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

Bravo. I felt this really needed a longer discussion period. Glad to see 
others must have felt the same way.


Regards,
Adam Culp
561-870-6361
Twitter: @adamculp
Tech Blog: http://geekyboy.com
Podcast: http://rungeekradio.com
Running Blog: http://crazyfloridian.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/adamculp

On 02/01/2016 12:52 PM, Cal Evans 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 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>
>>>