Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90357
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0E9E4C89-1800-4000-BD5A-BC81F43BE2FE@gohearsay.com>
References: <CAAyV7nFbngZ42qzbSFyveH+vsyir9QNtMJq8H=u9VqTBVBv5Og@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nHrip8Ljxjdi2DiGbcnXxY9JK+pN+LCwYKqsjJNvEyUrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<910b145571b2c3e98338d54c0dd6a981@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nGGJ3-mCZhDcmhcjqgEOMUBQwvA0vVEE67K4Vmot4ep5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPgLKii-L-TvKLiSYNdcXxmkr60k2_93EE7hc9LSL=3NQwQjRw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAESVnVqrXQHpYabkOZvVhbGVUNtQLLS_h=OsnaaQWhEeHWx+uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nGV4Vawdq67j0eZa4j+R2zM_14-KZpBe_S6JUOc7-9Yfg@mail.gmail.com>
	<0E9E4C89-1800-4000-BD5A-BC81F43BE2FE@gohearsay.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:47:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nEVKqOJWn9Fb7Sa2cAPRBZ-Pu00BOmha4ObGciwPHXiGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kevin Smith <kevin@gohearsay.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

Kevin,

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Kevin Smith <kevin@gohearsay.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Simply look at the level of attacks that me and a few other committers
>> have received by making this proposal. I don't feel comfortable making
>> any of those attacks public (drawing more attention to them).
>
> Disclaimer: While I=E2=80=99ve followed this entire email thread, I=E2=80=
=99m sure I=E2=80=99ve missed stuff that=E2=80=99s going on outside it. I w=
as genuinely going to ask which attacks you=E2=80=99re referring to until I=
 got to that last sentence. It=E2=80=99s fair if you don=E2=80=99t want to =
share, but your argument was for us to simply look at the attacks you=E2=80=
=99ve received.

The vast majority of them were in public arenas. And a non-trivial
number of people on this list have witnessed it. So it's not like I'm
saying "blindly trust me"...

> If you=E2=80=99re referring to anything in this email thread (which again=
, that=E2=80=99s all I can draw from), I=E2=80=99d worry about creating a b=
ody with powers to punish attackers since we clearly don=E2=80=99t agree on=
 what constitutes an attack. This discussion has been contentious, sure, bu=
t it=E2=80=99s concerning a very serious topic that would have far-reaching=
 effects. I wouldn=E2=80=99t argue that anything we=E2=80=99ve seen coming =
from any perspective rises to the level of an attack though.

I don't think anything in this thread warrants the term "attack" or
"harassment". While I strongly don't agree with the tone being used
nor the tactics being used, I don't think they warrant any sort of CoC
violation.

> Again, I=E2=80=99m happy to claim ignorance here because you may be refer=
ring to things that have gone on outside this thread. But since you don=E2=
=80=99t feel comfortable pointing to those attacks specifically, we=E2=80=
=99ve sort of reached an impasse.
>
>> If you look at this 225+ reply thread, the vast
>> majority of karma holding people have not responded (even many who
>> frequent this list). A few (5+) of them have reached out to me
>> personally to say that they are explicitly staying out of this
>> discussion because of the level of aggression and tone, but would be
>> willing to support a reasonable proposal (some provided meaningful
>> feedback on it, some support the current revision).
>>
>> Think about that. People who are long standing members of this
>> community and project do not feel that they can safely respond to this
>> very thread. Think of the irony there.
>
> For what it=E2=80=99s worth, I=E2=80=99ve had 2 people reach out to me pr=
ivately to say they=E2=80=99re really uncomfortable with this proposal but =
don=E2=80=99t want to get involved because they're worried about being labe=
led =E2=80=9Ctoxic=E2=80=9D, and I=E2=80=99m a brand-new contributor. A rea=
l nobody.

Sure. I'm sure there are a lot more that aren't talking that are
against it. But I think you proved my point here which is that people
are afraid to share their opinion here. That is a strong indicator
that something isn't healthy *today*. It says nothing about the
potential solution, but it should act as a pretty strong heuristic
that "status quo" isn't really good either.

Thanks for the thoughts

Anthony