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
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
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
>
> 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
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
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
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,
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
> 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
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
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*
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
12 matches
Mail list logo