Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90396
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <569007F5.3030004@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>
	<569007F5.3030004@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 02:34:33 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU4cm1zDiN+_3_29A51qGKO-LO+qXN30syNK9-Bo6sDGZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e55a65507310528d7ade3
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--001a113e55a65507310528d7ade3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Jan 9, 2016 2:03 AM, "Stanislav Malyshev" <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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,

It is not. I mentioned it here too when someone asked if I consider some
replies here as harassment.

I am referring to multiple comments here of actual harassment or bad
behavior (I described what it is) and agressivity.

> 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,

And it is not what i am referring to. Neither what other were referring to.
But you keep saying that it did not or does not exist. This is not good.

> 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?

Again vigorous discussions are not what I or other have talked about.

--001a113e55a65507310528d7ade3--