Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107247
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CA+kxMuSkkhtvaBk_89j+PM_TmHDhtOiJ=RxsoV-q5wLtwE_ZHA@mail.gmail.com>
Autocrypt: addr=smalyshev@gmail.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 xsJuBE9mqaARCACFSqcGmNunkjQQu3X+yXnTmFeEkvM4JXZTOBdR8aEevNGmmFEfyvjaDjWi
 9hcwp4E/lYtC+P7VsVjM1OSX9eq0jC/lGL0ZyRXek+mNy0n5H1NSuTpf9Y18LMqhc4G+RU+L
 cNiZ9K0DJuOOvNLPxW7OHZguxb3wdKPXNVa2jyRfJAKm2uaJJMT1mTmFT9a0Q8SKr+mUrrJk
 uG0H2o6SzrKt8Wwoint1eh67zVsJaJtQFchnEZnlawIcqP2yC4nLGR3MkubowxoEBYCZet18
 aHVVRbvpG2Qtob8Lu5xrsGbmXymTkHTdpvkfcJFADa8MzOL90zOxXwbGfbIZOlh5En8jAQCX
 lfnx2eQL3BSW/6XANa51dbWiEp1d1BAkpGKtZvlk0Qf+M9WAi+9aXMe3xP5krxtgnRNUf2WN
 6Zdy2MxL1RRJCFbytLhl0ronC49BsGYVGshdEH8xhBbiIOJKuVZ/DTl9bEm7P9c7CC7iJyVC
 khUAhouH6xzZQNLR+RU+QebYzXypVfl99Qk7EdMmr/WAZCHLuvanyqepC5EBsa3VnAfQemSN
 oBeGBKWWLiOsPjvS72+y1z4RUMAfXHn4l/sFMt8zt7/74AmJPwZquV41p4mPO12V4+xPyc6R
 sB84sfsk2QVivU8w8AkvGQeYjXoz7Iwao95+fWteVzZ36KRQvUckP8pGjHlDXnHxJ0HI1I/k
 OBZSjwRwUf0dd73y6erPhbLk+gf+NdI3H9KGJBzG5/rVyWKwUeQ9d5ud4jTJRkQGvAP5pg76
 vEa9dogbpe4W5Z+0BfbiJSnQmQWSHiZddj/t33ptbup44Ck6ZTgdlmFYMLF1hR47PIZTDKER
 EuKYGci/vq8snZvEJP9YCw/TtiHcMdrMKcY/+Lp8lQO0GHLPB9glVhnC0db6l1Xpg1CMI8/R
 ozBMcij30EgATggC/y2zbiqAFoS9FN9nXPbe4phStqABEyeZ+nXudt7PUYTjVgcrqo8bHZCi
 sBobWC7OnKyUzxVxzUeuPkIfmZuzkLaMw2McQdvwwsNvQ0DzaLP30c1Xsm/7EIYJcOWpzlVJ
 5QrdmE0/Bc0yU3RhbmlzbGF2IE1hbHlzaGV2IChQSFAga2V5KSA8c21hbHlzaGV2QGdtYWls
 LmNvbT7CegQTEQgAIgUCT2aqtAIbAwYLCQgHAwIGFQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQL3lW
 vF2gS12XMwD9HuRIolSwIK77u8EY461y2u6sbX36n5/uo/LDQuxoi3sA/0MvpnvzOhv9Iufv
 vsZEj3E7i3h+iD5648YMwfTFCij+zsFNBE9mqaAQCADfZPMpjZkkGZj3BY/7ApoLq4mwqzbh
 +CpLXwNn20tFNvSXfb8RdeXvVEb7Scx+W9qYpiaun2iXJgCVH8fgpZpR856ulT1q6uCG++CX
 ubEvip/eJkZl93/84h04KQJwsgOrAh0Om3OePRn8Pr+++0LNS0EL8uX/YHeTOGOnnmTqYTey
 SBVFdov6L4mepddfjekicKQqhL7mZh/xuq29JijT0uNNX8v4vDWQDu5dlAcdd+uB3gcXMD/P
 ginD11zp+6wtrWCm/+yBqpvDwXQX5PGUnwvbRfl7Ay3MmwmoXiecZMg0dwTSc7e0lhB4HGRH
 ZdBMJB4rHUVGdzqujK/ctOvrAAMFB/0Utb76Qe6sCMlHxVAmeE/fbo7Pi05btZ/x01r67dHf
 aMSP0riCKJ7M0OW+jAXtu9+z/BVnYisW67WWfxl2cS5tZDgiHgJARXWUOO72+sScHP8KQmTl
 1z16gyKbwY3SmyBkwcpOL35nhUWNLy93syPoY6sZUTikr2bZYukHDQ33XBPs4e6MbWKfsa9q
 aVmnlOF3k5UqChjutfHaEa4Q7VP4wBIpphHBi9MI16oJIzzBPbGl2uoedjwiZ6QeQZnSuOVY
 ZxU2d3lRA8PrtfFN1VSlpEm/VcAvtieHUYWHN0wOu+cp3Slr5XJVNjTjJhl28SlinMME54mK
 AGf2Ldr/dRwXwmEEGBEIAAkFAk9mqaACGwwACgkQL3lWvF2gS126EQD/VVd3FgjLKglClRQP
 zdfU847tqDK4zJjbmRv5vLLwoE0A+wbrQs7jVGU3NrS0AIl5vUmewpp2BKzSkepy23nWmejw
Message-ID: <edd5e294-102f-0681-c9d6-7e604060f606@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:50:22 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuSkkhtvaBk_89j+PM_TmHDhtOiJ=RxsoV-q5wLtwE_ZHA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Prevent disruptions of conversations
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> Here is an RFC to "Prevent disruptions of conversations"
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/prevent_disruptions_of_conversations?do=edit

I am not sure what is the purpose of this. Teaching other adults how to
behave? Its usually a futile task. The RFC is expressed in extremely
vague terms, like:

they are not allowed to use their voice to try to prevent other people's
conversation.

What's "preventing other people's conversation"? How could I, not having
access to admin interface of the list to unsubscribe/block people,
prevent anybody from conversing with anybody else on the list?

Sending many more emails than other contributors.

What's "many more"? Who decides it? Why sending more emails is bad -
maybe it's RFC author answering questions? Maybe it's somebody who knows
a lot about the topic of the discussion?

Repeatedly telling other contributors that they are not allowed to discuss

You mean like this RFC which literally just told people they are not
allowed to send "too many" emails and discuss RFC votes? Well, I guess
it's not "repeatedly" but if this RFC is mentioned once more...

Repeatedly asking people to hold off on proposing an RFC.

Why not? If I think an RFC makes no sense, why won't I suggest the
potential proposer to save themselves the effort and the negative
feelings by not proposing something which is no good?

However other behaviors that people find disruptive

What people? Who chooses which people are allowed to ban people from
discussions by declaring them "disruptive" and why do we need to give
them such power? And why would we want to have such people? That looks
like a recipe for disaster.

It is very disruptive to have people say that they reject the result of
an RFC vote

So now people are not allowed to speak about their opinions that
something wasn't done properly here. Not only we declare the RFC vote
process sacred and the only possible way to decide anything forever and
reject even trying to find any other ways - now we want to ban people
that dare to speak about possible deficiencies and problems in our
decisions from the community completely? What is going on here?! Being
open to criticism and disagreement is the only way to maintain the
quality of any community - software or otherwise. Once we start banning
people for disagreeing with the holy RFC, there wouldn't be any
reasonable discussion possible.

It's only when a conversation is adversarial that the conversation
should remain on list.

Why should we police actions of people outside community? If you don't
want to receive emails from a particular person, I could help you with
setting up your email filters. There are other members of the community
that I heard recently also are pretty proficient with those, so if you
don't want to speak with someone, it is easy to achieve without starting
to pretend to be Email World Police.

I am sorry if somebody sent you a nasty email (I have no idea if
somebody did, but looks like it) but that's not the reason to introduce
martial law here.

> * although the RFC would only be applicable to messages sent once it
> might be approved, it would still be nice if people consider how their
> messages affect other people before then.

I have read this message, announcing this RFC, and it affected me very
negatively. It looked to me as an attempt, under the guise of making
discussion better, to stifle the expression, introduce arbitrary and
vague rules, which would inevitably lead to rule lawyering and
replacement of discussion on technical merits with discussion of who
should not be allowed to talk at all - the very thing this RFC
ostensibly tries to prevent it will inevitably produce.

> * everyone should bear in mind this RFC might gain more attention from
> people outside the PHP internals community than normal.

If I wasn't convinced before that this is the thing we need the least of
all I am completely convinced now. Nothing makes working through
difficult issues better than a good twitter mob and a bunch of yellow
journalism outlets quoting people out of context and trying to pull them
into whatever campaign they are trying to wage at this time. Seriously,
I don't see any single thing "more attention from people outside" would
make better. Not one.

> * I think this solution isn't going to be a great one

I agree wholeheartedly.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com