn't respecting the self-throttling rule; I think we should 
use those kind of enforcement to stop this kind of abusive behavior, but I 
also think that this thread is here to avoid using them, especially on 
Paul, so it doesn't become an ad personam rule.

I hope that Paul is professional enough to recognize that is causing some 
discomfort to many FIG members and non-members, and that he can talk to us 
and work with us toward a solution, without having to resort to any of 
those harsh enforcements.

Il giorno lunedì 27 giugno 2016 01:56:02 UTC+2, Dracony ha scritto:
>
> Larry, from your post, it sound like the actual topic of the proposed vote 
> would be actually banning Paul from the mailing list altogether?
>
> > I am reasonably sure we'd all agree that person needed to be kicked 
> from the list and forbidden from returning.  There is some threshold of 
> behavior past which a person is actively destructive to a community, no 
> matter how smart or insightful they may be on any given topic.
>
> I'm sure phrasing it as a total ban instead of just replacing a 
> representative is a whole new deal even for even those supporting expelling 
> Paul.
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:48 AM, 'Alexander Makarov' via PHP Framework 
> Interoperability Group > wrote:
>
>> Well said. Absolutely agree.
>>
>> Anyway, revoking vote is irrelevant. What other options are there?
>>
>> If it were forum engine, I'd proposed official rules that state that 
>> "Personal offense isn't tolerated. Each occurrence results in ban for a 
>> week. X repeating occurrences results in permanent ban no matter what". 
>> Could something like that be enforced in a mailing list?
>>
>>
>> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 12:36:55 AM UTC+3, Larry Garfield wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/24/2016 07:07 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: 
>>> > Hello, 
>>> > 
>>> > First up I am not in favor of expulsion because even if you agree that 
>>> Paul is “toxic”, I doubt that a standards committee will really remain 
>>> relevant if it cannot deal with supposedly “toxic” people, ie. we would 
>>> need to find other solutions for this. Also even if he is no longer a 
>>> member of FIG, would he then get banned from all list? 
>>>
>>> A number of people have made similar statements here; I'm going to reply 
>>> to them collectively in this reply, as Lukas' line above is a good 
>>> poignant example, but it is not aimed at Lukas specifically. 
>>>
>>> "I doubt that a standards committee will really remain relevant if it 
>>> cannot deal with supposedly “toxic” people" 
>>>
>>> I find this statement, and the sentiment behind it, extremely 
>>> disconcerting and rather dangerous.  It, along with other comments in 
>>> this thread, seem to suggest "FIG should deal with toxic people by just 
>>> sucking it up; if you can't stand the heat get out of the fire." 
>>>
>>> Haven't we learned by now that is the worst possible way to deal with 
>>> hostile or toxic individuals?  Have we learned nothing in the last few 
>>> years, as an Internet community? 
>>>
>>> "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen", by its very 
>>> nature, rewards those who throw the most flames.  It drives off 
>>> contributors and community members who, frankly, have better things to 
>>> do with their time than deal with flames, disrespect, and negativity.   
>>> We have people who have said they have been driven away from FIG because 
>>> of the negative atmosphere that Paul creates.  (See Michael's initial 
>>> email.) 
>>>
>>> Harm is being done: Is the answer really "well so be it, only the 
>>> think-skinned will survive"?  Do we really want to say "Well man up and 
>>> deal with it, bro"? 
>>>
>>> That's not an answer.  That's a refusal to take responsibility for your 
>>> community. 
>>>
>>> Communities don't just survive on their own.  They require maintenance. 
>>>   
>>> They require weeding. 
>>>
>>> Do people really feel FIG would get more respect in the broader PHP 
>>> community if we said, explicitly, "we don't mind if you're a jerk, 
>>> people need to grow a thicker skin"?  Really?  I don't believe that for 
>>> a second. 
>>>
>>> Conversations can get testy, sure.  The recent discussion about 
>>> middleware styles got strained in a few points, but at no point did I 
>>> feel like Woody or Rasmus were talking down to me.  (And I certainly 
>>> hope they feel the same about my points in that thread, as that was 

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

> On 26 Jun 2016, at 23:36, Larry Garfield  wrote:
> 
> On 06/24/2016 07:07 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> First up I am not in favor of expulsion because even if you agree that Paul 
>> is “toxic”, I doubt that a standards committee will really remain relevant 
>> if it cannot deal with supposedly “toxic” people, ie. we would need to find 
>> other solutions for this. Also even if he is no longer a member of FIG, 
>> would he then get banned from all list?
> 
> A number of people have made similar statements here; I'm going to reply to 
> them collectively in this reply, as Lukas' line above is a good poignant 
> example, but it is not aimed at Lukas specifically.
> 
> "I doubt that a standards committee will really remain relevant if it cannot 
> deal with supposedly “toxic” people"
> 
> I find this statement, and the sentiment behind it, extremely disconcerting 
> and rather dangerous.  It, along with other comments in this thread, seem to 
> suggest "FIG should deal with toxic people by just sucking it up; if you 
> can't stand the heat get out of the fire.”

It seems I wasn’t sufficiently clear:

Given that attempts were made my several people off-list (including myself) to 
improve the collaboration of Paul with others on this list and those efforts 
have not been able to produce a necessary change that a dozen of members + 
contributors felt that the off-list approach has been exhausted, I think its 
legitimate to bring up the topic here. For one to bring the scope of the issue 
to the public but also to allow both sides from the argument to present their 
point of view.

> We could certainly dispute where that threshold is.  That's a fine 
> conversation to have.  We could discuss whether Paul's behavior is over that 
> threshold.  That's the conversation we should be having. We could debate 
> whether an intervention is possible or if removal is necessary.  That's 
> largely dependent on Paul, who has so far been silent in this discussion.

As such I very much welcome the discussion we are currently having, as painful 
as it is for all parties involved. Indeed given the scope it is a necessary one 
to have. I do hope that Paul will eventually speak up on the list, but I find 
it also entirely reasonable that he waits a bit to see what the list at large 
thinks about this.

Where I disagree is that it makes sense to put up sort of an ultimatum with an 
expulsion vote.

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

PS: Of course its clear that for Paul it isn’t a nice situation to have your 
name associated in such a thread that will be there for all eternity on the 
internet. It should also be clear that several people that were listed 
specifically prefer a more harmonious collaboration, as such I do realize that 
for them such a “direct attack” must also feel quite uncomfortable. As such 
labeling this thread a “witch hunt” or similar has little basis imho.

-- 
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/9344CD85-80EA-461A-8224-09E211A76DF5%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

[Damian Mooyman]

To keep my addition to the discussion at a minimum, I think I share Adam's 
views of this whole situation. I've found the evidence so far that Paul is 
"toxic" to be lacking.

I'd also much prefer to keep external political discussion out of the 
mailing list, lest it encourages people to treat this as a place to air 
their personal grievances.


On Saturday, 25 June 2016 04:32:56 UTC+12, Adam Culp wrote:
>
> OK, this is going too far. This is wrong. But I will weigh in because 
> silence creates the perception of approval, and I do not approve.
>
> I would add the following to the discussion:
>
>1. Paul is passionate about the FIG. On a technical level he has added 
>a great deal, and continues to do so.
>2. Paul is very active, and responds quickly and concisely. He is not 
>afraid to dive in when emotions are high, or his view is controversial. 
>This can inflame others that are passionate about a given topic. Comments 
>made by Paul can "feel" confrontational when things are passionate. But 
>upon reading many of Paul's comments, at a later time when emotions have 
>subsided, they are not confrontational as originally perceived.
>3. Paul has been known to include politics and other topics in 
>comments, generally instigated by others.
>4. There are bound to be personality conflicts in any group. Paul and 
>some others in, and out of, the FIG have personality conflicts due to 
>political concerns and otherwise. This is not cause for expulsion.
>5. Paul has political views that some disagree with, and freely shares 
>them outside of the group. This is not cause for expulsion.
>6. We should be focused on what happens inside this group, and not be 
>overly influenced by buzz from the general public. This is our decision.
>7. The fact that others have chosen to leave the FIG when small 
>conflicts arose is more of a reflection on them, not Paul.
>
> We are adults discussing passionate things, and there will be conflict. 
> Expulsion should not be the answer, otherwise the FIG will become a group 
> of muppets and like-minded people agreeing on everything which would carry 
> no value.
> 
> When the vote starts I urge folks to not simply join the pitchfork mob, 
> but weigh the accusations and evidence from a non-emotional point of view.
>
> Thank you for reading.
>
> I will self-throttle now and not post on this thread unless addressed 
> personally.
>
> -- Adam Culp
>
>
> On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 3:53:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Cullum wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
>> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
>> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
>> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
>> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
>> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
>> pleasant to be involved with.
>>
>> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
>> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>>
>>- 
>>
>>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>>- 
>>
>>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>>respect and members for the FIG”
>>- 
>>
>>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>>- 
>>
>>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>>- 
>>
>>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads 
>>lately to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
>> the 
>>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this 
>>is just disruptive though.”
>>
>>
>> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked 
>> not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
>>
>>- 
>>
>>Ross Tuck - Community figure
>>- 
>>
>>Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>>- 
>>
>>Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>>- 
>>
>>Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>>- 
>>
>>Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>>- 
>>
>>Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>>- 
>>
>>Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>>- 
>>
>>Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>>- 
>>
>>Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
>>- 
>>
>>Rafael Dohms - 

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Matt Prelude]

Speaking as someone who is not an insider or member of FIG, it is threads 
like this which have compromised my opinion of the group, and not the blunt 
opinions of people like Paul M Jones. The mass resignations, attempts to 
unseat projects and people, it seems as if the FIG has forgotten why it 
exists.

-- 
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/fb978a50-8f84-40bd-927f-99350a8376c6%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Joshua Drake]

Hello,

I am an outsider to this group but have been involved in Open Source for 
over 20 years. I only know Jones from Twitter but this thread caught my 
eye. Although the opinions I am about to express are my own and do not in 
any way represent other organizations, I am a Director for Software in the 
Public Interest as well as United States PostgreSQL. My experiences are 
vast in the community as a whole. 

There has been a movement recently in the Free/Open Source communities to 
sanitize and make it all about fluffy bunnies (provoke). The problem is 
that a sanitation will create a vacuum of intellect not unlike a snake 
eating itself. It is the heated metal, beaten in a forge and shaped through 
the sheer force of will, skill and talent that creates the beauty that is a 
hand crafted Katana, not bottled water and hand sanitizer.

That said, this entire thread boils down to this:

Does Paul disrupt the collaborative space? If so, then it needs to be 
discussed with him.

However, here is the problem. A lot of people who make complaints are the 
very same people that are actually the ones disrupting the collaborative 
space. They do this passively, likely without realizing it. They do it by:

1. Having thin skin
2. Taking umbrage because somebody doesn't agree with them
3. Having a chip on their shoulder about $X
4. Allowing #1-#3 influence their ability to be productive.

We do have is a list of people who are upset, perhaps rightfully so. 
However, doesn't it strike you as odd that those people weren't willing to 
stand up for themselves and instead asking a steering committee to deal 
with the problem? My experienced guess is that *most* (but not all) of this 
brouhaha is because of #4 above.

This is why:

1. Anyone can create a filter to just ignore Paul
2. Anyone can call Paul out, publicly and respectfully for behavior they 
don't think is appropriate
3. Anyone can chose to just not read Paul's responses/comments
4. Anyone can just take Paul with a grain of salt

But... #4

Does that excuse inappropriate behavior from Paul (if there is any)? 
Absolutely not. However, you must define what inappropriate behavior is 
before you can even attempt to determine where on the spectrum the behavior 
falls. Having strong opinions that are in conflict with someone else's 
strong opinions is not inappropriate nor is having to deal with the reality 
that someone may not agree with you.

Sincerely,

JD

-- 
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/9f48d667-3a0a-4343-a71e-f08bd914ddc3%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Matthew Weier O'Phinney]

I'd really planned on sitting this thread out, but this last email...

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Joshua Drake  wrote:
> A lot of people who make complaints are the very same people that are actually
> the ones disrupting the collaborative space. They do this passively, likely
> without realizing it. They do it by:
>
> 1. Having thin skin
> 2. Taking umbrage because somebody doesn't agree with them
> 3. Having a chip on their shoulder about $X
> 4. Allowing #1-#3 influence their ability to be productive.
>
> We do have is a list of people who are upset, perhaps rightfully so. However,
> doesn't it strike you as odd that those people weren't willing to stand up for
> themselves and instead asking a steering committee to deal with the problem? 
> My
> experienced guess is that *most* (but not all) of this brouhaha is because of 
> #4
> above.

Your outline above is a classic example of victim blaming.

You and others have indicated that folks on the list should "grow a thicker
skin". This makes the assumption that the only people valued in the group are:

- those with strong, often intractable, opinions
- those willing and capable of defending their opinions vocally when
met with opposition

Additionally, those two points lead to another mentality: that every discussion
is an either/or situation, without compromise.

So, instead of drawing attention to behavior and attitudes that makes others
uncomfortable... you write these other contributors off as "just not being tough
enough"? Considering the prevalence of both the Dunning-Kruger effect and
Imposter Syndrome in tech workers, that seems like a recipe for an echo chamber
that many newcomers and skilled professionals will find unwelcoming.

You go on to say:

> Anyone can call Paul out, publicly and respectfully for behavior they don't
> think is appropriate

This makes the assumption that all people on the list are equally comfortable
with conflict.

Calling out behavior is difficult, because it's subjective and personal. At the
same time, it often opens up the person pointing out the problem behaviors to
attack by the other person, particularly if that person's behavior is combative.
I've seen many examples of these conflicts resulting in the stalking and
harrasing of the person reporting the behavior. If it were me, I'd walk away
rather than call it out - which does nobody any good, as silence is often
interpreted as tacit approval.

This sort of situation is incredibly unwelcoming to some people, myself included
(I shy away from conflict), and I think that's the point to realize about this
discussion: what should the group do if one or more members make contribution
unpalatable to others by being strong-willed, intractable of opinion, and
legalistic in every thread they participate in?

I absolutely agree that not everyone on the list will agree with one another on
every detail. The question is if disagreement can be done with respect, vs:

- passive-aggression, snark, ad hominem attacks, etc.
- legalistic interpretations of rules in attempts to reframe them to
suit one's own purposes
- questioning of motives as a basis for invalidation
- ridiculing designs one finds "inferior" or "flawed"

These are all behaviors I've observed on this list repeatedly, and, personally,
I left the group for more than a year because of them.

What this thread started off with is a list of many individuals who have made
complaints, or flat out left the community ...

over one specific individual's behavior.

Let that sink in.

You can make all sorts of aspersions about "fluffy bunnies," but the fact that
so many reports have occurred belies the fact that there's a serious issue to
consider here.

I've known Paul for 11 years now, and consider him a friend. But when I look at
this thread, I have to ask: is his continued participation worth the loss of
participation of *many*?

I'd like to see this resolved amicably. But I also think this is a good time for
all parties to reflect on what the group values, and who it wants to have
involved. I personally value a group that is welcoming of a diverse set of
backgrounds (both professionally and personally), and that is capable of
healthy, respectful debate that can lead to reasonable compromises.

-- 
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_myWsNRmb%2BXi7mLtirufCLQyq0ovgvVhSNTVLUNCUHGkwLQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[pedrofrcordeiro]

I think this discussion has derailed. It's not about politics, it's not 
about technicalities. It's about the bylaws.

> If, *in the judgement of PHP-FIG*, a Voting Representative is acting 
inappropriately and* to the detriment of PHP-FIG's ability to meet its 
objectives*, a vote may be taken to request a replacement Voting 
Representative in accordance with the Voting Protocol bylaw or to expel the 
Member Project where replacing a Voting Representative is not possible.

It's not about technicalities or if Paul's political views are right or 
wrong. It's about members discussing whether* he's acting to the detriment 
of their abilities to meet its objectives*. It's quite simple, actually. 
So, all these "I don't find anything wrong with Paul's posts" are mostly 
irrelevant, because there needs not to be anything technically wrong with 
his posts, if the majority of members judge his overall behavior disruptive 
and detrimental to the group's ability to meet its objetives.

The only question is: how many members find his overall behavior 
counterproductive? If it's more than half, than the project should replace 
its representative. If it's not more than half, than Paul stays. Quite 
simple, actually.

Like I said before, if name-calling or specific slurs are needed for this 
to happen, then FIG should have a bot patrolling the mailing list and 
autobanning people saying those words. If the intelligent human beings that 
run FIG can't distinguish between productive behavior and behavior 
"detrimental to its abilities to meet its objectives", then this specific 
bylaw should be removed.

To whoever was saying "I couldn't find anything innapropriate", I'll leave 
this here.

1. Paul has been very sarcastic towards members in this list: 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/RwFMv1NokBQ/7XPPLEDJDwAJ
2. Paul has been very aggressive towards other members in this list: 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/RwFMv1NokBQ/Mkna9CLJDwAJ
3. Paul has flooded this list with irrelevant sarcastic/acidic remarks: 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/RwFMv1NokBQ/sfe47DfJDwAJ
4. Paul has brought his personal fights with people who are not members of 
this group to this list: 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/RwFMv1NokBQ/XKGfyjDDDwAJ / 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/RwFMv1NokBQ/MWpxepLIDwAJ / 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/RwFMv1NokBQ/tdXoFNvIDwAJ
5. Well, if name-calling is needed to ban a user from this group, there he 
is, calling Phil a "drama-queen" within this very mailing list: 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/php-fig/cjLBp2weYaA/up8nw9fXDQAJ

Yea, I know Phil hasn't been restrained on his remarks about Paul either, 
but that's a whole different subject, as Phil is no longer a member here. 
If it takes banning Phil from this mailing list to improve things, ban him 
too.

I don't really care what members do outside this list as long as they don't 
bring their personal fights/agendas here. But IMHO, Paul has been provenly 
disruptive. Note that all these examples date from the last two months, and 
all these examples are from two threads alone. I didn't even have to dig 
deep to find those. Not to mention all the passive-aggressiveness, properly 
disguised as 'educated remarks', for plausible deniability.

Just to reiterate, I'll respond to Joshua:

> However, you must define what inappropriate behavior is before you can 
even attempt to determine where on the spectrum the behavior falls.

No, you don't. You just have to vote if the member is acting in detriment 
of the group's abilities to meet its goal. It's a subjective phrase for a 
reason. There is absolutely no way to define what is objectively 
detrimental and what's not.

Paul has avoided coming here to post on his behalf (and I do applaud his 
attitude on this, far better than Roman's). If you are all expecting a 
decision based on objectivity, you won't get one. Discuss, make the case 
for both sides, vote on the subject and get this over with. Calling for a 
vote is NOT dictatorial, it's NOT against freedom of speech. The 
secretaries IGNORING 20+ complaints because they had defined amongst 
themselves what is acceptable and what is not is what would have been 
dictatorial and against free speech. They made the right call here, opening 
the discussion and allowing members to speak their mind.

- Pedro.

Em terça-feira, 28 de junho de 2016 14:57:21 UTC-3, Matthew Weier O'Phinney 
escreveu:
>
> I'd really planned on sitting this thread out, but this last email... 
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Joshua Drake  > wrote: 
> > A lot of people who make complaints are the very same people that are 
> actually 
> > the ones disrupting the collaborative space. They do this passively, 
> likely 
> > without realizing it. They do it by: 
> > 
> > 1. Having thin skin 
> > 2. Taking umbrage because somebody doesn't agree with them 
> > 3. Having a chip on their shoulder about $X 
> > 4. Allowing #1-#3 influence their ability to be

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Joshua Drake]

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 10:57:21 AM UTC-7, Matthew Weier O'Phinney 
wrote:
>
> I'd really planned on sitting this thread out, but this last email... 
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Joshua Drake  > wrote: 
> > A lot of people who make complaints are the very same people that are 
> actually 
> > the ones disrupting the collaborative space. They do this passively, 
> likely 
> > without realizing it. They do it by: 
> > 
> > 1. Having thin skin 
> > 2. Taking umbrage because somebody doesn't agree with them 
> > 3. Having a chip on their shoulder about $X 
> > 4. Allowing #1-#3 influence their ability to be productive. 
> > 
> > We do have is a list of people who are upset, perhaps rightfully so. 
> However, 
> > doesn't it strike you as odd that those people weren't willing to stand 
> up for 
> > themselves and instead asking a steering committee to deal with the 
> problem? My 
> > experienced guess is that *most* (but not all) of this brouhaha is 
> because of #4 
> > above. 
>
> Your outline above is a classic example of victim blaming. 
>

You have just proven every counter point in my email.

Have a very nice day.

Sincerely,

JD

>
>

-- 
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/70896f7c-15dc-4034-909b-b47365164b72%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Adam Culp]

Sorry Josh, I think you go too far. Though I feel Paul's actions do not 
warrant expulsion but communication, I DO NOT agree everybody needs to 
"grow a thicker skin" and would never advocate such. And I do not feel 
individuals asking a group to act on their behalf is a sign of cowardice or 
weakness. In fact it is proper to seek council.

This is not a time for extremes on either side, but rather understanding 
and learning.

Regards,
Adam Culp



On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 1:20:19 PM UTC-4, Joshua Drake wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am an outsider to this group but have been involved in Open Source for 
> over 20 years. I only know Jones from Twitter but this thread caught my 
> eye. Although the opinions I am about to express are my own and do not in 
> any way represent other organizations, I am a Director for Software in the 
> Public Interest as well as United States PostgreSQL. My experiences are 
> vast in the community as a whole. 
>
> There has been a movement recently in the Free/Open Source communities to 
> sanitize and make it all about fluffy bunnies (provoke). The problem is 
> that a sanitation will create a vacuum of intellect not unlike a snake 
> eating itself. It is the heated metal, beaten in a forge and shaped through 
> the sheer force of will, skill and talent that creates the beauty that is a 
> hand crafted Katana, not bottled water and hand sanitizer.
>
> That said, this entire thread boils down to this:
>
> Does Paul disrupt the collaborative space? If so, then it needs to be 
> discussed with him.
>
> However, here is the problem. A lot of people who make complaints are the 
> very same people that are actually the ones disrupting the collaborative 
> space. They do this passively, likely without realizing it. They do it by:
>
> 1. Having thin skin
> 2. Taking umbrage because somebody doesn't agree with them
> 3. Having a chip on their shoulder about $X
> 4. Allowing #1-#3 influence their ability to be productive.
>
> We do have is a list of people who are upset, perhaps rightfully so. 
> However, doesn't it strike you as odd that those people weren't willing to 
> stand up for themselves and instead asking a steering committee to deal 
> with the problem? My experienced guess is that *most* (but not all) of this 
> brouhaha is because of #4 above.
>
> This is why:
>
> 1. Anyone can create a filter to just ignore Paul
> 2. Anyone can call Paul out, publicly and respectfully for behavior they 
> don't think is appropriate
> 3. Anyone can chose to just not read Paul's responses/comments
> 4. Anyone can just take Paul with a grain of salt
>
> But... #4
>
> Does that excuse inappropriate behavior from Paul (if there is any)? 
> Absolutely not. However, you must define what inappropriate behavior is 
> before you can even attempt to determine where on the spectrum the behavior 
> falls. Having strong opinions that are in conflict with someone else's 
> strong opinions is not inappropriate nor is having to deal with the reality 
> that someone may not agree with you.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> JD
>
>

-- 
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/94f9b0ff-3edf-4398-a898-669982e2cd00%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[James Watts]

The absence of Paul on this thread is a deafening silence.

I can imagine him chanting "a lion doesn't concern himself with the 
opinions of the sheep".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pARFcJQclCc

My input can be summarized to this...

http://startupquotes.startupvitamins.com/post/85540964233/do-not-tolerate-brilliant-jerks-the-cost-to

"Do not tolerate brilliant jerks. The cost to teamwork is too high." - Reed 
Hastings, CEO Netflix


On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 9:15:43 PM UTC+2, Adam Culp wrote:
>
> Sorry Josh, I think you go too far. Though I feel Paul's actions do not 
> warrant expulsion but communication, I DO NOT agree everybody needs to 
> "grow a thicker skin" and would never advocate such. And I do not feel 
> individuals asking a group to act on their behalf is a sign of cowardice or 
> weakness. In fact it is proper to seek council.
>
> This is not a time for extremes on either side, but rather understanding 
> and learning.
>
> Regards,
> Adam Culp
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 1:20:19 PM UTC-4, Joshua Drake wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am an outsider to this group but have been involved in Open Source for 
>> over 20 years. I only know Jones from Twitter but this thread caught my 
>> eye. Although the opinions I am about to express are my own and do not in 
>> any way represent other organizations, I am a Director for Software in the 
>> Public Interest as well as United States PostgreSQL. My experiences are 
>> vast in the community as a whole. 
>>
>> There has been a movement recently in the Free/Open Source communities to 
>> sanitize and make it all about fluffy bunnies (provoke). The problem is 
>> that a sanitation will create a vacuum of intellect not unlike a snake 
>> eating itself. It is the heated metal, beaten in a forge and shaped through 
>> the sheer force of will, skill and talent that creates the beauty that is a 
>> hand crafted Katana, not bottled water and hand sanitizer.
>>
>> That said, this entire thread boils down to this:
>>
>> Does Paul disrupt the collaborative space? If so, then it needs to be 
>> discussed with him.
>>
>> However, here is the problem. A lot of people who make complaints are the 
>> very same people that are actually the ones disrupting the collaborative 
>> space. They do this passively, likely without realizing it. They do it by:
>>
>> 1. Having thin skin
>> 2. Taking umbrage because somebody doesn't agree with them
>> 3. Having a chip on their shoulder about $X
>> 4. Allowing #1-#3 influence their ability to be productive.
>>
>> We do have is a list of people who are upset, perhaps rightfully so. 
>> However, doesn't it strike you as odd that those people weren't willing to 
>> stand up for themselves and instead asking a steering committee to deal 
>> with the problem? My experienced guess is that *most* (but not all) of this 
>> brouhaha is because of #4 above.
>>
>> This is why:
>>
>> 1. Anyone can create a filter to just ignore Paul
>> 2. Anyone can call Paul out, publicly and respectfully for behavior they 
>> don't think is appropriate
>> 3. Anyone can chose to just not read Paul's responses/comments
>> 4. Anyone can just take Paul with a grain of salt
>>
>> But... #4
>>
>> Does that excuse inappropriate behavior from Paul (if there is any)? 
>> Absolutely not. However, you must define what inappropriate behavior is 
>> before you can even attempt to determine where on the spectrum the behavior 
>> falls. Having strong opinions that are in conflict with someone else's 
>> strong opinions is not inappropriate nor is having to deal with the reality 
>> that someone may not agree with you.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> JD
>>
>>

-- 
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/b4125f29-cd1a-4505-8385-a863880ab607%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Mark Baker]

On 28/06/2016 18:20, Joshua Drake wrote:

1. Having thin skin
Yes, I know we should all have skins like  rhinoceros, and I apologise 
on behalf of me and any fellow victims that we don't. I guess I'll just 
stick my head below the parapet again, and simply give up on following 
the groups activities and not bother having anything to do with FIG ever 
again. Because clearly I'm not wanted here.



--
Mark Baker

 _
|.  \ \-3
|_J_/ PHP |
|| |  __  |
|| |m|  |m|

 I LOVE PHP

--
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/a5177846-abd9-d6f8-8046-19296b813001%40lange.demon.co.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Mark Baker]

On 29/06/2016 20:02, Mark Baker wrote:

On 28/06/2016 18:20, Joshua Drake wrote:

1. Having thin skin
Yes, I know we should all have skins like  rhinoceros, and I apologise 
on behalf of me and any fellow victims that we don't. I guess I'll 
just stick my head below the parapet again, and simply give up on 
following the groups activities and not bother having anything to do 
with FIG ever again. Because clearly I'm not wanted here.



Perhaps overly dramatic, but blaming victims isn't the solution to FIG's 
current problems.



--
Mark Baker

 _
|.  \ \-3
|_J_/ PHP |
|| |  __  |
|| |m|  |m|

 I LOVE PHP

--
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/2ecc7edf-907c-504d-520f-2358bf50e26f%40lange.demon.co.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Roman Tsjupa]

There are really no victims here besides from Paul who is being attacked.
Paul, while having strong opinions and arguing a lot, has not done anything
that would warrant calling anyone a "victim".
And yes, if you engage into a heated argument on the internet it can be
taxing, of course. But calling yourself a victim is really over the top in
this case.

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Mark Baker  wrote:

> On 29/06/2016 20:02, Mark Baker wrote:
>
>> On 28/06/2016 18:20, Joshua Drake wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Having thin skin
>>>
>> Yes, I know we should all have skins like  rhinoceros, and I apologise on
>> behalf of me and any fellow victims that we don't. I guess I'll just stick
>> my head below the parapet again, and simply give up on following the groups
>> activities and not bother having anything to do with FIG ever again.
>> Because clearly I'm not wanted here.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps overly dramatic, but blaming victims isn't the solution to FIG's
> current problems.
>
>
> --
> Mark Baker
>
>  _
> |.  \ \-3
> |_J_/ PHP |
> || |  __  |
> || |m|  |m|
>
>  I LOVE PHP
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/php-fig/w38tCU4mdgU/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/2ecc7edf-907c-504d-520f-2358bf50e26f%40lange.demon.co.uk
> .
>
> 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/CANamvv1MDFOXJVky7Y2y8U5UfmBjGav1atgy%2B8BwqzQKh8tRPw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Phil Sturgeon]

I wanted to swing by and thank everyone for keeping this conversation so 
constructive. Many people like Larry, Michael and Matt have said exactly what I 
would have loved to have said, but done it far more eloquently. 

Sadly, I find the amount of victim blaming going on in here to be bizarre and 
gross. The FIG has lost so many good quality contributors, all because of one 
specific person, and none of them needed to be lost. You can have the thickest 
skin in the world, but eventually you get fed up with it and wander off. 

People always do this, and I understand that when somebody quits it's very 
tempting to say "Come on, don't take it personally, just get on with it!" but 
when that person is politebullying you with multiple acidic emails, battering 
his point home and patronizing you at every given opportunity, it soon becomes 
tempting to just work on other stuff.

Open source is hard, and time consuming. Whilst you certainly don't need 
everyone to agree on everything, and whilst I'd be the last person to suggest 
that every single email needs to contain a million bunnies and hugs, there is a 
limit. How you communicate with people is important, and I've tried to help 
Paul with this in the past. He often has a simple enough point, but he makes it 
in awful ways.

I've been working hard on my communication problems (Paul threads 
nonwithstanding) and I've been doing very well. Paul on the other hand seems 
uninterested in listening or learning when concerns are raised. Instead he uses 
snarky against anyone who has "wronged" him. I suffered this for god knows how 
long after withdrawing the PSR-4 vote and it's not pretty. 

Working with Paul on PSR-4 was a long way from fun. Despite that, Beau, Larry, 
Anthony, a bunch of contributors and myself managed to get the job done. I 
don't want others to continue to suffer through working in those conditions, 
and will be happy to see any other representative Aura has to offer.

Beyond just making his point poorly, Paul often makes that point over and over 
and over until you either agree or give up. He's not trying to explain it in a 
new way to maybe help you understand his point, he's just banging on the same 
drum over and over. That might work on Reddit, but it's not what anyone wants 
in the FIG.

"Really, posting too much?!" has been a common incredulous response by his 
supporters. Some people say "If you stop using a mailing list, then who cares 
about how much they post!" The point is, many people want to know whats 
happening, what is being worked on, what decisions are being made. It's this 
reason we even have a mailing list, and when two people need to work something 
out they go onto IRC and come back with their results. If everything was done 
on IRC we'd have a LOT of logs to scan through to find the signal in the noise, 
and that sounds awful. So we use a mailing list, and people need to respect 
that and keep their number of posts to something reasonable. 

Paul can't do that, and has been the first person to be banned by the new 
secretaries, a power that he continues to assert is being used selectively. 
It's not selective if you're the only one causing such a problem that it gets 
used on you...

Finally, this has absolutely nothing to do with some big gender politics 
conspiracy as so many have assured themselves. A CoC was proposed for PHP and 
it's still being worked on, but that has nothing to do with the FIG. Getting 
Paul booted from the FIG wouldn't make PHP have a CoC, and if you think anyone 
is doing this for revenge then... well we really do have better things to be 
doing. 

Paul is just one vote in many, so him disagreeing about CoCs, or global 
warming, or one of the 8 million other things we disagree about, has zero 
relevance. He's got a vote, other projects have a vote, so who cares. Having 
him replaced as representative literally only means that if he continues to 
post the ways he's been posting for the last few months, the secretaries can 
give him a ban.

If I were spamming out a bajillion emails, being passive aggressive to half the 
mailing list, causing ~20 complaints from a huge roster of past and present 
members, and forcing contributors out of the group, I'd expect to be banned 
too. In fact, just the spamming a bajillion emails part should get me banned. 

This entire thing is about fostering a productive environment, where people can 
get on with things without feeling bullied or constantly under attack.

If Paul can change his ways then that would solve the problem, but he has shown 
time and time again that he is completely uninterested in changing his ways, 
and is unable to even acknowledge any sort of problem on his side. I know I'm 
rude to him and that makes me look wildly hypocritical, but I have tried with 
him so many times that I just can't anymore. I'm not polite to bullies, and it 
makes me really happy to see other people attempting to solve the problem.

I put a lot of time and effort

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Mark Baker]

On 30/06/2016 09:12, Roman Tsjupa wrote:

There are really no victims here besides from Paul who is being attacked.
Paul, while having strong opinions and arguing a lot, has not done 
anything that would warrant calling anyone a "victim".
And yes, if you engage into a heated argument on the internet it can 
be taxing, of course. But calling yourself a victim is really over the 
top in this case.



I rest my case


--
Mark Baker

 _
|.  \ \-3
|_J_/ PHP |
|| |  __  |
|| |m|  |m|

 I LOVE PHP

--
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/3b11c4f6-c8b4-20ba-7ffc-214e042330e4%40lange.demon.co.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Pádraic Brady]

I'm alive? I'm alive! ;)

On 30 June 2016 at 09:27, Phil Sturgeon  wrote:
> I wanted to swing by and thank everyone for keeping this conversation so
> constructive. Many people like Larry, Michael and Matt have said exactly
> what I would have loved to have said, but done it far more eloquently.
>
> Sadly, I find the amount of victim blaming going on in here to be bizarre
> and gross. The FIG has lost so many good quality contributors, all because
> of one specific person, and none of them needed to be lost. You can have the
> thickest skin in the world, but eventually you get fed up with it and wander
> off.

Not a voting member anymore, but I'd urge folk not to fall into
thinking that hard work, a thick skin, and a keen intellect solves
everything. It's 2016 after all and we should know better. There are
lots of people with "thin skins", and that's just how people are. The
reality is that we all work with people who are widely varied across
personality and other characteristics. Some have mild to serious
mental illnesses or have other things which play on their mental
health.

The point is that "growing a thicker skin" is a nice convenient myth
when you spin it as applicable to the entire population of the planet.
Myths are not real things. They don't have substance simply because
you believe them.

Our mental health is as important as the physical side of the health
coin. Abrasiveness, disruptive behaviour, life's trials, bullying and
many more are the bacteria, viruses and cancers of the mental world.
All of them generated by people, sometimes unwittingly, sometimes very
wittingly. What you might call a "thin skin", others would call their
immune systems getting to work to protect them from harm. The
alternative is avoiding infectious bags of noxiousness entirely.
Quarantine works.

As Mike put it back in an earlier email "mutual empathy" would bring
the group closer together as a working unit.

So far, so good...

However, mutual empathy must unfailingly go both ways for everyone to
be treated fairly and I was, and remain, disappointed to see
complaints about a voting member being made public with the force of
FIG behind them in this manner. You cannot write an email without
input from an accused member and maintain a neutral position.
Appearances do matter. It therefore follows, that there is little
neutrality evident in this call for a vote. It presents one side, and
one side only. So we have a jury, but no judge, a prosecution, but the
defence is missing in action (well, here anyway) other than supporting
amici curiae. It's looking just a tad bit lopsided...

I know Paul and I do not agree over having Codes of Conduct. We're
probably complete opposites on every point about them! However, my
support for COCs in general does yet rely on being as fair as is
realistically possible in a community, and that carries over even in
the absence of a COC as a personal belief. So, how about some
clarification. Was Paul notified of this incoming bombshell prior to
the email? Were there any private interactions before a decision was
made to bring this public notice forward? Were complaints put to him
before being made public? Was he afforded some time to respond, and
how much? And yes, I assume you would have documented and summarised
this.

I could go on, but the point is: Was Paul given an informed
opportunity and sufficient time to defend himself in preparation for
this vote discussion?

I honestly hope the answer is a clear "yes, but of course". Lots of
private emails, etc. Bent over backwards to reach a private
resolution. I'm almost assuming it, but assumptions are devilish
things and better replaced with documented facts.

Finally, I would suggest that the group (at the risk of more "drama")
give some consideration to appearances. Public votes can be, in and of
themselves, a punitive consequence. If you're going to mete them out,
then document all the things you tried to resolve the problem prior to
such a vote. Don't provide fodder for conspiracy theories that should
be easily debunked.

Paddy

--
Pádraic Brady

-- 
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/CALwr1G%3DoBY9aF04UNQ9gqphgV9e1B9_OFaoGT9JZ0vTe-bWB_A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[pedrofrcordeiro]

Even in the middle of such heated argument, Paul refuses to have a private 
conversation with the secretaries and Woody, to see if they can reach an 
agreement on the sponsorship of PSR-17.

That's unwillingness to take the most productive and conflict-free road, to 
compromise even on the little things and to keep this list technical.

Em quinta-feira, 30 de junho de 2016 13:05:31 UTC-3, Pádraic Brady escreveu:

> I'm alive? I'm alive! ;) 
>
> On 30 June 2016 at 09:27, Phil Sturgeon > 
> wrote: 
> > I wanted to swing by and thank everyone for keeping this conversation so 
> > constructive. Many people like Larry, Michael and Matt have said exactly 
> > what I would have loved to have said, but done it far more eloquently. 
> > 
> > Sadly, I find the amount of victim blaming going on in here to be 
> bizarre 
> > and gross. The FIG has lost so many good quality contributors, all 
> because 
> > of one specific person, and none of them needed to be lost. You can have 
> the 
> > thickest skin in the world, but eventually you get fed up with it and 
> wander 
> > off. 
>
> Not a voting member anymore, but I'd urge folk not to fall into 
> thinking that hard work, a thick skin, and a keen intellect solves 
> everything. It's 2016 after all and we should know better. There are 
> lots of people with "thin skins", and that's just how people are. The 
> reality is that we all work with people who are widely varied across 
> personality and other characteristics. Some have mild to serious 
> mental illnesses or have other things which play on their mental 
> health. 
>
> The point is that "growing a thicker skin" is a nice convenient myth 
> when you spin it as applicable to the entire population of the planet. 
> Myths are not real things. They don't have substance simply because 
> you believe them. 
>
> Our mental health is as important as the physical side of the health 
> coin. Abrasiveness, disruptive behaviour, life's trials, bullying and 
> many more are the bacteria, viruses and cancers of the mental world. 
> All of them generated by people, sometimes unwittingly, sometimes very 
> wittingly. What you might call a "thin skin", others would call their 
> immune systems getting to work to protect them from harm. The 
> alternative is avoiding infectious bags of noxiousness entirely. 
> Quarantine works. 
>
> As Mike put it back in an earlier email "mutual empathy" would bring 
> the group closer together as a working unit. 
>
> So far, so good... 
>
> However, mutual empathy must unfailingly go both ways for everyone to 
> be treated fairly and I was, and remain, disappointed to see 
> complaints about a voting member being made public with the force of 
> FIG behind them in this manner. You cannot write an email without 
> input from an accused member and maintain a neutral position. 
> Appearances do matter. It therefore follows, that there is little 
> neutrality evident in this call for a vote. It presents one side, and 
> one side only. So we have a jury, but no judge, a prosecution, but the 
> defence is missing in action (well, here anyway) other than supporting 
> amici curiae. It's looking just a tad bit lopsided... 
>
> I know Paul and I do not agree over having Codes of Conduct. We're 
> probably complete opposites on every point about them! However, my 
> support for COCs in general does yet rely on being as fair as is 
> realistically possible in a community, and that carries over even in 
> the absence of a COC as a personal belief. So, how about some 
> clarification. Was Paul notified of this incoming bombshell prior to 
> the email? Were there any private interactions before a decision was 
> made to bring this public notice forward? Were complaints put to him 
> before being made public? Was he afforded some time to respond, and 
> how much? And yes, I assume you would have documented and summarised 
> this. 
>
> I could go on, but the point is: Was Paul given an informed 
> opportunity and sufficient time to defend himself in preparation for 
> this vote discussion? 
>
> I honestly hope the answer is a clear "yes, but of course". Lots of 
> private emails, etc. Bent over backwards to reach a private 
> resolution. I'm almost assuming it, but assumptions are devilish 
> things and better replaced with documented facts. 
>
> Finally, I would suggest that the group (at the risk of more "drama") 
> give some consideration to appearances. Public votes can be, in and of 
> themselves, a punitive consequence. If you're going to mete them out, 
> then document all the things you tried to resolve the problem prior to 
> such a vote. Don't provide fodder for conspiracy theories that should 
> be easily debunked. 
>
> Paddy 
>
> -- 
> Pádraic Brady 
>

-- 
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

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Adam Culp]

Please stop adding conjecture and breeding more drama?

Regards,
Adam Culp



On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 2:30:24 PM UTC-4, pedrofr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Even in the middle of such heated argument, Paul refuses to have a private 
> conversation with the secretaries and Woody, to see if they can reach an 
> agreement on the sponsorship of PSR-17.
>
> That's unwillingness to take the most productive and conflict-free road, 
> to compromise even on the little things and to keep this list technical.
>
> Em quinta-feira, 30 de junho de 2016 13:05:31 UTC-3, Pádraic Brady 
> escreveu:
>
>> I'm alive? I'm alive! ;) 
>>
>> On 30 June 2016 at 09:27, Phil Sturgeon  wrote: 
>> > I wanted to swing by and thank everyone for keeping this conversation 
>> so 
>> > constructive. Many people like Larry, Michael and Matt have said 
>> exactly 
>> > what I would have loved to have said, but done it far more eloquently. 
>> > 
>> > Sadly, I find the amount of victim blaming going on in here to be 
>> bizarre 
>> > and gross. The FIG has lost so many good quality contributors, all 
>> because 
>> > of one specific person, and none of them needed to be lost. You can 
>> have the 
>> > thickest skin in the world, but eventually you get fed up with it and 
>> wander 
>> > off. 
>>
>> Not a voting member anymore, but I'd urge folk not to fall into 
>> thinking that hard work, a thick skin, and a keen intellect solves 
>> everything. It's 2016 after all and we should know better. There are 
>> lots of people with "thin skins", and that's just how people are. The 
>> reality is that we all work with people who are widely varied across 
>> personality and other characteristics. Some have mild to serious 
>> mental illnesses or have other things which play on their mental 
>> health. 
>>
>> The point is that "growing a thicker skin" is a nice convenient myth 
>> when you spin it as applicable to the entire population of the planet. 
>> Myths are not real things. They don't have substance simply because 
>> you believe them. 
>>
>> Our mental health is as important as the physical side of the health 
>> coin. Abrasiveness, disruptive behaviour, life's trials, bullying and 
>> many more are the bacteria, viruses and cancers of the mental world. 
>> All of them generated by people, sometimes unwittingly, sometimes very 
>> wittingly. What you might call a "thin skin", others would call their 
>> immune systems getting to work to protect them from harm. The 
>> alternative is avoiding infectious bags of noxiousness entirely. 
>> Quarantine works. 
>>
>> As Mike put it back in an earlier email "mutual empathy" would bring 
>> the group closer together as a working unit. 
>>
>> So far, so good... 
>>
>> However, mutual empathy must unfailingly go both ways for everyone to 
>> be treated fairly and I was, and remain, disappointed to see 
>> complaints about a voting member being made public with the force of 
>> FIG behind them in this manner. You cannot write an email without 
>> input from an accused member and maintain a neutral position. 
>> Appearances do matter. It therefore follows, that there is little 
>> neutrality evident in this call for a vote. It presents one side, and 
>> one side only. So we have a jury, but no judge, a prosecution, but the 
>> defence is missing in action (well, here anyway) other than supporting 
>> amici curiae. It's looking just a tad bit lopsided... 
>>
>> I know Paul and I do not agree over having Codes of Conduct. We're 
>> probably complete opposites on every point about them! However, my 
>> support for COCs in general does yet rely on being as fair as is 
>> realistically possible in a community, and that carries over even in 
>> the absence of a COC as a personal belief. So, how about some 
>> clarification. Was Paul notified of this incoming bombshell prior to 
>> the email? Were there any private interactions before a decision was 
>> made to bring this public notice forward? Were complaints put to him 
>> before being made public? Was he afforded some time to respond, and 
>> how much? And yes, I assume you would have documented and summarised 
>> this. 
>>
>> I could go on, but the point is: Was Paul given an informed 
>> opportunity and sufficient time to defend himself in preparation for 
>> this vote discussion? 
>>
>> I honestly hope the answer is a clear "yes, but of course". Lots of 
>> private emails, etc. Bent over backwards to reach a private 
>> resolution. I'm almost assuming it, but assumptions are devilish 
>> things and better replaced with documented facts. 
>>
>> Finally, I would suggest that the group (at the risk of more "drama") 
>> give some consideration to appearances. Public votes can be, in and of 
>> themselves, a punitive consequence. If you're going to mete them out, 
>> then document all the things you tried to resolve the problem prior to 
>> such a vote. Don't provide fodder for conspiracy theories that should 
>> be easily debunked. 
>>
>> Paddy 
>>
>> -- 
>> P

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Woody Gilk]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:30 PM,   wrote:
> Even in the middle of such heated argument, Paul refuses to have a private
> conversation with the secretaries and Woody, to see if they can reach an
> agreement on the sponsorship of PSR-17.

Paul and I have had a conversation with the secretaries. Just because
it wasn't made public doesn't mean it didn't happen.

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/msgid/php-fig/CAGOJM6JOycbpmrFK1Z60LgHqmSqnXKaXVvZzxrehorWVPNHf2A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Pedro Cordeiro]

> Just because it wasn't made public doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Of course it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I had just assumed it hadn't
happened because Paul himself said he'd rather continue discussing the
issue publicly.

Paul, I'm sorry I got it wrong. Everyone, please disregard my previous
post. Paul did the very opposite I said he'd done.

Like Pádraic said right above me, assumptions are indeed a devilish thing.

2016-06-30 16:28 GMT-03:00 Woody Gilk :

> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:30 PM,   wrote:
> > Even in the middle of such heated argument, Paul refuses to have a
> private
> > conversation with the secretaries and Woody, to see if they can reach an
> > agreement on the sponsorship of PSR-17.
>
> Paul and I have had a conversation with the secretaries. Just because
> it wasn't made public doesn't mean it didn't happen.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Woody Gilk
> http://about.me/shadowhand
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/php-fig/w38tCU4mdgU/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/CAGOJM6JOycbpmrFK1Z60LgHqmSqnXKaXVvZzxrehorWVPNHf2A%40mail.gmail.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/CAOkYe%2B-PNnUdt6Qo3cAB2v1UdZ%2BiL%3Ddm8pfWY5Bz0m1LHe1Etw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Erik Landvall]

if I where Paul, I wouldn't respond neither. There is nothing for him to 
defend. He is who he is, it's up to the community to welcome him the way he 
is, or exclude him for that very reason. 

Paul knows what he's talking about, and he is passionate about this 
project. The fact that some personal dynamics are hurting and some people 
take offence by how Paul is expressing him self is the real problem, imo. I 
believe this is what people before me are referring to when they say "grow 
a thicker skin".

The case against Paul has been presented, as so, very week and more drama 
has taken place in the community by the people mentioned in the first post. 
I therefor move to exclusion for this people instead. 
...I'm ofc not serious, doing so would be just as stupid as this 
conversation was from the very beginning, and ultimately self defeating for 
FIG. I therefor urge everyone to stop posting here or in any other poo 
fights that may follow in the future. This whole situation could have been 
handled by the people involved sending Paul a message explaining what 
issues they have with him, and how it's hurting the project. That should 
have been the response by the secretaries, not this thread.

I for one like the heated discussions and believe it's constructive and 
educational to take part of or read. Unless it's about politics or what 
ever this could be called...

-- 
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/1e8b0333-9957-415d-99f4-e8c9ffc63565%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Phil Sturgeon]

Paddy:

AFAIK, a few people - all active in this thread - reached out to Paul to 
discuss his behavior before this went to a vote. This two week discussion 
period is the time Paul has to answer peoples concerns. No pre-discussion 
period discussion period is known to exist. 

When you say: "You cannot write an email without input from an accused 
member and maintain a neutral position.", if you are referring to the 
secretaries then I would disagree with you. The secretaries are passing on 
complaints from ~20 former and current members/contributors, not forming 
their own stance or opinions. Anyone with that many people complaining 
against them should be removed regardless.  


Erik:

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 10:02:17 AM UTC+1, Erik Landvall wrote:
>
> if I where Paul, I wouldn't respond neither. There is nothing for him to 
> defend. He is who he is, it's up to the community to welcome him the way he 
> is, or exclude him for that very reason. 
>
> Paul knows what he's talking about, and he is passionate about this 
> project. The fact that some personal dynamics are hurting and some people 
> take offence by how Paul is expressing him self is the real problem, imo. I 
> believe this is what people before me are referring to when they say "grow 
> a thicker skin".
>

Hey Erik. It's not about taking offense, it's about consistently ruining 
discussions by spamming over and over with passive aggressive comments, 
stalling things until he's had his way. No amount of thicker skin or 
ignoring can really solve the problems with Paul's methods of 
communication, and no amount of "suck it up" is going to bring back all 
those members. 

Even if Paul is not doing anything wrong, the way he's doing whatever he 
*is* doing is having a strong adverse effect on members, making them quit 
in droves. Even if all those members are "wrong" for quitting, they're 
still quitting! At this rate it will just be Paul left, sat here by himself 
agreeing with himself, and everyone else just gone because they're sick of 
it. This is not the FIG the PHP wants or needs.
 

> The case against Paul has been presented, as so, very week and more drama 
> has taken place in the community by the people mentioned in the first post. 
> I therefor move to exclusion for this people instead. 
>

This is not a court of law where evidence needs to be judged, simply having 
20 complaints against him is enough, and a majority vote will support it or 
throw it out. If anyone has that many current and ex members saying he's a 
problem, then that in and of itself is a problem worth taking action on. If 
any such number of complaints were made against any other current member, 
I'd expect the secretaries to take action too. 

The names on the list you're associating with drama are probably no 
coincidence. We've had enough mud flung at us to be used to it by now, and 
having our names in the public eye for one more round of drama before the 
FIG can finally vote to remove its main source of drama sounds fine with 
me. There are plenty of names not on that list, and none of those people 
are as well known for being involved in public discussions about the FIG. 
Don't just call trying to solve large controversial problems drama because 
that suits your narrative. :) 
 

> ...I'm ofc not serious, doing so would be just as stupid as this 
> conversation was from the very beginning, and ultimately self defeating for 
> FIG. I therefor urge everyone to stop posting here or in any other poo 
> fights that may follow in the future. This whole situation could have been 
> handled by the people involved sending Paul a message explaining what 
> issues they have with him, and how it's hurting the project. That should 
> have been the response by the secretaries, not this thread.
>

Multiple people have tried this with Paul, in various ways. Assuming this 
vote and discussion period was the first approach is bizarre and entirely 
inaccurate.
 

> I for one like the heated discussions and believe it's constructive and 
> educational to take part of or read. Unless it's about politics or what 
> ever this could be called...
>

This is definitively not about politics, this is about the inability to 
hold constructive conversations or maintain members due to one toxic, 
passive aggressive, individual. That really is it. Don't jump to 
conspiracy. :)

-- 
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/cecdbfc6-dfe0-4a22-8c1e-49630273923c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Erik Landvall]

Will attempt to explain my self a little before I self throat.


> Erik:
>
> On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 10:02:17 AM UTC+1, Erik Landvall wrote:
>>
>> if I where Paul, I wouldn't respond neither. There is nothing for him to
>> defend. He is who he is, it's up to the community to welcome him the way he
>> is, or exclude him for that very reason.
>>
>> Paul knows what he's talking about, and he is passionate about this
>> project. The fact that some personal dynamics are hurting and some people
>> take offence by how Paul is expressing him self is the real problem, imo. I
>> believe this is what people before me are referring to when they say "grow
>> a thicker skin".
>>
>
> Hey Erik. It's not about taking offense, it's about consistently ruining
> discussions by spamming over and over with passive aggressive comments,
> stalling things until he's had his way. No amount of thicker skin or
> ignoring can really solve the problems with Paul's methods of
> communication, and no amount of "suck it up" is going to bring back all
> those members.
>

Hello Phil.
I believe that if you have democratic system, which I assume this is due to
the voting process, then one man can not stall processes the way you
describe. If that is possible, the system is flawed, not the people in it.
You should then look over how you can tweak the administration process
instead of what we are doing here.

The fact that people leave because of one member really reflect there
ability to work with others, not Pauls. Or, as just mentioned, it's an
administration issue.


> Even if Paul is not doing anything wrong, the way he's doing whatever he
> *is* doing is having a strong adverse effect on members, making them quit
> in droves. Even if all those members are "wrong" for quitting, they're
> still quitting! At this rate it will just be Paul left, sat here by himself
> agreeing with himself, and everyone else just gone because they're sick of
> it. This is not the FIG the PHP wants or needs.
>

Jisses, that's a man with big powers and huge argumentation skills if he
can manage to pull that of. Or maybe you exaggerate the situation and Pauls
ability to effect the community a bit?


> The case against Paul has been presented, as so, very week and more drama
>> has taken place in the community by the people mentioned in the first post.
>> I therefor move to exclusion for this people instead.
>>
>
> This is not a court of law where evidence needs to be judged, simply
> having 20 complaints against him is enough, and a majority vote will
> support it or throw it out. If anyone has that many current and ex members
> saying he's a problem, then that in and of itself is a problem worth taking
> action on. If any such number of complaints were made against any other
> current member, I'd expect the secretaries to take action too.
>
> The names on the list you're associating with drama are probably no
> coincidence. We've had enough mud flung at us to be used to it by now, and
> having our names in the public eye for one more round of drama before the
> FIG can finally vote to remove its main source of drama sounds fine with
> me. There are plenty of names not on that list, and none of those people
> are as well known for being involved in public discussions about the FIG.
> Don't just call trying to solve large controversial problems drama because
> that suits your narrative. :)
>

I thought my sarcasm was very obvious by my following sentence, that I'm
ofc not serious by this. I'm trying to make a point that this discussion is
self defeating.

...I'm ofc not serious, doing so would be just as stupid as this
>> conversation was from the very beginning, and ultimately self defeating for
>> FIG. I therefor urge everyone to stop posting here or in any other poo
>> fights that may follow in the future. This whole situation could have been
>> handled by the people involved sending Paul a message explaining what
>> issues they have with him, and how it's hurting the project. That should
>> have been the response by the secretaries, not this thread.
>>
>
> Multiple people have tried this with Paul, in various ways. Assuming this
> vote and discussion period was the first approach is bizarre and entirely
> inaccurate.
>

You missing the point, I mean that this is all you should have done! Sent
that message and have a private discussion with him. If he is a problem for
any project he will be excluded by not finding support.


> I for one like the heated discussions and believe it's constructive and
>> educational to take part of or read. Unless it's about politics or what
>> ever this could be called...
>>
>
> This is definitively not about politics, this is about the inability to
> hold constructive conversations or maintain members due to one toxic,
> passive aggressive, individual. That really is it. Don't jump to
> conspiracy. :)
>

I would define this as politics, idk why you mentioning conspiracy.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscr

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Alessandro Pellizzari]

I believe that if you have democratic system, which I assume this is due
to the voting process, then one man can not stall processes the way you
describe. If that is possible, the system is flawed, not the people in
it. You should then look over how you can tweak the administration
process instead of what we are doing here.


In Italy there is a word for this: "ostruzionismo". When a party 
presents a new law, the opposition registers 5000 amendments to discuss 
in the Parliment, and they get 5 to 20 minutes of speech time for each 
amendment, effectively killing the law if the president doesn't shut 
them up.



The fact that people leave because of one member really reflect there
ability to work with others, not Pauls. Or, as just mentioned, it's an
administration issue.


The main difference is that an italian politician gets 15.000 euros per 
month, so he has no interest in leaving his/her chair, and quietly waits 
for the months/years of discussion to pass before the vote.


Here no one is paid, and it's just easier to leave the group and try to 
create a new standard by writing code instead of by defining an interface.


For this reason alone, any "obstructionist" should be silenced as soon 
as you discover the tactic.


So, we either put a hard limit of one message per day per person 
(effectively killing technical legitimate discussions), or we 
selectively and arbitrarily silence people (with possibly rising 
malcontent because on injustices and "too much power on someone's hand") 
or we deal with each case individually (like this case).


It's a tricky situation, and I personally never had problems with Paul, 
but I saw some of the obstructionisms in the past, and cannot ignore the 
20 persons affected by his behaviour.


As for the thick skin, I had my part of "bullying" on the Internet in 
the past, and probably developed some kind of thick skin, but I am also 
conscious that this thick skin sometimes manifests as me being rude, 
often without even wanting it, because I am expecting the other sides to 
be rude, and putting up defenses before even receiving an attack.


For this reason alone I think "growing a thick skin" is the wrong thing 
to ask to a community: it generates barriers and makes discussions harder.


Bye.

--
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/96ec52fc-a87c-7e5e-dcce-89f80526cf1e%40amiran.it.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Larry Garfield]

On 07/01/2016 04:02 AM, Erik Landvall wrote:
if I where Paul, I wouldn't respond neither. There is nothing for him 
to defend. He is who he is, it's up to the community to welcome him 
the way he is, or exclude him for that very reason.


The absolutism here is itself quite harmful to any human interaction.  
People's behavior DO affect those around them, and it is incumbent on 
anyone in a civil society to take reasonable steps to not piss off those 
around him to the point that it is harmful to them or the community.  
That's not about avoiding "heated" or "controversial" topics, it's about 
not being a jerk to each other.


Paul is an intelligent adult.  As such, my default position is that he 
probably doesn't want to be a jerk to people, and doesn't want to 
undermine FIG, unless evidence suggests otherwise.


Paul, do correct me if I am wrong in that.

If 20 people in a 39 person company complained about a specific person's 
behavior, it would be a suicidally foolish company that would stand by 
and do nothing.  It would be equally foolish for FIG to do nothing as 
one person stonewalls the process and drives people away, not on 
technical grounds but through hostile behavior.


However, and I now address this directly at Paul, 20 of your colleagues 
have now come forward, a majority of them by name, and said that you are 
behaving in a way that is harmful to them and to FIG. A few have even 
resigned as a direct result. Some have said they want you removed, 
others have said they prefer some less terminal intervention.  All have 
said "there is a problem here with Paul that needs to be addressed."


Since you have replied on other threads here and on the Reddit peanut 
gallery, we know you're reading this discussion.  You know that there is 
*widespread* disapproval of your behavior, and belief that it is harmful 
to FIG.  It's not just one or two people with sour grapes that disagree 
with you on some technical point.


How are we to interpret your silence?  That you don't care if your 
behavior is harmful to people or to FIG?  That the offense taken at your 
behavior is beneath you?  That the standard for a "thick enough skin" is 
"whatever Paul is"?  Are we to understand that you do want to be a jerk 
to people and undermine FIG after all?  Is your solution to the current 
problem "let people resign until I get my way"?


If that is not an accurate way to read the situation, do correct us.  As 
your colleagues, we owe you the opportunity to respond to the claim that 
your behavior is harmful.  Frankly, I think you owe us the courtesy of 
at least an acknowledgement of our experience.


--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/5776A740.6060702%40garfieldtech.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

['scott molinari' via PHP Framework Interoperability Group]

Can someone who is not a member, just a bystander, someone with a probably 
totally different perspective, like myself, make comments to this topic?

Scott

-- 
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/b8bcf4b1-3e33-49fa-a203-ab482434ad6d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Nate Abele]

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 3:53:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
> pleasant to be involved with.
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>- 
>
>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>- 
>
>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>respect and members for the FIG”
>- 
>
>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>- 
>
>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>- 
>
>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately 
>to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
> the 
>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this 
>is just disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked 
> not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
>
>- 
>
>Ross Tuck - Community figure
>- 
>
>Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>- 
>
>Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>- 
>
>Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>- 
>
>Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>- 
>
>Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>- 
>
>Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>- 
>
>Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Rafael Dohms - Community figure
>- 
>
>Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
>- 
>
>Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
>
>
> In total the number of complaints about this individual totals about 20 
> however there have also been other concerns aired about this individual 
> publicly and a number of individuals who contacted us said they in turn had 
> heard complaints about Paul from others; as a result of this, and being 
> explicitly asked what we can do/to do something about this situation, 
> including requests of this specific course of action we are starting this 
> discussion on PMJ’s membership. It is not the role of the secretaries to 
> handle this kind of thing or pass judgement on member projects so we are 
> posting this topic to invite discussion from both sides of the table out in 
> the open.
>
> We believe having this discussion going on for too long will not be 
> conducive to the FIG so a vote [to request a new representative from Aura, 
> which will result in Aura’s expulsion unless a new representative is 
> provided] will then commence unless a conclusion has been reached agreeable 
> by all sides before that point. That vote should then put an end to the 
> current situation.
>
> To clarify further, this topic does not indicate the opinion of 
> secretaries that this project representative should be expelled, but that 
> we have been asked by a significant number of voting members and community 
> members to do something about it so we are moving those complaints into 
> public for discussion by voting members as we can do nothing but move the 
> discussion and complaints to the mailing list for the attention of voting 
> members.
>
> I know this is a difficult discussion to avoid making personal, but please 
> try and keep it civil and respect self-throttling. People have requested we 
> ensure we always have two week discussion periods before voting on matters 
> which means that we will not lock this topic unless we have no other option 
> open to us but will be issuing temporary mailing list bans on anyone not 
> respecting rules about civility or self throttling; more than 3 responses 
> in a 24 hour period will result in a 24 hour temporary ban, as will 
> repeatedly making posts that cross boundaries into flaming. If rules are 
> broken multiple times, we will increase the time period of bans.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> The Secretaries
>


As a founding member of this organization, this type of discussion is 
deeply disappointing, as is much of the politicking I'

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Jason Coward]

Nate:

I couldn't agree more with the way you have expressed this. Thank you 
for speaking your mind on this tiresome political back and forth; it 
really doesn't have to be this hard to work on technical standards, and 
it certainly does not need to be so personal. Real problems have a way 
of bringing a more balanced perspective to all our feelings and 
frustrations.


I hope all is going better for you and your family.

Cheers,

Jason

Nate Abele wrote:


On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 3:53:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Cullum wrote:

Hi all,


Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of
voting members, former project representatives and well known
community members alike approach us regarding a situation they
believe is being detrimental to the continued success of the FIG
and the harmony in the group. It is, essentially, the impact of
Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list and the impact his
contribution is having on making this group welcoming or pleasant
to be involved with.


To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common
grievances, we’ll quote from those who have complained:

*

“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore
directly affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”

*

“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss
of respect and members for the FIG”

*

“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”

*

“The presence of this individual makes me not want to
contribute or get involved with to the PHP FIG”

*

“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a
threads lately to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with
other over small meaningless things. Sometimes he might even
be right but honestly I don't even care whether he is right or
wrong. They is just plainly disrupting the FIG at this stage.
He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this is just
disruptive though.”


The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody
asked not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy
to be named):

*

Ross Tuck - Community figure

*

Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative

*

Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative

*

Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative

*

Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative

*

Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative

*

Anthony Ferrara - Community figure

*

Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure

*

Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community
figure

*

Rafael Dohms - Community figure

*

Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative

*

Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative


In total the number of complaints about this individual totals
about 20 however there have also been other concerns aired about
this individual publicly and a number of individuals who contacted
us said they in turn had heard complaints about Paul from others;
as a result of this, and being explicitly asked what we can do/to
do something about this situation, including requests of this
specific course of action we are starting this discussion on PMJ’s
membership. It is not the role of the secretaries to handle this
kind of thing or pass judgement on member projects so we are
posting this topic to invite discussion from both sides of the
table out in the open.


We believe having this discussion going on for too long will not
be conducive to the FIG so a vote [to request a new representative
from Aura, which will result in Aura’s expulsion unless a new
representative is provided] will then commence unless a conclusion
has been reached agreeable by all sides before that point. That
vote should then put an end to the current situation.


To clarify further, this topic does not indicate the opinion of
secretaries that this project representative should be expelled,
but that we have been asked by a significant number of voting
members and community members to do something about it so we are
moving those complaints into public for discussion by voting
members as we can do nothing but move the discussion and
complaints to the mailing list for the attention of voting members.


I know this is a difficult discussion to avoid making personal,
but please try and keep it civil and respect self-throttling.
People have requested we ensure we always have two week discussion
periods before voting on matters which means that we will not lock
this topic unless we have no other option open to us but will be
issuing temporary mailing list bans on anyone not respecting rules
about civility or self throttling; more than 3 responses in a 24
hour period will result in a 24 hour temporary ban, as will
repeatedly making posts that cross boundaries into flaming. If
rules are broken multiple times, we will increase the time period
of bans.


Many thanks,

The Secretaries



As a founding member of this organization, this type of discussion is
deeply disappointing, as is much of the poli

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Taylor Otwell]

Reference has been made a few times to members leaving because of Paul. 
Since I am a member who recently left I just wanted to clarify that I *did 
not* leave because of Paul. I left because I simply do not have time to 
participate in the group due to other responsibilities.

I am not sure if anyone even thinks I left because of Paul but I just 
wanted to put it here in writing so nobody assumes I did.

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 2:53:03 PM UTC-5, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
> pleasant to be involved with.
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>- 
>
>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>- 
>
>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>respect and members for the FIG”
>- 
>
>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>- 
>
>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>- 
>
>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately 
>to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
> the 
>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this 
>is just disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked 
> not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
>
>- 
>
>Ross Tuck - Community figure
>- 
>
>Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>- 
>
>Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>- 
>
>Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>- 
>
>Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>- 
>
>Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>- 
>
>Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>- 
>
>Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Rafael Dohms - Community figure
>- 
>
>Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
>- 
>
>Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
>
>
> In total the number of complaints about this individual totals about 20 
> however there have also been other concerns aired about this individual 
> publicly and a number of individuals who contacted us said they in turn had 
> heard complaints about Paul from others; as a result of this, and being 
> explicitly asked what we can do/to do something about this situation, 
> including requests of this specific course of action we are starting this 
> discussion on PMJ’s membership. It is not the role of the secretaries to 
> handle this kind of thing or pass judgement on member projects so we are 
> posting this topic to invite discussion from both sides of the table out in 
> the open.
>
> We believe having this discussion going on for too long will not be 
> conducive to the FIG so a vote [to request a new representative from Aura, 
> which will result in Aura’s expulsion unless a new representative is 
> provided] will then commence unless a conclusion has been reached agreeable 
> by all sides before that point. That vote should then put an end to the 
> current situation.
>
> To clarify further, this topic does not indicate the opinion of 
> secretaries that this project representative should be expelled, but that 
> we have been asked by a significant number of voting members and community 
> members to do something about it so we are moving those complaints into 
> public for discussion by voting members as we can do nothing but move the 
> discussion and complaints to the mailing list for the attention of voting 
> members.
>
> I know this is a difficult discussion to avoid making personal, but please 
> try and keep it civil and respect self-throttling. People have requested we 
> ensure we always have two week discussion periods before voting on matters 
> which means that we will not lock this topic unless we have no other option 
> open to us but will be issuing temporary mailing list bans on anyone not 
> respecting rules about civility or self thrott

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Pádraic Brady]

Hey Phil,

On 1 July 2016 at 10:54, Phil Sturgeon  wrote:
> Paddy:
>
> AFAIK, a few people - all active in this thread - reached out to Paul to
> discuss his behavior before this went to a vote. This two week discussion
> period is the time Paul has to answer peoples concerns. No pre-discussion
> period discussion period is known to exist.

I can appreciate that, but it's still unclear whether Paul was notified of
this vote/discussion prior to it being made public. It's clearly been
brewing for a while, but has no statement from Paul, or summary of dealings
with Paul, or...anything that could be construed as pre-existing attempts
at mediation with Paul.

If it's not documented, I can't assume it happened.

> When you say: "You cannot write an email without input from an accused
> member and maintain a neutral position.", if you are referring to the
> secretaries then I would disagree with you. The secretaries are passing on
> complaints from ~20 former and current members/contributors, not forming
> their own stance or opinions. Anyone with that many people complaining
> against them should be removed regardless.

The Secretaries, to put it lightly, should have side-stepped on this.

They are using their authority to achieve three goals:
1.Summarising complaints against Paul.
2.Calling a vote for removing Paul as a VM.
3.Limiting the discussion period to the minimum.

Not one of these reflects an element of consideration for Paul's interests
from an impartial position. While I seriously DO NOT believe the
Secretaries intend to be biased, they have still given rise to the
appearance of it anyway.

That's down to a simple observation: voting members can call their own
votes. A voting member could have done everything the Secretaries did
(minus the multiple protestations of being impartial) and nobody would have
blinked.

The Secretaries made a choice to get involved and initiate this vote. They
didn't have to. If they are going to involve themselves in complaints, they
must figure out the best way of not appearing biased. They won't find that
in the bylaws because...er...I neglected to write them. My bad!

Paddy

-- 
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/CALwr1Gk%2Bmh_bjtCMT9Nz5CnoVKvgMrBdcsQDSBV8STSPyQaC2w%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

> On 04 Jul 2016, at 18:02, Pádraic Brady  wrote:
> 
> Hey Phil,
> 
> On 1 July 2016 at 10:54, Phil Sturgeon  > wrote:
> > Paddy:
> >
> > AFAIK, a few people - all active in this thread - reached out to Paul to
> > discuss his behavior before this went to a vote. This two week discussion
> > period is the time Paul has to answer peoples concerns. No pre-discussion
> > period discussion period is known to exist.
> 
> I can appreciate that, but it's still unclear whether Paul was notified of 
> this vote/discussion prior to it being made public. It's clearly been brewing 
> for a while, but has no statement from Paul, or summary of dealings with 
> Paul, or...anything that could be construed as pre-existing attempts at 
> mediation with Paul.
> 
> If it's not documented, I can't assume it happened.


Quoting myself from my June 24th post:
"I would urge (and have done so already in the past) that Paul (and anyone 
else) attempt to deal with “politics” or “administrative” concerns in a 
bilateral fashion first before launching a discussion thread here. As such the 
first thing I did when I read the original post was the ask Michael if there 
were off-list attempts as resolving or at least improving the situation. it 
seems there has been, which I appreciate quite a lot."

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/C796012A-C23B-404C-AF70-12145A2CE49A%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

[Belisar Hoxholli]

In this discussion it seems like there are no undecided people who can 
vote. This is an internal FIG issue as it relates to Paul's membership in 
the group. Sure everybody who was interested in the subject, now has an 
overview of this. Someone from FIG needs to step in and just put an end to 
this process and avoid having this linger indefinitely. 

I am pretty sure FIG would benefit more by improving the feedback cycle for 
the PSR-s so that members actually get more involved in those discussions, 
than focusing on discussions like this. On the broader view, yes, this 
discussion needs to happen. It happened.

I don't know Paul personally. Most of us however probably might have had an 
exchange or two over other mediums, which thanks to filtering and blocking 
mechanisms I can safely block. The general impression that was given to me 
was that Paul had the attitude that you rather agree with him or you are 
stupid, which is why I tend to avoid any exchange whatsoever because it is 
just time wasted.

Sure, everyone can argue that diversity in opinions is needed for a 
structure like FIG to work properly. However, this should be diversity in 
opinions as it relates to how members approach the language and code in 
general and not diversity in approach to having healthy communities and 
being respectful to people. Being disrespectful and inconsiderate is not 
cool, is not a "voice that needs hearing", it is just plain wrong. Everyone 
likes a rebel, but nobody really cares about a rebel without a cause. 
Chronic negativity is detrimental to teams. It directly affects other 
members will to contribute. 

Many of us love the work FIG does. Many benefit from its work without even 
knowing FIG at all. Many of us will encounter FIG members and create an 
opinion based on those exchanges. It would be great if that opinion was one 
that encourages contribution and taking an taking a more active role in the 
community.

To those who come here now and say that FIG is more about drama and 
internal conflicts, I would like to say that there are plenty of threads 
you can contribute on here where PSR's and ideas are discussed, but this is 
the one you chose to.

I would also like FIG to bring this a conclusion and direct it's focus on 
how to improve the feedback cycle and bring in ever more contributions to 
the process and finding a long term solution for a striving, healthy 
community after this discussion comes to an end.


On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 9:53:03 PM UTC+2, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
> pleasant to be involved with.
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>- 
>
>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>- 
>
>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>respect and members for the FIG”
>- 
>
>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>- 
>
>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>- 
>
>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately 
>to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
> the 
>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this 
>is just disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked 
> not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
>
>- 
>
>Ross Tuck - Community figure
>- 
>
>Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>- 
>
>Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>- 
>
>Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>- 
>
>Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>- 
>
>Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>- 
>
>Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>- 
>
>Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Rafael Dohms - Community figure
>- 
>
>Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
>- 
>
>Cees-J

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Alessandro Lai]

This discussion will not linger indefinitely, there is a two weeks 
expiration date set up, that is approaching.
This expiration did not came out of thin air, is the standard pre-vote 
discussion duration here in the FIG, and Paul himself was very vocal about 
being strict in this matter, as many have already referenced here in this 
thread too.

What I found astonishing is that even now, with the expiration so 
incumbent, we still do not have any word from Paul here, in this 
discussion. 
We can't have his side of the argument, we can't know what he thinks about 
it, despite the fact that he intervened on the matter elsewhere.

If he will not intervene here, not even for a short acknowledgment of the 
issue, I will find that somewhat disrespectful to the FIG itself and for 
his position.

Il giorno martedì 5 luglio 2016 09:10:36 UTC+2, Belisar Hoxholli ha scritto:
>
> In this discussion it seems like there are no undecided people who can 
> vote. This is an internal FIG issue as it relates to Paul's membership in 
> the group. Sure everybody who was interested in the subject, now has an 
> overview of this. Someone from FIG needs to step in and just put an end to 
> this process and avoid having this linger indefinitely. 
>
> I am pretty sure FIG would benefit more by improving the feedback cycle 
> for the PSR-s so that members actually get more involved in those 
> discussions, than focusing on discussions like this. On the broader view, 
> yes, this discussion needs to happen. It happened.
>
> I don't know Paul personally. Most of us however probably might have had 
> an exchange or two over other mediums, which thanks to filtering and 
> blocking mechanisms I can safely block. The general impression that was 
> given to me was that Paul had the attitude that you rather agree with him 
> or you are stupid, which is why I tend to avoid any exchange whatsoever 
> because it is just time wasted.
>
> Sure, everyone can argue that diversity in opinions is needed for a 
> structure like FIG to work properly. However, this should be diversity in 
> opinions as it relates to how members approach the language and code in 
> general and not diversity in approach to having healthy communities and 
> being respectful to people. Being disrespectful and inconsiderate is not 
> cool, is not a "voice that needs hearing", it is just plain wrong. Everyone 
> likes a rebel, but nobody really cares about a rebel without a cause. 
> Chronic negativity is detrimental to teams. It directly affects other 
> members will to contribute. 
>
> Many of us love the work FIG does. Many benefit from its work without even 
> knowing FIG at all. Many of us will encounter FIG members and create an 
> opinion based on those exchanges. It would be great if that opinion was one 
> that encourages contribution and taking an taking a more active role in the 
> community.
>
> To those who come here now and say that FIG is more about drama and 
> internal conflicts, I would like to say that there are plenty of threads 
> you can contribute on here where PSR's and ideas are discussed, but this is 
> the one you chose to.
>
> I would also like FIG to bring this a conclusion and direct it's focus on 
> how to improve the feedback cycle and bring in ever more contributions to 
> the process and finding a long term solution for a striving, healthy 
> community after this discussion comes to an end.
>
>
> On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 9:53:03 PM UTC+2, Michael Cullum wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
>> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
>> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
>> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
>> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
>> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
>> pleasant to be involved with.
>>
>> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
>> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>>
>>- 
>>
>>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>>- 
>>
>>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>>respect and members for the FIG”
>>- 
>>
>>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>>- 
>>
>>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>>- 
>>
>>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads 
>>lately to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
>> the 
>>FIG at this stage. He use

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Glenn Eggleton]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 6:53:04 AM UTC-4, Alessandro Lai wrote:
>
> This discussion will not linger indefinitely, there is a two weeks 
> expiration date set up, that is approaching.
> This expiration did not came out of thin air, is the standard pre-vote 
> discussion duration here in the FIG, and Paul himself was very vocal about 
> being strict in this matter, as many have already referenced here in this 
> thread too.
>
> What I found astonishing is that even now, with the expiration so 
> incumbent, we still do not have any word from Paul here, in this 
> discussion. 
> We can't have his side of the argument, we can't know what he thinks about 
> it, despite the fact that he intervened on the matter elsewhere.
>
> If he will not intervene here, not even for a short acknowledgment of the 
> issue, I will find that somewhat disrespectful to the FIG itself and for 
> his position.
>

I can't speak for Paul, but I can say that I wouldn't post in this thread 
if I were him. I don't see any point in him posting in this thread as it 
will simply incite more pitchforks when he attempts to defend himself.

 

>
> Il giorno martedì 5 luglio 2016 09:10:36 UTC+2, Belisar Hoxholli ha 
> scritto:
>>
>> In this discussion it seems like there are no undecided people who can 
>> vote. This is an internal FIG issue as it relates to Paul's membership in 
>> the group. Sure everybody who was interested in the subject, now has an 
>> overview of this. Someone from FIG needs to step in and just put an end to 
>> this process and avoid having this linger indefinitely. 
>>
>> I am pretty sure FIG would benefit more by improving the feedback cycle 
>> for the PSR-s so that members actually get more involved in those 
>> discussions, than focusing on discussions like this. On the broader view, 
>> yes, this discussion needs to happen. It happened.
>>
>> I don't know Paul personally. Most of us however probably might have had 
>> an exchange or two over other mediums, which thanks to filtering and 
>> blocking mechanisms I can safely block. The general impression that was 
>> given to me was that Paul had the attitude that you rather agree with him 
>> or you are stupid, which is why I tend to avoid any exchange whatsoever 
>> because it is just time wasted.
>>
>> Sure, everyone can argue that diversity in opinions is needed for a 
>> structure like FIG to work properly. However, this should be diversity in 
>> opinions as it relates to how members approach the language and code in 
>> general and not diversity in approach to having healthy communities and 
>> being respectful to people. Being disrespectful and inconsiderate is not 
>> cool, is not a "voice that needs hearing", it is just plain wrong. Everyone 
>> likes a rebel, but nobody really cares about a rebel without a cause. 
>> Chronic negativity is detrimental to teams. It directly affects other 
>> members will to contribute. 
>>
>> Many of us love the work FIG does. Many benefit from its work without 
>> even knowing FIG at all. Many of us will encounter FIG members and create 
>> an opinion based on those exchanges. It would be great if that opinion was 
>> one that encourages contribution and taking an taking a more active role in 
>> the community.
>>
>> To those who come here now and say that FIG is more about drama and 
>> internal conflicts, I would like to say that there are plenty of threads 
>> you can contribute on here where PSR's and ideas are discussed, but this is 
>> the one you chose to.
>>
>> I would also like FIG to bring this a conclusion and direct it's focus on 
>> how to improve the feedback cycle and bring in ever more contributions to 
>> the process and finding a long term solution for a striving, healthy 
>> community after this discussion comes to an end.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 9:53:03 PM UTC+2, Michael Cullum wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
>>> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
>>> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
>>> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
>>> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
>>> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
>>> pleasant to be involved with.
>>>
>>> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
>>> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>>>
>>>- 
>>>
>>>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>>>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>>>- 
>>>
>>>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>>>respect and members for the FIG”
>>>- 
>>>
>>>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>>>- 
>>>
>>>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Gregory Wilson]

For those who are wondering why Paul has not responded so far, he posted
this on his twitter account:

*pmjones*
To all @phpfig waiting for my response: the prosecution had multiple weeks
to prepare. I've had ~1 week. You'll get my response in due time.
7/1/16, 1:44 PM 


On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Alessandro Lai 
wrote:

> This discussion will not linger indefinitely, there is a two weeks
> expiration date set up, that is approaching.
> This expiration did not came out of thin air, is the standard pre-vote
> discussion duration here in the FIG, and Paul himself was very vocal about
> being strict in this matter, as many have already referenced here in this
> thread too.
>
> What I found astonishing is that even now, with the expiration so
> incumbent, we still do not have any word from Paul here, in this
> discussion.
> We can't have his side of the argument, we can't know what he thinks about
> it, despite the fact that he intervened on the matter elsewhere.
>
> If he will not intervene here, not even for a short acknowledgment of the
> issue, I will find that somewhat disrespectful to the FIG itself and for
> his position.
>
>
> Il giorno martedì 5 luglio 2016 09:10:36 UTC+2, Belisar Hoxholli ha
> scritto:
>>
>> In this discussion it seems like there are no undecided people who can
>> vote. This is an internal FIG issue as it relates to Paul's membership in
>> the group. Sure everybody who was interested in the subject, now has an
>> overview of this. Someone from FIG needs to step in and just put an end to
>> this process and avoid having this linger indefinitely.
>>
>> I am pretty sure FIG would benefit more by improving the feedback cycle
>> for the PSR-s so that members actually get more involved in those
>> discussions, than focusing on discussions like this. On the broader view,
>> yes, this discussion needs to happen. It happened.
>>
>> I don't know Paul personally. Most of us however probably might have had
>> an exchange or two over other mediums, which thanks to filtering and
>> blocking mechanisms I can safely block. The general impression that was
>> given to me was that Paul had the attitude that you rather agree with him
>> or you are stupid, which is why I tend to avoid any exchange whatsoever
>> because it is just time wasted.
>>
>> Sure, everyone can argue that diversity in opinions is needed for a
>> structure like FIG to work properly. However, this should be diversity in
>> opinions as it relates to how members approach the language and code in
>> general and not diversity in approach to having healthy communities and
>> being respectful to people. Being disrespectful and inconsiderate is not
>> cool, is not a "voice that needs hearing", it is just plain wrong. Everyone
>> likes a rebel, but nobody really cares about a rebel without a cause.
>> Chronic negativity is detrimental to teams. It directly affects other
>> members will to contribute.
>>
>> Many of us love the work FIG does. Many benefit from its work without
>> even knowing FIG at all. Many of us will encounter FIG members and create
>> an opinion based on those exchanges. It would be great if that opinion was
>> one that encourages contribution and taking an taking a more active role in
>> the community.
>>
>> To those who come here now and say that FIG is more about drama and
>> internal conflicts, I would like to say that there are plenty of threads
>> you can contribute on here where PSR's and ideas are discussed, but this is
>> the one you chose to.
>>
>> I would also like FIG to bring this a conclusion and direct it's focus on
>> how to improve the feedback cycle and bring in ever more contributions to
>> the process and finding a long term solution for a striving, healthy
>> community after this discussion comes to an end.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 9:53:03 PM UTC+2, Michael Cullum wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting
>>> members, former project representatives and well known community members
>>> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental
>>> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is,
>>> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list
>>> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or
>>> pleasant to be involved with.
>>>
>>> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances,
>>> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>>>
>>>-
>>>
>>>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly
>>>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>>>-
>>>
>>>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of
>>>respect and members for the FIG”
>>>-
>>>
>>>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>>>-
>>>
>>>“The presence of this individual makes me not wan

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Keith Casey]

I agree with the large majority of people on this thread.

Paul’s obsession with another person on this list is bizarre. I’ve 
witnessed numerous blog posts, dozens of attacking tweets, attempts to get 
others to dog pile, sexualized attacks, references in podcasts, and an 
ongoing campaign to end his career. It’s really disgusting and disturbing 
that he’s still respected in your group. I think he needs help.

No wait, none of that was Paul. That was a “former project representative 
and community figure” who isn’t a member of FIG so considers himself 
unaccountable. Convenient that.


If I recall correctly, the first time FIG (under a different name) sat down 
together was at tek 2009, an event I co-organized. It was awesome how y’all 
came together and worked towards shared standards and eventual 
interoperability. It was amazing. And I was ecstatic that tek was the place 
you did it.

Those early efforts made Composer and Packagist possible and sparked this 
PHP renaissance and should be commended. But that’s being washed away by 
this group’s recent shenanigans.

Ignoring your own rules, (dis)qualifying votes based on whim, ”governing” 
by undocumented agreements at conferences, and “governing” at all. That was 
never your role, responsibility or mission.

This isn’t about Paul. This is about someone calling you on your bullshit.


If you have a process, follow it.

If you’re not going to follow it, at least be honest and get rid of it. Or 
fade into irrelevance.


keith

-- 
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/acb0e7b7-b4e3-4064-80ab-b02ae85658ca%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Roman Tsjupa]

Keith, can you elaborate on the topic of "sexualized attacks" ?

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Keith Casey  wrote:

> I agree with the large majority of people on this thread.
>
> Paul’s obsession with another person on this list is bizarre. I’ve
> witnessed numerous blog posts, dozens of attacking tweets, attempts to get
> others to dog pile, sexualized attacks, references in podcasts, and an
> ongoing campaign to end his career. It’s really disgusting and disturbing
> that he’s still respected in your group. I think he needs help.
>
> No wait, none of that was Paul. That was a “former project representative
> and community figure” who isn’t a member of FIG so considers himself
> unaccountable. Convenient that.
>
>
> If I recall correctly, the first time FIG (under a different name) sat
> down together was at tek 2009, an event I co-organized. It was awesome how
> y’all came together and worked towards shared standards and eventual
> interoperability. It was amazing. And I was ecstatic that tek was the place
> you did it.
>
> Those early efforts made Composer and Packagist possible and sparked this
> PHP renaissance and should be commended. But that’s being washed away by
> this group’s recent shenanigans.
>
> Ignoring your own rules, (dis)qualifying votes based on whim, ”governing”
> by undocumented agreements at conferences, and “governing” at all. That was
> never your role, responsibility or mission.
>
> This isn’t about Paul. This is about someone calling you on your bullshit.
>
>
> If you have a process, follow it.
>
> If you’re not going to follow it, at least be honest and get rid of it. Or
> fade into irrelevance.
>
>
> keith
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/php-fig/w38tCU4mdgU/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/acb0e7b7-b4e3-4064-80ab-b02ae85658ca%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/CANamvv1vGsMgPEYWUPMVU3%3DHcnsMQHRyvS4NJAmZOqAfTT953Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Lukas Kahwe Smith]

> On 05 Jul 2016, at 16:08, Keith Casey  wrote:
> 
> I agree with the large majority of people on this thread.
> 
> Paul’s obsession with another person on this list is bizarre. I’ve witnessed 
> numerous blog posts, dozens of attacking tweets, attempts to get others to 
> dog pile, sexualized attacks, references in podcasts, and an ongoing campaign 
> to end his career. It’s really disgusting and disturbing that he’s still 
> respected in your group. I think he needs help.
> 
> No wait, none of that was Paul. That was a “former project representative and 
> community figure” who isn’t a member of FIG so considers himself 
> unaccountable. Convenient that.

I do not think that in the current state of FIG and in particular this thread 
that sarcasm is helping.
We clearly have trust issues that go beyond just the choice of words so clear 
communication should be emphasized as much as possible at this point.

Note this is just a personal request, I do not have authority to demand this :)

> If I recall correctly, the first time FIG (under a different name) sat down 
> together was at tek 2009, an event I co-organized. It was awesome how y’all 
> came together and worked towards shared standards and eventual 
> interoperability. It was amazing. And I was ecstatic that tek was the place 
> you did it.
> 
> Those early efforts made Composer and Packagist possible and sparked this PHP 
> renaissance and should be commended. But that’s being washed away by this 
> group’s recent shenanigans.

Indeed it sparked an important development. That being said, it unfortunately 
became clear that some processes needed to be defined and as such things become 
more complicated. of course also while the first step was done in person, the 
realities of time&travel now force the bulk of the work to be done via mailing 
list which is of course an inferior medium for communication in many ways .. 
which is probably the main contributor for “drama”.

> Ignoring your own rules, (dis)qualifying votes based on whim, ”governing” by 
> undocumented agreements at conferences, and “governing” at all. That was 
> never your role, responsibility or mission.

A mistake was made, it was called as such by Paul and it was accepted as a 
mistake publicly and corrected. Again I feel like you are bringing a lot of 
unclarity here as to what you mean for example with "undocumented agreements at 
conferences” which isn’t helping.

> This isn’t about Paul. This is about someone calling you on your bullshit.
> 
> 
> If you have a process, follow it.
> 
> If you’re not going to follow it, at least be honest and get rid of it. Or 
> fade into irrelevance.

So I guess your point is that this thread is simply revenge from people who 
didn’t like it that Paul noticed their mistake? Fair enough, you obviously can 
have said opinion.

As stated before I do not think that an expulsion of Paul is the right move. 
But I think this discussion is a good example of the frustration that people 
have with Paul’s communication style:
1) the mistake could have been brought up via direct email, which potentially 
could have saved all of us a 50+ thread on this list
2) after the mistake was corrected (without back talk IIRC), Paul continued the 
thread asking for a public apology
3) after the pubic apology Paul thanked and added another snark comment 
implying ill intend rather than accepting that it was just a mistake

I personally have had to deal with much worse during my time as RM for PHP 5.3, 
but I do find this to be bad form and a highly unproductive way to get, what I 
would deem to be an honest mistake, corrected. At the same time, Paul did 
demonstrate his skills in keeping an eye on the bylaws better than most/all of 
the rest of us. This definitely is also valuable.

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/24A57EBD-3A52-4B8B-834C-09E8F229F85C%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

[Phil Sturgeon]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:25:27 PM UTC+1, Dracony wrote:
>
> Keith, can you elaborate on the topic of "sexualized attacks" ? 
>

Keith is going on about the time I called Paul a tosser. Americans like to 
play etymologist when they hear a British person using a word they don't 
understand, and of the many uses and meanings he's decided to take the most 
literal and most disgusting definition possible. The definition I intended 
was - common in the UK - "person in which I do not hold in very high 
regard."

We've discussed this before. Keith is a dog with a bone here, which is 
rather annoying. 

Both Keith and Pauls strange obsession with me is alarming, and seriously 
Keith: "an ongoing campaign to end his career" is a wild exaggeration. 
Pointing out when, why and how somebody is full of crap when they post 
factually inaccurate and wildly paranoid blog posts is not trying to end 
somebodies career. Aura is lovely, and whatever he does in his day job I'm 
sure is great, I'm just tired of him posting nonsense like facts and 
ignoring the facts when somebody else tries to explain them.

That, still, has nothing to do with this. Please do not conflate issues.

-- 
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/fed8bd47-7faf-4b21-b443-1ef4683f751e%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Jeremy Kendall]

*TL;DR*: I could not disagree with this course of action more strenuously, 
I feel it has and will continue to cause real damage to FIG and to the PHP 
community, and it appears obvious to me that this is a result of a 
difference in personalities rather than the attempt to expel a truly toxic, 
damaging member of FIG. I'm extremely saddened and extremely disappointed, 
and I have no desire to associate with or support a community that would 
behave in this manner.

I've been following FIG for a while, and have been a big fan and 
(infrequently vocal) supporter of FIG, the mission, the various PSRs 
(especially the code standards PSRs and PSR-7).  FIG has done *amazing *things 
for PHP and the PHP community. This thread and associated behavior, in 
contrast, *feels to me* as if it's a regression into bitterness, the desire 
to publicly chastise, punish, and expel a member, and is both damaging to 
FIG and the PHP community at-large.

Having read this thread and having reviewed the proffered evidence against 
Paul (the list of links in Larry's post), I'm having a *very* difficult 
time interpreting this action as something other than:

   - We dislike Paul's style of communication
   - Paul's thought processes and conclusions are, more often than not, at 
   odds with FIG
   - Paul is therefore an outlier and damaging to the cohesion of FIG
   - This outlier must therefore be removed in order to restore harmony 
   (for lack of a better word)
   
I submit that this line of reasoning, the conclusion that Paul must be very 
publically chastised and ideally expelled, and the public call for Paul's 
removal, will be chilling to substantive, spirited discussion. The logical 
result is a lack of thoughtful disagreement and vocal support of one's 
positions for fear of being next on the "chopping block". I would also 
submit that there is a level of cognitive dissonance involved, wherein a 
FIG member is being punished *publically* for their *public* disagreements 
with personalities, policies, and proposals.

I urge FIG, in the strongest manner possible, to reconsider this action and 
to consider the damage being done to both FIG and the PHP community at 
large.

Bowing out,

Jeremy

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 2:53:03 PM UTC-5, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
> pleasant to be involved with.
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>- 
>
>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>- 
>
>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>respect and members for the FIG”
>- 
>
>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>- 
>
>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>- 
>
>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately 
>to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
> the 
>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this 
>is just disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked 
> not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
>
>- 
>
>Ross Tuck - Community figure
>- 
>
>Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>- 
>
>Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>- 
>
>Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>- 
>
>Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>- 
>
>Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>- 
>
>Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>- 
>
>Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Rafael Dohms - Community figure
>- 
>
>Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
>- 
>
>Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
>
>
> In total the number of complaints about this individual totals about 20 
> however there have also been other concerns aired about this individual 
> publicly and a number of individuals who

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Paul Jones]

Dear Voting Representatives,

My name is Paul M. Jones; I am one of the founders of this group. Along with 
Nate Abele, I am the longest continuously-serving Voting Representative in the 
FIG, and by some measures the most productive person here. My seven years of 
commitment and dedication to the productive ends of this group, along with the 
technical ability and professional endurance to achieve those ends, is 
unquestioned. I was the primary driving force behind PSR-1, PSR-2, and PSR-4; 
their wide adoption has contributed greatly to the legitimacy the FIG currently 
enjoys. I am recorded as the coordinator or sponsor on other PSRs as well. I 
assisted in creating some of the bylaws that are intended to guide the members 
of this group, including a prominent role in writing the voting rules 
themselves. I helped to vote in a number of the current FIG members, and 
sponsored the membership of Graham Daniels.

Some people in this group and in the wider community would like to revoke my 
status as a Voting Representative. Here is a summary of the complaint against 
me, as written by Larry Garfield:

> The net result [of Paul Jones' behavior on the FIG list] is people being 
> driven away from FIG, including leading members of the PHP Community. ...
>
> Such behavior contributes to a toxic and hostile atmosphere in and around 
> FIG, discourages participation, and generally contributes to a flippant and 
> contemptuous attitude towards FIG in the community at large.

-- 


Given the concentration on "community" in Larry's summary, the resulting 
conversations around the complaint have been informative.  Specifically, the 
comments on this thread and on Reddit (which by any measure is a place where 
"the community at large" speaks out) demonstrate quite a divide in "the PHP 
Community" to which the complaint appeals.

-- 


On the one hand, there are the initial 20 complainants (some of them Voting 
Representatives and others community members). Collaborating with the 
secretaries as an aid and a shield, they prepared and honed their action 
against me over the course of a month or more. They were thereafter joined by 
other commenters here on this thread (I number them between 5 and 9) and on 
Reddit (I counted 6 that are at least roughly in agreement with the complaint) 
over the past two weeks. Call it from 31 to 35 in favor my removal.

On the other hand, with no advance notice of the action against me, a mix of 
current and former Voting Representatives (along with other prestigious members 
of the wider community) spoke up either to refute the points in the complaint 
or to rebuke the very act of the complaint. On this thread, the "opposed" 
number about 20, and on Reddit they number roughly 15, for a total of around 35 
opposed to my removal.

If you take those numbers as even a remotely representative sample, they show 
that the community is thoroughly divided regarding the complaint. About half 
feel it is well-founded, and the other half for various reasons feel it is not.

To be clear, only some of those "opposed" have spoken specifically in defense 
of me personally. Others have spoken on principle against the nature of the 
complaint or the proposed punishment. Some of them believe that, by the fact of 
entertaining my removal on the basis of the evidence given, the FIG brings 
disrepute on itself. They feel that the very nature of the complaint, and its 
pursuit, contributes to "a toxic and hostile atmosphere" and "discourages 
participation."

What this should tell you is that there is no such thing as a single, unified, 
marching-in-lockstep community. When you hear a claim that my continued 
membership in this group "discourages participation, and generally contributes 
to a flippant and contemptuous attitude towards FIG in the community at large", 
you should consider it (at best) as a fundamental misunderstanding of what "the 
community at large" is like.  For good or bad, there is a significant part of 
"the community at large" that disagrees with the complaint in some fashion.

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.

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 ca

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[James Watts]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:57:49 PM UTC+2, pmjones wrote:
>
> Dear Voting Representatives, 
>
> My name is Paul M. Jones; I am one of the founders of this group. Along 
> with Nate Abele, I am the longest continuously-serving Voting 
> Representative in the FIG, and by some measures the most productive person 
> here. My seven years of commitment and dedication to the productive ends of 
> this group, along with the technical ability and professional endurance to 
> achieve those ends, is unquestioned. I was the primary driving force behind 
> PSR-1, PSR-2, and PSR-4; their wide adoption has contributed greatly to the 
> legitimacy the FIG currently enjoys. I am recorded as the coordinator or 
> sponsor on other PSRs as well. I assisted in creating some of the bylaws 
> that are intended to guide the members of this group, including a prominent 
> role in writing the voting rules themselves. I helped to vote in a number 
> of the current FIG members, and sponsored the membership of Graham Daniels. 
>
> Some people in this group and in the wider community would like to revoke 
> my status as a Voting Representative. Here is a summary of the complaint 
> against me, as written by Larry Garfield: 
>
> > The net result [of Paul Jones' behavior on the FIG list] is people being 
> driven away from FIG, including leading members of the PHP Community. ... 
> > 
> > Such behavior contributes to a toxic and hostile atmosphere in and 
> around FIG, discourages participation, and generally contributes to a 
> flippant and contemptuous attitude towards FIG in the community at large. 
>
> -- <
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!msg/php-fig/w38tCU4mdgU/ww0kKM0vAAAJ>
>  
>
>
> Given the concentration on "community" in Larry's summary, the resulting 
> conversations around the complaint have been informative.  Specifically, 
> the comments on this thread and on Reddit (which by any measure is a place 
> where "the community at large" speaks out) demonstrate quite a divide in 
> "the PHP Community" to which the complaint appeals. 
>
> -- <
> https://www.reddit.com/r/PHP/comments/4piv4i/phpfig_drama_continues_as_the_group_publicly/?limit=500>
>  
>
>
> On the one hand, there are the initial 20 complainants (some of them 
> Voting Representatives and others community members). Collaborating with 
> the secretaries as an aid and a shield, they prepared and honed their 
> action against me over the course of a month or more. They were thereafter 
> joined by other commenters here on this thread (I number them between 5 and 
> 9) and on Reddit (I counted 6 that are at least roughly in agreement with 
> the complaint) over the past two weeks. Call it from 31 to 35 in favor my 
> removal. 
>
> On the other hand, with no advance notice of the action against me, a mix 
> of current and former Voting Representatives (along with other prestigious 
> members of the wider community) spoke up either to refute the points in the 
> complaint or to rebuke the very act of the complaint. On this thread, the 
> "opposed" number about 20, and on Reddit they number roughly 15, for a 
> total of around 35 opposed to my removal. 
>
> If you take those numbers as even a remotely representative sample, they 
> show that the community is thoroughly divided regarding the complaint. 
> About half feel it is well-founded, and the other half for various reasons 
> feel it is not. 
>
> To be clear, only some of those "opposed" have spoken specifically in 
> defense of me personally. Others have spoken on principle against the 
> nature of the complaint or the proposed punishment. Some of them believe 
> that, by the fact of entertaining my removal on the basis of the evidence 
> given, the FIG brings disrepute on itself. They feel that the very nature 
> of the complaint, and its pursuit, contributes to "a toxic and hostile 
> atmosphere" and "discourages participation." 
>
> What this should tell you is that there is no such thing as a single, 
> unified, marching-in-lockstep community. When you hear a claim that my 
> continued membership in this group "discourages participation, and 
> generally contributes to a flippant and contemptuous attitude towards FIG 
> in the community at large", you should consider it (at best) as a 
> fundamental misunderstanding of what "the community at large" is like.  For 
> good or bad, there is a significant part of "the community at large" that 
> disagrees with the complaint in some fashion. 
>
> 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 r

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Michael Cullum]

Hi James,

I think we're all aware that kind of response doesn't add constructively to
the discussion so I've put you on moderation queue for one week, any
further constructive posts will be approved but further such posts will
result in a general removal of posting permissions.

--
Michael Cullum

On 5 July 2016 at 19:14, James Watts  wrote:

>
> 
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:57:49 PM UTC+2, pmjones wrote:
>>
>> Dear Voting Representatives,
>>
>> My name is Paul M. Jones; I am one of the founders of this group. Along
>> with Nate Abele, I am the longest continuously-serving Voting
>> Representative in the FIG, and by some measures the most productive person
>> here. My seven years of commitment and dedication to the productive ends of
>> this group, along with the technical ability and professional endurance to
>> achieve those ends, is unquestioned. I was the primary driving force behind
>> PSR-1, PSR-2, and PSR-4; their wide adoption has contributed greatly to the
>> legitimacy the FIG currently enjoys. I am recorded as the coordinator or
>> sponsor on other PSRs as well. I assisted in creating some of the bylaws
>> that are intended to guide the members of this group, including a prominent
>> role in writing the voting rules themselves. I helped to vote in a number
>> of the current FIG members, and sponsored the membership of Graham Daniels.
>>
>> Some people in this group and in the wider community would like to revoke
>> my status as a Voting Representative. Here is a summary of the complaint
>> against me, as written by Larry Garfield:
>>
>> > The net result [of Paul Jones' behavior on the FIG list] is people
>> being driven away from FIG, including leading members of the PHP Community.
>> ...
>> >
>> > Such behavior contributes to a toxic and hostile atmosphere in and
>> around FIG, discourages participation, and generally contributes to a
>> flippant and contemptuous attitude towards FIG in the community at large.
>>
>> -- <
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!msg/php-fig/w38tCU4mdgU/ww0kKM0vAAAJ>
>>
>>
>> Given the concentration on "community" in Larry's summary, the resulting
>> conversations around the complaint have been informative.  Specifically,
>> the comments on this thread and on Reddit (which by any measure is a place
>> where "the community at large" speaks out) demonstrate quite a divide in
>> "the PHP Community" to which the complaint appeals.
>>
>> -- <
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/PHP/comments/4piv4i/phpfig_drama_continues_as_the_group_publicly/?limit=500>
>>
>>
>> On the one hand, there are the initial 20 complainants (some of them
>> Voting Representatives and others community members). Collaborating with
>> the secretaries as an aid and a shield, they prepared and honed their
>> action against me over the course of a month or more. They were thereafter
>> joined by other commenters here on this thread (I number them between 5 and
>> 9) and on Reddit (I counted 6 that are at least roughly in agreement with
>> the complaint) over the past two weeks. Call it from 31 to 35 in favor my
>> removal.
>>
>> On the other hand, with no advance notice of the action against me, a mix
>> of current and former Voting Representatives (along with other prestigious
>> members of the wider community) spoke up either to refute the points in the
>> complaint or to rebuke the very act of the complaint. On this thread, the
>> "opposed" number about 20, and on Reddit they number roughly 15, for a
>> total of around 35 opposed to my removal.
>>
>> If you take those numbers as even a remotely representative sample, they
>> show that the community is thoroughly divided regarding the complaint.
>> About half feel it is well-founded, and the other half for various reasons
>> feel it is not.
>>
>> To be clear, only some of those "opposed" have spoken specifically in
>> defense of me personally. Others have spoken on principle against the
>> nature of the complaint or the proposed punishment. Some of them believe
>> that, by the fact of entertaining my removal on the basis of the evidence
>> given, the FIG brings disrepute on itself. They feel that the very nature
>> of the complaint, and its pursuit, contributes to "a toxic and hostile
>> atmosphere" and "discourages participation."
>>
>> What this should tell you is that there is no such thing as a single,
>> unified, marching-in-lockstep community. When you hear a claim that my
>> continued membership in this group "discourages participation, and
>> generally contributes to a flippant and contemptuous attitude towards FIG
>> in the community at large", you should consider it (at best) as a
>> fundamental misunderstanding of what "the community at large" is like.  For
>> good or bad, there is a significant part of "the community at large" that
>> disagrees with the complaint in some fash

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Samantha Quiñones]

I will briefly reiterate purpose of this thread. 

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 
disposition of Paul as a voting member of the FIG. I do not know how to put 
it more plainly. When this discussion period is over, there will be a vote. 
That vote will close the matter, whether the membership votes for or 
against expulsion. The FIG does not have the desire or power to censure or 
silence or chastise anyone. 

If the membership votes to expel, the Aura project will be asked to name a 
new representative, the matter will be closed, and we will do our best to 
move on together. 

If the membership votes against expulsion, then the matter will be closed, 
and we will do our best to move on together. 

If anyone has *any* doubt as to that fact, please feel free to contact me 
directly. As far as I am concerned that is the full extent of the potential 
outcomes of this action. I believe I speak for Michael when I say that 
anything beyond those two possibilities is outside the scope of this 
organization and will happen against its wishes and bylaws.

With that said, please keep your comments on topic and remember to 
self-throttle. I expect that all participants on this thread, voting 
members and non-members alike, will behave professionally from this point 
onward. Those who cannot control themselves will have their posting 
privileges restricted.

I understand that this is a difficult time for us. Remember that it is how 
we weather difficult times that demonstrates the power of a community. I 
have *NO* doubt that this community is strong enough to survive this 
moment, no matter the outcome of this vote.

Thank you,
Samantha Quiñones

-- 
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/c930a7dc-c6c4-471b-9e71-7ae2d491c568%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Chris Johnson]

Did any of the "complainants" speak with Mr. Jones either in person or via 
the telephone*, before registering their complaints with the Secretaries?

Generally the best way to handle personal issues with another individual is 
to address it with that individual personally and privately.

Example:  If my new neighbor makes too much noise at some inconvenient time 
of day for me, it's far better for me to go over and tell him or her that 
I'm being inconvenienced and ask if maybe we can't find a mutual solution, 
than it is for me to call the police and complain.  The latter just makes 
an enemy out of someone who might have become a good friend under other 
circumstances.  

Adversary approaches too often polarize further, resulting in an 
unsatisfactory outcome.

I hope my meaning is clear.



*Email or e-chat is inadequate for this kind of conversation, generally, as 
it lacks emotive data.  Even the telephone is a poor substitute, lacking 
body language, facial expression, etc.

-- 
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/b8059f7c-481b-45fd-8f68-4cc627465fff%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Brandon Lamb]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:08:34 PM UTC-7, Samantha Quiñones wrote:
>
> I will briefly reiterate purpose of this thread. 
>
> 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 
> disposition of Paul as a voting member of the FIG. I do not know how to put 
> it more plainly. When this discussion period is over, there will be a vote. 
> That vote will close the matter, whether the membership votes for or 
> against expulsion. The FIG does not have the desire or power to censure or 
> silence or chastise anyone. 
>
> If the membership votes to expel, the Aura project will be asked to name a 
> new representative, the matter will be closed, and we will do our best to 
> move on together. 
>
> If the membership votes against expulsion, then the matter will be closed, 
> and we will do our best to move on together. 
>
> If anyone has *any* doubt as to that fact, please feel free to contact me 
> directly. As far as I am concerned that is the full extent of the potential 
> outcomes of this action. I believe I speak for Michael when I say that 
> anything beyond those two possibilities is outside the scope of this 
> organization and will happen against its wishes and bylaws.
>
> With that said, please keep your comments on topic and remember to 
> self-throttle. I expect that all participants on this thread, voting 
> members and non-members alike, will behave professionally from this point 
> onward. Those who cannot control themselves will have their posting 
> privileges restricted.
>
> I understand that this is a difficult time for us. Remember that it is how 
> we weather difficult times that demonstrates the power of a community. I 
> have *NO* doubt that this community is strong enough to survive this 
> moment, no matter the outcome of this vote.
>
> Thank you,
> Samantha Quiñones
>

One perception from a lurker/outsider is that this is a witch-hunt.

If members vote yes, Paul simply finds a proxy voting member for Aura, 
maintaining his vote, and nothing else changes. All this does is confirms 
the drama of this group and only serves to further hurt it's reputation.


With that said, please keep your comments on topic and remember to 
self-throttle. I expect that all participants on this thread, voting 
members and non-members alike, will behave professionally from this point 
onward. Those who cannot control themselves will have their posting 
privileges restricted.


Could you please provide the URL to the clearly-defined rules for 
self-throttling on this group? If not, this is nothing but an 
un-enforceable suggestion and it would be inappropriate to restrict posting 
privileges arbitrarily or based on high-school level popularity contest 
rules or simple whims.

-- 
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/b9a68850-a974-4561-8046-eaef592cc8ff%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Alessandro Lai]

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, something that is not censure, 
and that does not want to remove Paul from the FIG.
Is it possible to steer the FIG actions onto that path (with due vote if 
necessary)?
I think that a lot of voting members could agree to this.

Il giorno martedì 5 luglio 2016 22:08:34 UTC+2, Samantha Quiñones ha 
scritto:
>
> I will briefly reiterate purpose of this thread. 
>
> 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 
> disposition of Paul as a voting member of the FIG. I do not know how to put 
> it more plainly. When this discussion period is over, there will be a vote. 
> That vote will close the matter, whether the membership votes for or 
> against expulsion. The FIG does not have the desire or power to censure or 
> silence or chastise anyone. 
>
> If the membership votes to expel, the Aura project will be asked to name a 
> new representative, the matter will be closed, and we will do our best to 
> move on together. 
>
> If the membership votes against expulsion, then the matter will be closed, 
> and we will do our best to move on together. 
>
> If anyone has *any* doubt as to that fact, please feel free to contact me 
> directly. As far as I am concerned that is the full extent of the potential 
> outcomes of this action. I believe I speak for Michael when I say that 
> anything beyond those two possibilities is outside the scope of this 
> organization and will happen against its wishes and bylaws.
>
> With that said, please keep your comments on topic and remember to 
> self-throttle. I expect that all participants on this thread, voting 
> members and non-members alike, will behave professionally from this point 
> onward. Those who cannot control themselves will have their posting 
> privileges restricted.
>
> I understand that this is a difficult time for us. Remember that it is how 
> we weather difficult times that demonstrates the power of a community. I 
> have *NO* doubt that this community is strong enough to survive this 
> moment, no matter the outcome of this vote.
>
> Thank you,
> Samantha Quiñones
>

-- 
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/3f74e892-bf32-4341-9469-d8c99baa29a8%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Michiel Rook]

> 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 disposition of Paul as a voting member of the
> FIG. I do not know how to put it more plainly. When this discussion
> period is over, there will be a vote. That vote will close the matter,
> whether the membership votes for or against expulsion. The FIG does
> not have the desire or power to censure or silence or chastise anyone.
When is the discussion period over? I can't seem to find the exact date
in the archives.

regards,

Michiel

-- 
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/577CB60D.2040203%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Roman Tsjupa]

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 Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Michiel Rook  wrote:

>
> > 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 disposition of Paul as a voting member of the
> > FIG. I do not know how to put it more plainly. When this discussion
> > period is over, there will be a vote. That vote will close the matter,
> > whether the membership votes for or against expulsion. The FIG does
> > not have the desire or power to censure or silence or chastise anyone.
> When is the discussion period over? I can't seem to find the exact date
> in the archives.
>
> regards,
>
> Michiel
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/php-fig/w38tCU4mdgU/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/577CB60D.2040203%40gmail.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/CANamvv2jMbjivki_GpMF6RR5HU_-PZwHbQdOqCG8uCTzWPmUeA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Alessandro Pellizzari]

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, "3 strike" rule. Considering this the first strike.

On the second strike, a temporary ban from the list should be enabled (3 
months, 6 months, ... voting representatives will decide)


On the third strike, a permanent ban (or very long term, like 3 years) 
from the list and all activities from the FIG should be put in place.


This will probably be my last message on the subject.

Bye.

--
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/db7b8897-0c32-25a8-711b-e217e4bad084%40amiran.it.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Roman Tsjupa]

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 "lawyering", I think you are
> right.
>
> Removing you from the voting members achieves nothing.
>
> I propose a simple, old, "3 strike" rule. Considering this the first
> strike.
>
> On the second strike, a temporary ban from the list should be enabled (3
> months, 6 months, ... voting representatives will decide)
>
> On the third strike, a permanent ban (or very long term, like 3 years)
> from the list and all activities from the FIG should be put in place.
>
> This will probably be my last message on the subject.
>
> Bye.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/php-fig/w38tCU4mdgU/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/db7b8897-0c32-25a8-711b-e217e4bad084%40amiran.it
> .
>
> 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/CANamvv1nLCRc5Xq-i%2BKoa7tnN1o0q0vJxSN-zWYcm8NH4kX89g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Angela Byron]

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 
insomnia. :P


First, I can empathize with people who say this whole thing smells a bit 
like a witch-hunt. The fact that a dozen or so accusations are being 
levelled at this person, and that those accusations are based on subjective 
reading of comments that were made, and with a dozen or so highly respected 
PHP community leaders signing on as “Yeah, I agree that this guy sucks,” 
(this is not said explicitly, but that's how it can be interpreted) can 
definitely look like this person is being ganged up on, from the outside. 


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.


Why would I say this about someone I don’t know? Because generally 
speaking, and dating all the way back to formative childhood years, *no 
one* wants to be a tattle-tale. People will generally try all manner of 
things before they resort to invoking an “official” conflict resolution 
body to intervene, including:


- Ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away (often for months or years)

- Asking nicely, by taking the person aside and saying “Dude, could you 
please chill out?”

- Asking *less* nicely, by taking the person aside and saying “Dude. You 
need to chill out. Right now.”

- Saying those things in the public forum rather than privately, to help 
communicate the seriousness of the situation and demonstrate community 
norms.

- Asking for help from another respected individual with authority to say 
those things, preferably in an in-person/real-time discussion to mitigate 
defensiveness.

- etc.


And finally, when all else fails, when they are *literally* completely out 
of ideas on how else to solve it and feeling utterly defeated and hopeless, 
THEN they will invoke the “official” conflict resolution body (if they 
haven’t already rage quit the community by then). But it is *never* step 
one, or even step 7, at least in my 20+ years of community management 
experience.


So, I’m not inclined to believe this is a witch hunt. Rather, I’m inclined 
to believe that the conflict resolution body probably did everything in 
their power to avoid this public showdown, knowing it would likely go down 
exactly as messily as this has.


A few people in this thread have acknowledged Paul’s communication style 
can be off-putting, but have posited that that isn’t actually a problem. 
That it’s on other people to grow thicker skin, because the technical 
content of Paul’s messages are intelligent, and often correct. And it’s a 
meritocracy, after all…


Bt. Nope. No. Wrong. Nuh-uh.


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.


And the fact that you have here a “body trail” of members who’ve left 
because of this person proves nicely that you do not have a meritocracy 
here. What you have is a collection of people who have the stamina to yell 
louder or argue longer than others. And if you want to make that driving 
cultural value for your community, that is "yelling and arguing over actual 
technical merit," well, that’s a valid choice to make, I guess… But 
wouldn’t it make *more* sense to just enforce civil discourse here so that 
everyone, whether they were a grizzled veteran with 20+ years experience of 
being yelled at on the internet or a whiz kid fresh out of school with some 
new, eager ideas, could participate on an equal footing?


I also notice that Paul pulls some stats from these discussions, trying to 
show a mostly 50/50 split among opinions of his conduct. And maybe there 
is, I have no idea, and I guess no one does until this comes up for a vote. 
But one thing I know about humans in general is that if Paul is indeed one 
of the co-founders of this group, and is indeed widely respected for his 
technical contributions, even from his detractors (and it appears he is), 
and he *also* has a long-standing history of the way in which he 
communicates being tolerated (and it appears he has), I can guarantee you 
you’re n

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

['scott molinari' via PHP Framework Interoperability Group]

>
> 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 common sense, but until it is a clear 
rule, the "governing body" can't really punish someone for not following 
it. When they do, that is when people cry "witch hunt". When the rules are 
there clear and unambiguous, then nobody would bother mentioning a witch 
hunt. It is a trial, judgement and punishment and hopefully fair. 

But wouldn’t it make *more* sense to just enforce civil discourse here so 
> that everyone, whether they were a grizzled veteran with 20+ years 
> experience of being yelled at on the internet or a whiz kid fresh out of 
> school with some new, eager ideas, could participate on an equal footing
>

The equal footing you mention is missing, because the definition of "civil 
discourse" in terms of the FIG discussions is missing. Any good forum has a 
set of rules for proper discourse between its members. The FIG is missing 
these rules.  

BTW, I agree with your post completely and am also someone outside looking 
in and also someone whose worked with online communites for many years. The 
FIG has run into a situation which it doesn't have clear rules for. That 
situation is, how to promptly and properly judge and handle a disruptive 
member and the definition of what disruptive is, or rather, the definition 
of the responsibilities an "orderly/ civil" member has or at least what 
should or shouldn't be done when discussing FIG topics. 

Now we are almost back to the CoC discussion. Again, not my intention, but 
if I were asked if a CoC is necessary, I'd say, maybe not a CoC, but 
certainly some clear rules for civil discourse are. 

Scott  

-- 
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/65c756a1-5954-4cbc-bc52-e008a1ea8753%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Alessandro Pellizzari]

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 people, than that's 
how the community will grow (or die).


If the community doesn't tolerate toxic behaviours it has some hope of 
growing sane, by acting quickly when toxic behaviour come up.


You don't need CoC or complex bylaws, rules and so on, just shared 
common sense. If there is no common sense, the community deserves to 
die, IMO.


I think this community already has far too many rules and bylaws. At a 
point that maybe 2 or 3 persons know them. Those who wrote them.


Bye.

--
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/ed0a3576-b64d-07fa-e086-3bfec376ab50%40amiran.it.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Chris Johnson]

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). 

 [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.

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.

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.


Chris Johnson

-- 
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/fcd423ca-c529-4377-94f6-d2f4e21a6564%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Jonathan Wage]

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 him. He has always 
communicated clearly and passionately. I think he holds some unpopular 
opinions which can make things challenging for other people who might not 
see things the same way. The examples cited IMO don't appear to be toxic 
and the interpretation of them is very subjective. I don't think expulsion 
and silencing him is right answer. He has, in my opinion, been the single 
most productive FIG member and ousting him would push the group in to 
further irrelevancy.

Thanks, Jon

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 2:53:03 PM UTC-5, Michael Cullum wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past 8 weeks, we [the secretaries] have had a number of voting 
> members, former project representatives and well known community members 
> alike approach us regarding a situation they believe is being detrimental 
> to the continued success of the FIG and the harmony in the group. It is, 
> essentially, the impact of Paul M Jones on the harmony of the mailing list 
> and the impact his contribution is having on making this group welcoming or 
> pleasant to be involved with.
>
> To avoid putting words in mouths but still convey the common grievances, 
> we’ll quote from those who have complained:
>
>- 
>
>“This individual is toxic to the group and is therefore directly 
>affecting the ability of the group to perform its aims”
>- 
>
>“I believe this individual is the sole biggest cause of loss of 
>respect and members for the FIG”
>- 
>
>“I stepped down as a voting representative due to this member”
>- 
>
>“The presence of this individual makes me not want to contribute or 
>get involved with to the PHP FIG”
>- 
>
>“My main problem with him is that every time I opened a threads lately 
>to read up, he's getting into some tantrum with other over small 
>meaningless things. Sometimes he might even be right but honestly I don't 
>even care whether he is right or wrong. They is just plainly disrupting 
> the 
>FIG at this stage. He used to be annoying, but I was fine with that, this 
>is just disruptive though.”
>
>
> The following complainants said they are happy to be named (Nobody asked 
> not to be named, but some we never asked if they were happy to be named):
>
>- 
>
>Ross Tuck - Community figure
>- 
>
>Larry Garfield - Drupal project representative
>- 
>
>Graham Daniels - PHP League project representative
>- 
>
>Fabien Potencier - Symfony project representative
>- 
>
>Mike van Riel - PHPDoc project representative
>- 
>
>Jordi Boggiano - Composer project representative
>- 
>
>Anthony Ferrara - Community figure
>- 
>
>Phil Sturgeon - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Christopher Pitt - Former project representative and community figure
>- 
>
>Rafael Dohms - Community figure
>- 
>
>Marc Alexander - phpBB project representative
>- 
>
>Cees-Jan Kiewiet - ReactPHP project representative
>
>
> In total the number of complaints about this individual totals about 20 
> however there have also been other concerns aired about this individual 
> publicly and a number of individuals who contacted us said they in turn had 
> heard complaints about Paul from others; as a result of this, and being 
> explicitly asked what we can do/to do something about this situation, 
> including requests of this specific course of action we are starting this 
> discussion on PMJ’s membership. It is not the role of the secretaries to 
> handle this kind of thing or pass judgement on member projects so we are 
> posting this topic to invite discussion from both sides of the table out in 
> the open.
>
> We believe having this discussion going on for too long will not be 
> conducive to the FIG so a vote [to request a new representative from Aura, 
> which will result in Aura’s expulsion unless a new representative is 
> provided] will then commence unless a conclusion has been reached agreeable 
> by all sides before that point. That vote should then put an end to the 
> current situation.
>
> To clarify further, this topic does not indicate the opinion of 
> secretaries that this project representative should be expelled, but that 
> we have been asked by a significant number of voting members and community 
> members to do something about it so we are moving those complaints into 
> public for discussion by voting members as we can do nothing but move the 
> discussion and complaints to the mailing list for the attention of voting 
> members.
>
> I know this is a difficult discussion to avoid ma

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.

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 onl

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 complai

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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 frankly hypocritical. 
> >>
> >> I think it's na

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Hamza Kubba]

Another outsider's opinion, for whoever cares. Some relevant info about me:
1. I have interacted directly with Paul M. Jones many times via email and 
IRC when I was using the Solar framework, and from my (somewhat distant) 
memory he was very helpful and very intelligent in our exchanges. I don't 
believe I have interacted directly with anyone else in this group.
2. I've used PHP for years, have heard of PSRs, but prior to seeing this 
thread, didn't know about PHP-FIG or that Paul was part of the group that 
created the PSRs.

I saw this thread a few days ago and hesitated to write for several 
reasons, one of them being: I follow Paul on [social media outlet], and 
some of his public opinions make me a bit uneasy about publicly defending 
him. I think he's brilliant programmer, but I find some of his political 
views to be based on ignorance.

That said, despite my strong disagreements with some of his political 
views, I don't think anyone should be allowed to vote him off [social media 
outlet]. I don't think he should be excluded from society, or prevented 
from voting in elections. If you disagree with him, and genuinely want to 
put effort into doing something about it, IMO the only constructive 
approach is try to teach him why you think he's wrong, or "toxic". 
Otherwise, it's on you to ignore it. That's not about thick skin; IMO, that 
is how civil societies function.

Yours is a private, self-selecting organization. You don't have to be 
democratic, be nice to each other, follow any rules or even exist. But your 
own FAQ says "The idea behind the group is for project representatives to 
talk about the commonalities between our projects and find ways we can work 
together." This thread seems like the exact opposite of that.

I was surprised by the calmness of Paul's response, and my only explanation 
is that despite the hate going his way in this thread, he tried to be 
neutral in his response because he still wants to find a way to work 
together. If you expected an apology from Paul after this thread, I suggest 
you try to put yourself in Paul's shoes and re-read this thread from his 
perspective. Many of the messages are quite hostile, and the thread does 
not seem to have started with the goal of conflict resolution; it looks to 
me more like conflict escalation, an ultimatum and a witch hunt, as some 
others have pointed out.

I hope you all figure out how to work together. And when you do, please 
make a PSR with the solution.

Best of luck.

-- 
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/5e5c615e-f63c-4cbf-87f1-2f2e8ad6fa63%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Internal] [Discussion] Paul M Jones

[Paul Jones]

Dear Voting Representatives,

The customary two-week period of discussion prior to a vote has expired. I 
thank you for your patience, and your participation. I have two last points to 
make:

- There has been no clarification from the complainants on exactly what they 
think removing me from voting status will achieve. Aura will still have a vote, 
and I will still be present on the mailing list to speak as I will. I ask 
again: how exactly do the complainants feel this action will provide redress 
for their complaint? The Voting Representatives among them surely must have 
some idea.

- Some have chided me for not negotiating with the complainants. Note, however, 
that the complainants have failed to state any conditions or terms. Instead, 
Larry Garfield concluded his initial message with, "I will be voting in favor 
of Paul's removal from FIG." That is not the opening of a negotiation; that is 
a statement of an intended action. So if you feel I am not negotiating, it is 
because none has been called for. (Further, if it were called for at this late 
hour, it would now have to be seen as being in bad faith.)

Finally, to the complainants: you wanted to hang me, so start tying the noose 
and call the vote.

Thank you all, again and as always, for your time and attention.


-- 

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/2601C807-BCA2-4E74-B83A-855D0A90782F%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.