FIG Follies, Part 1

This is the first of three posts I intend to make regarding the condition and actions of the FIG, and what they reveal.

The Past

The show trial and subsequent vote to remove me has concluded, and I remain: the complainants were defeated, 15 to 9.

Now that the vote is done, I can assert openly that this was a “clearing the decks” operation. It was intended (in large part) to remove the most-vocal opponent to the FIG 3.0 proposal by Larry Garfield and Michael Cullum, and to prepare the way for implementing the Contributor Covenant (or some other SJW-inspired code of conduct). I predicted that conversations about both would resume very soon after the vote no matter which way it went, and that looks to have been prescient.

The complainants, and their secretarial collaborator, wanted a vote (not mediation) from the outset. I guess they figured it would be a slam-dunk to have me removed. What they didn’t expect was that roughly half of the participants would be either against my removal, or against the complainants themselves.

So instead of a slam-dunk, they had actual resistance on their hands. That’s why the secretarial collaborator dragged it out past the 2-week point, so there could be some chance of rallying support for the “removal” side. Little support was raised that was not shortly pushed-back against.

Then the complainants realized they had no options other than a vote, which they now thought they might lose. This is why they revived the idea of “alternative resolutions”. But they themselves presented no alternatives other than “shut up” and “go away”.

Even at the end, to keep their actions and their bias hidden, the secretaries suggested (to me personally) making the vote private, on authority they have not been granted.

Remember: the secretaries, in particular Michael Cullum, overstepped their bounds once again to enable this drama.

Even so, I must caution against reading too much into the results of the vote. The voters did not approve of me per se, so much as they disapproved of the complainants, the complaint itself, or the act of throwing someone out. It is not so much a vindication for me personally, as a repudiation of the complainants.

This is now all in the past, and a permanent part of the FIG. Tomorrow I will talk about the current state of the FIG.

Are you stuck with a legacy PHP application? You should buy my book because it gives you a step-by-step guide to improving your codebase, all while keeping it running the whole time.

4 thoughts on “FIG Follies, Part 1

  1. imo you’ve been a bit of a dick but the complainants were WAY worse. seems lines have been drawn, and OF COURSE they won’t just give up here.

    meanwhile, complaining about “voting for yourself” (which under robert’s rules, and in any nomination really, is encouraged, and perfectly fine), and “toxicity” (maybe, but rather seems like they’re letting personal dislike cloud their judgement)

  2. I think the conspiracy theory you describe unlikely is the root cause to the thread in question, even if I see your point… I believe that the complaints are genuine, but they come from people that don’t seem to understand that everyone don’t have the same views and opinions. Sense your opinions are confrontational they spark a fire in your counterpart. To remove such a voice instead of arguing it is much easier ofc.

    IMO, the project needs an opposition, it will strengthen the FIG project. A car can’t move forward with out friction.. just remember that you need them as much as they need you 😉

    • I agree that there are some “honest” complainants among them. However, I continue to maintain that a large part of the complaint is motivated *not* by the explicit points of the complaint, but by other unstated goals; to wit, removal of opposition to FIG 3.0 and an SJW-inspired Code of Conduct. As one point of evidence, see this tweet, archived here, from one of the complainants: “Step Two: Implement a Code of Conduct, which this guy HATES”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *