Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107350
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+kxMuSkkhtvaBk_89j+PM_TmHDhtOiJ=RxsoV-q5wLtwE_ZHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <06D1DC34-D60D-4480-B557-5CC85DD4C6BF@gmail.com> <CA+kxMuTpqW5jMbZDSbZ1hnXu1MyX-ScjYhRMdfZpdz9Kmf0ooQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuTpqW5jMbZDSbZ1hnXu1MyX-ScjYhRMdfZpdz9Kmf0ooQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:39:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CALKiJKrYz57-8+uMe4FnVMe-sMjp98YozcU8sRkKhFuxbU0RAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000548d880593c205d9"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Prevent disruptions of conversations
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)

--000000000000548d880593c205d9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 20:22, Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 20:10, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I would be interested to hear your thoughts on these suggestions.
> >
>
> I encourage you to work on them. Or anyone else who cares to. And the
> sooner there is concrete alternative proposal the better.
>



Hi Dan,

The purpose of the two week discussion period for RFCs is so that we can
work together to improve them, not so that people can independently work on
overlapping proposals.


>  But in the meantime, I think this RFC is an improvement on the current
> situation.


As I said, I have tried to measure the proposal against its stated aim: to
prevent disruption of the mailing list. In its current form, I do not think
it will achieve that aim.


> Although I agree with the action of removing those people, there were
> no clear rules, or people who could 'officially' tell those people
> "your behaviour is being disruptive". This RFC at least provides a
> framework for that.


Your proposal provides neither clear rules, nor clear authority, and indeed
goes out of its way to avoid both, with an open definition of "disruptive
behaviour" and a careful avoidance of the word "moderator".

In some extremely rare cases there is consensus that a ban is clearly
warranted; in such cases, any vote would be a formality. It would feel more
legitimate than a "dictatorial" decision, but the situation arises so
rarely it would make very little difference to the general tone of the
community.

In any other case, a vote under this proposal would be extremely
contentious, and is likely to result in more disruption than it removes.


Regards,
-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]

--000000000000548d880593c205d9--