Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90417
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU40UCUnsUyTM+2hdgU-9-Keso3Kqm_NPymVg7Bt+JU0jA@mail.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>
	<CAEZPtU4cm1zDiN+_3_29A51qGKO-LO+qXN30syNK9-Bo6sDGZw@mail.gmail.com>
	<56902C5E.2020401@gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU67wLe8rq5FhxK6gtP6SNkk2LRTCL3m+DhQPhFp_iPyFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BF17721D-EC98-48EA-A98B-1B6A1D862C88@gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU40UCUnsUyTM+2hdgU-9-Keso3Kqm_NPymVg7Bt+JU0jA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 23:05:49 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU6hymcPPtbhb25+3b9U2no=t=nMBnSvT-Y=Y4uac-gTYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com>
Cc: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c32ddca05ebe0528e8e0e9
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--001a11c32ddca05ebe0528e8e0e9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Jan 9, 2016 10:43 PM, "Pierre Joye" <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 9, 2016 10:16 PM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 23:25, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul's early reply in this thread were over aggressive
> >
> > You are wrong. At best, it is "your opinion" only.
>
> I am not wrong nor right. You were aggressive. And it is not only me
saying. that if you check this thread.
>
> > I stand by every comment I made, and will reiterate them yet again: the
COC document as presented is a fascist speech-policing code. It is
terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad piece of work. You want to ban me now
for being "aggressive"?
>
> You have the answer to this question in my other replies. Go read them.
>
> And this is not what I was referring to. For the record. The example you
use is bad taste, at best. That's it.

And for the record here to be even more clear.

Your earlier replies to this thread were bad yes. No reason to be banned or
whatever. Eventually a warning when you go down personal. But the way you
communicated your opinion requires way too much energy to filter out the
noises to get what you actually try to say. And also prevented other to
participate or reply due to the feeling  such replies create.

So again, I do not see any of these replies as reason to ban you or anyone
else. But I can only advice you to continue as you did afterwards as it is
by far more constructive and useful than being aggressively provocative and
while walking on the red line. I understand this is part of your style but
it is rather pointless as we lose both your actual feedback and other who
do not join because of that (along other things). Take it as you wish.

--001a11c32ddca05ebe0528e8e0e9--