Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85166
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.179 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5508F669.4030804@gmail.com>
References: <CAMc0WS5TRMGtFkPAJ5rrxyu+96GPnbMrOwUEd7+PaDnt8UXJZw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+kxMuQFu6MmfvfwjuUp_dAF7Oapy9N_nuq3=c3K0pLPmOactg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5508B7BA.6000108@gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU5fa8SMvuSyA_NKQkLpzmFNZsVLNf=zNxYn+LALoim7mw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5508F669.4030804@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:50:08 +1100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU63nq-vFTQsXi=LVJP6UvRg9XK1Cw+8XZRa5NR9URtDAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	Stelian Mocanita <stelian.mocanita@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135547e4dfd52051188d177
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Vote process change proposal
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--001a1135547e4dfd52051188d177
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mar 18, 2015 10:52 AM, "Stanislav Malyshev" <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > Private emails, pressure and what many, including myself, consider as
> > harassment is a big issue in many OSS projects, and for PHP too. I am
>
> What exactly you are calling "harassment"?

Repeatedly, explicitly, strongly asking to shut down a RFC or general
proposal is what I consider as harassment. Even more if prominent figures
do it.

>I have a feeling we are
> talking about different things, so it would be nice to explain what
> exactly is harassment ans some specific examples of when that happened
> in PHP would be nice. E.g., if I email you and explain you my POV on
> certain topic, is it harassment? What is I ask your opinion on certain
> topic? What if I ask you to vote on certain RFC? What if I ask you for
> explanation of your vote?
>
> > not sure what can be done to solve that but private discussions should
> > be avoided at any price to avoid such bad things to happen. And this
>
> Sorry, but I completely disagree. Not only you have absolutely no right
> and no business to tell me who I choose to talk in private (and, of
> course, to anybody else as well), but there's absolutely no reason to
> avoid it.

You are totally right. I have no right to tell you what to do, or to
anybody else for what matters.

But I have the damn right to say that most of the times private, extensive,
and long discussions to finalize damage OSS projects. And recent events
here tell me that I am right to think so.

Now, you can convince me by actually me explaining cases where private,
extensive long discussions are actually good and I will proudly change my
mind.

> I've had hours of very productive private discussions about
> various technical topics, both in PHP and outside, and there's
> absolutely nothing wrong with it. I'm not sure which "such bad things"
> you mean but I'd like to see some "bad things" that actually happened
> because of it.

> Of course, that doesn't mean people should not discuss important things
> in public, especially if they are of public (understood either as PHP
> devs or PHP users or wider) concern. Both modes have their uses. And of
> course it doesn't mean people should not follow the RFC process and
> provide the necessary explanations and support for their opinions and
> proposals. But I don't think we lack that, in most cases. There are
> outliers and bad RFCs from time to time, but we can deal with them when
> they come.
>
> > Now, I do agree as well that discussions can be affiliated to
> > lobbying. But the key difference is that a discussion on the list is
> > open and should be backed with technical argument (or principles when
> > it comes to design). Lobbying, and you know that perfectly, is totally
> > different story. Let be straight about what is happening and do not
> > hide our head in the sand for the sake of ignoring a growing and
> > devastating problem.
>
> OK, let us be super-straight. *What* is, on your opinion, happening?
> While you call us to be straight and claim there is a devastating
> problem, you seemingly forgot to straightly say what is actually
> happening and which devastating problem it is?  Please do so.
>
> > We cannot afford to loose more new contributors,
> > no matter the reason.
>
> Sorry, but we will lose contributors, no matter what. People change,
> circumstances change, availability changes, people burn out, people get
> busy, people lose interest, people lose patience with other people
> disagreeing with them... Tons of reasons why people move on. So giving
> out such blanket statements "no matter what" doesn't seem very useful to
> me. I agree the community here is not ideal, and could benefit from more
> kindness and supportiveness, and the processes could be improved. I
> don't think anybody is against putting forward specific thoughts on how
> to do it (though not all thoughts would be good ideas, naturally). But
> however hard we try, for some people it would prove not to be to their
> taste, and we can not say we can not let that happen "no matter the
> reason".
> --
> Stas Malyshev
> smalyshev@gmail.com

--001a1135547e4dfd52051188d177--