Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90391
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.49 as permitted sender)
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.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>
 <568FEBB2.4090001@gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU4mD9h77nDG3_sVr+ySRac=HmFta2g+pOjrm-uFyGqZCw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <569007F5.3030004@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:03:17 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU4mD9h77nDG3_sVr+ySRac=HmFta2g+pOjrm-uFyGqZCw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> For those still in doubts, ask users why they don't post to the list.
> Why they don't contribute. Our reputation of agressivity (and I take the
> blame on that too) did not do us any good and still do not.

I think we have here very basic difference in definition. Being
aggressive and uncompromising in discussion can definitely be
discouraging and offputting, and having hot and lengthy discussions
definitely can turn off people from contributing. But if that is what
you classify as harassment and want to root out by means of CoC, then I
think it is one of the ideas may sound very nice but are a recipe for a
disaster. And that is exactly why I am reluctant to rely on "trust us,
we are all good people here, we'll just do the common sense thing".
Because if your common sense includes somehow redefining passionate
disagreement as harassment, then my opinion is it would be ruinous to
what we're doing - and yes, despite all our failings and shortcomings,
it can be made *much* worse, and IMO with such approach it will be.

And if it does not, I don't see how CoC would change anything here.

So, I think I would like a clarification here: do you think what was
going on the list so far (excluding clear cases where people were
admonished or banned by existing means, but including all vigorous
discussion) included numerous CoC violations if CoC of your liking were
in force? How many people you think should have been banned from the
community following those CoC violations, so that people that don't post
to the list start to?
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com