Re: [UG-ADMINS] [VOTE] Move to a private life off of php.net

tl;dr
VOTE IS CACNELED. USE THE OTHER THREAD!

It has been brought to my attention that we did not have a proper
discussion time before calling for a vote. Since we don't actually have any
rules in this group, no rules were broken, but it's probably a good idea to
get the discussion out of the way.

To that end, this vote is canceled. We will continue the discussion in the
discussion thread. If and when the group decided that a vote is wanted,
someone can call for it. I will happily moderate it again and tally. Please
do NOT call for a vote before Feb 15th to give this discussion 2 weeks.

Cheers!
=C=


On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Cal Evans <[email protected]> wrote:

> tl;dr
> VOTE IS CACNELED. USE THE OTHER THREAD!
>
> It has been brought to my attention that we did not have a proper
> discussion time before calling for a vote. Since we don't actually have any
> rules in this group, no rules were broken, but it's probably a good idea to
> get the discussion out of the way.
>
> To that end, this vote is canceled. We will continue the discussion in the
> discussion thread. If and when the group decided that a vote is wanted,
> someone can call for it. I will happily moderate it again and tally. Please
> do NOT call for a vote before Feb 15th to give this discussion 2 weeks.
>
> Cheers!
> =C=
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 4:01 AM, Michelangelo van Dam <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> -1
>>
>> My arguments:
>> - We are PHP user groups and therefor directly related to PHP
>> - We need to take the information from PHP and relay this to our peers in
>> the communities we represent
>> - We are transparant and relay the necessary griefs and compliments to
>> both
>> sides (PHP and the communities behind it)
>>
>> IMO moving away from PHP is abandoning the causes we are in existance in
>> the first place. Yes I agree that we could use some better tools to
>> archive
>> and index the discussions, but that should be an overal improvement for
>> all
>> the mailinglists of PHP.net and not just that of the user groups.
>>
>> Michelangelo
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > -1
>> >
>> > Haven’t heard enough of an opinion to sway my initial gut reaction to
>> keep
>> > the list public. I think the benefits of keeping our discussions open
>> > outweigh the scenarios where people would be more comfortable talking
>> > behind closed doors.
>> >
>> > This discussion alone is a perfect example of that, where leaders of
>> > groups that extend beyond our world of PHP may be struggling with
>> similar
>> > issues, and we are able to be a resource for them to make decisions that
>> > will strength their communities and teams.
>> >
>> > That coupled with the mere fact we are talking about doing no vetting of
>> > such a private list, and anyone can join it seems to invalidate the
>> entire
>> > effort and may even lead to situations where there is a false sense of
>> > privacy when discussing topics.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Eric
>> >
>> > twitter <http://twitter.com/#!/shocm>: @shocm
>> > <http://twitter.com/#!/shocm> | @sdphp <https://twitter.com/sdphp> |
>> > http://www.sdphp.org
>> > *No trees were killed in sending this message, but a large number of
>> > electrons were terribly inconvenienced.*
>> >
>> > On January 30, 2016 at 6:43:17 PM, Ben Ramsey ([email protected]) wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Beth Tucker Long <
>> [email protected]>
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Where do you think it would be appropriate to discuss more sensitive
>> > > ug-leader issues, like the member issue I brought up recently or
>> > > disciplinary issues?
>> >
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer for this. I do understand the
>> > need for privacy in discussing sensitive issue. I'll keep thinking and
>> try
>> > to propose a solution for this.
>> >
>> >
>> > > Also, people keep saying they are voting against this because they
>> don't
>> > > want to membership restricted, but I haven't seen anything proposed
>> that
>> > > would restrict membership to the list. Did I miss a message that
>> brought
>> > > that up?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen anyone say they thought
>> > membership would be restricted. By my count, there have only been three
>> -1
>> > votes, and one of them was mine. In summary (and maybe I'm
>> misrepresenting
>> > folks's concerns, so I apologize), here's what has been said in
>> > opposition:
>> >
>> > - Lorna said "open signup and obvious link to php.net are both very
>> > valuable IMO"
>> > - Mike Stowe said "I believe transparency is key, as well as the
>> > openness of the group"
>> > - I said "I think open source communities should remain open and
>> > transparent"
>> >
>> > Eric voiced concerns, but has not yet cast a vote.
>> >
>> > All other votes have been +1 or +0 (an acknowledgement but not a strong
>> > opinion either way).
>> >
>> > -Ben
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> [image: DragonBe] <http://www.dragonbe.com> *Michelangelo van Dam*
>> Professional PHP Consultant / Community Leader
>>
>> [email protected] | dragonbe.com <http://www.dragonbe.com>
>> Join the conversation: Twitter <https://twitter.com/DragonBe> | Facebook
>> <https://facebook.com> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/michelangelovandam> | OneName
>> <https://onename.com/dragonbe>
>> PHP Consultant at IN2IT VOF <https://www.in2it.be> | Community Leader at
>> PHPBenelux <http://www.phpbenelux.eu>
>>
>