Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90203
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.182 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
In-Reply-To: <568D4128.8080201@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 10:50:09 -0600
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EEAB56A4-8920-4BBA-A2EE-4AD94362F25F@gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nFbngZ42qzbSFyveH+vsyir9QNtMJq8H=u9VqTBVBv5Og@mail.gmail.com> <CAAyV7nGzsuhDSgenmLUjWPYiNfamcqCgvXpM4Sb30VECpTrHpQ@mail.gmail.com> <568C9ED7.30504@gmail.com> <CAAyV7nEnovW3YqmTjBnhtmAGhKiwYo1tYq_QHDYBgRNKNG61zQ@mail.gmail.com> <DFE892EC-797B-42D5-BD0C-E96CEC7195EE@gmail.com> <568D4128.8080201@gmail.com>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: pmjones88@gmail.com ("Paul M. Jones")


> On Jan 6, 2016, at 10:30, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> For the record, you make some good points in this message. I just want =
to make that clear, since I've been critical of your tone elsewhere, and =
don't want to be seen as being negative for negativity's sake.

Noted, and appreciated.


> However, I wanted to reply to one rhetorical question:
>=20
> Paul M. Jones wrote on 06/01/2016 15:52:
>>> And that's just me. I know for a fact that several other people have
>>> >had incidents. I know that several people avoid internals and the
>>> >project because of fear of incidents. I won't speak for them, =
that's
>>> >their prerogative.
>> If their fear of words on a screen overrides their desire to =
contribute, what does that say?
>=20
> Your implication seems to be "well, that's their problem, they should =
be less timid". That's great if you happen to be someone with a strong =
base of confidence etc to draw from, but the reality is not everyone =
feels that way.
>=20
> It is as much an act of control for you to say that everyone must =
accept all behaviour towards them, as for someone else to say that you =
must moderate your behaviour for the good of the project.

For what it's worth, I don't "accept" so much as "ignore" (or, sometimes =
with enjoyment, "respond in kind" -- saucing the gander, as it were).

Having said that, I recognize that my ability to bear intellectual, =
emotional, and psychological stressors is perhaps stronger than some, =
and that of course colors my opinions here.


> The reality is that those people will be put off contributing no =
matter how much you tell them that it is "just words", and the community =
will be the poorer for their loss.

I assert that you don't know, and cannot measure, if it's poorer for =
their loss. For example, if a person must consistently be protected from =
others because of their particular vulnerabilities to words alone, you =
have to weigh their actual contributions against their actual costs. =
That ratio will be different for different potential contributors; some =
will be a net positive, some a net negative, to the project. (Indeed, =
the new protections themselves may have negative productivity effects =
for previously productive contributors; while imaginable, that assertion =
should of course be subject to measurement.)


> That said, your actual conclusion seems to be that a policy should =
focus on conflict resolution rather than enforcement of conduct, and =
should avoid as much as possible introducing power structures;

I think that's a fair assessment.


> neither of those points actually relies on the "people should just get =
over it" idea, so there is common ground to be found.

Also fair.


--=20
Paul M. Jones
pmjones88@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php