Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107241
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+kxMuSkkhtvaBk_89j+PM_TmHDhtOiJ=RxsoV-q5wLtwE_ZHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPKYkKyJDW4hys4-NdYy7MXsegGDx-GydrwWUOJma8e3UNRbBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuS5A7sxS6G-14U5F1abgJypX3LLeYOD0JGfVufNzcqtnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPKYkKwts9Lw8OYS8P6GJ9bjfNjz4hcjsnuS44MDh0v8N7MoQg@mail.gmail.com> <5d83c4c7.1c69fb81.785e9.106aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <5d83c4c7.1c69fb81.785e9.106aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:43:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPKYkKwH0bt-xvMe-1kfJRogmV1DHJJKtiopXwRZnOzLHa9KzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Randall <marandall@php.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a742e80592ec5502"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Prevent disruptions of conversations
From: chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)

--000000000000a742e80592ec5502
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

I've copy/pasted Kalle's email at the bottom so that I can address points
made in both emails without risking someone getting distracted from the
myriad of emails relating to coordination of work on PHP.

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 2:11 PM Mark Randall <marandall@php.net> wrote:

> On 19/09/2019 18:38, Chase Peeler wrote:
> > So, in other words, if the majority of core members decide they want to
> > force strict typing in PHP 9, and non-core PHP developers voice their
> > opposition to such a change, there would be nothing to prevent those core
> > members from voting to suspend the non-core members from the list, except
> > to hope that such power wouldn't abused?
>
> You may be misinterpreting the intent of the RFC.
>
>
It's not the intent that I'm worried about. It's the potential application.
No one ever puts a system in place and goes "I'm sure we'll abuse this,
but, who cares." Everyone always assumes that their group is the exception,
and they will be responsible, and will never abuse the power they were
given. History has shown us that regardless of how noble the intentions
were, if there is a potential for abuse, it will likely be exploited.

Also, part of the intent is to prevent RFC discussions from distracting
from the ability to use this list to coordinate work with PHP. If that's
the case, wouldn't the better option be to create a new list for RFC
discussions, and allow PHP-DEV to exist for coordinating work?

I don't believe this RFC is aimed at silence productive debate, it is
> clearly aimed at limiting the access of what I can only imagine is a
> small number of people whose continued involvement would be severely
> detrimental the proper functioning of internals.
>
> For example, if one person were to be responsible for between 30% to 40%
> of all posts in a given high-volume day, that person would, quite
> rightly, be seen as entering the realms of disruptive behaviour in light
> of the existing internals guidelines regarding considerate posting, and
> they may find themselves prevented from continuing those actions.
>
>
It also has the unintended consequence of silencing people that are afraid
they might be stepping over the line. The line is imaginary and entirely
subjective, so, it's easy to see why.  Also, non-core developers definitely
feel intimidated by the core developers on this list. They feel they are
not encouraged to contribute. I was talking to someone the other day that
doesn't even feel comfortable voicing his agreement with certain things,
lest it come back to negatively impact his ability to propose some changes
he'd like to see.


> Something I think most people would consider entirely reasonable.
>
> Mark Randall
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>



> That is correct. What it seems to me like you are hinting here is that
> no Core Developer is listening to the community at large feedback,
> which is simply not true.
>
>
That wasn't my hint at all. My hint was that this is a very big potential
for abuse.


> I do not see the latter part of your question as an issue if you got
> nothing to hide. In the time the PHP project has been going, then I
> think less than a handful of people have been banned from Internals,
> one of them being Reindl who still keeps messaging people off list (as
> you most likely remember from some of the previous debates you have
> taken part of). So given that track record, along with how the project
> philosophy generally is, I  do not see abuse being a problem, even the
> sligtest.
>
>
In that time we also haven't put a process in place where a small number of
PHP developers can vote on the ability to suspend another member. As such,
it took grievous abuses to get suspended.  Just because power wasn't abused
in the past, doesn't mean it won't be in the future. This is especially
true if you put things in place which allow those abuses to take place with
an air of legitimacy around them.


> If you think that not having a say by not having the right to vote,
> then I advise you to contribute by code to earn it like all of us
> have.
>

I've never complained once about the fact that I can't vote. However, I
think it's all the more important that I'm able to voice my opinion because
of that. Also, while contributing to PHP in order to be able to vote on
changes to PHP makes sense, I don't necessarily think that contributing to
PHP qualifies you to have a say in who can participate in the discussions
about those changes.

In the end, why should I not fear abuse of power? Dan, who wrote this RFC,
ended an email yesterday with an attempt to intimidate me - noting my
response and how long it took me to send it. People like to accuse Zeev of
making power grabs - yet I've never seen him attempt to put something in
place which could be used to actually silence his critics.

-- 
Chase Peeler
chasepeeler@gmail.com

--000000000000a742e80592ec5502--