Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90419 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 4381 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2016 17:38:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 Jan 2016 17:38:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bishop.bettini@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bishop.bettini@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.52 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bishop.bettini@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.82.52 mail-wm0-f52.google.com Received: from [74.125.82.52] ([74.125.82.52:37267] helo=mail-wm0-f52.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 34/B4-59249-4A541965 for ; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:38:45 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id f206so213406721wmf.0 for ; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 09:38:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=zM91s6Or2X0dGeD/ccu9jtI6FKjrdPIrgaNPM9b5b/8=; b=o1nRYjTKuBIEHolDDSG8X+ySiFMbQPT6vro/paSZJgTMkYPkOGN/omfQMNemkiTNOA JfT80nGDNdZqncu3yIMY72Nj0zRmiS1EI8kissb699R8pS+YcLNdTwb7mje1ISV330W+ XdUlizSGkHbpZL2xAsHQtR6L7gOin+u4phy7iO1CVuMa8ivv+LD21NJktGLN/veCj6wR hJXiAHdX4EYGivCIAkTLNLndp1M49jiecA7tXXcyZdlQ5hjixQw4AY2uRUR8E/W+1k8u KAre274bPc1kMvt0/N7+MECsEZy2cthMFnrmUuF4LYMSVColPIlc1UXqD3t2iaTHw60x lNNg== X-Received: by 10.28.133.8 with SMTP id h8mr5015758wmd.71.1452361121027; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 09:38:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: bishop@php.net Sender: bishop.bettini@gmail.com Received: by 10.195.12.136 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 09:38:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <910b145571b2c3e98338d54c0dd6a981@mail.gmail.com> <568FEBB2.4090001@gmail.com> <569007F5.3030004@gmail.com> <56902C5E.2020401@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 12:38:11 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4yieDhso8XwSQf2b4lQYY2X8aqE Message-ID: To: "Paul M. Jones" Cc: Pierre Joye , PHP internals , Stas Malyshev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11432edeb45c820528ea2c80 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct From: bishop@php.net (Bishop Bettini) --001a11432edeb45c820528ea2c80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote: > > > > On Jan 9, 2016, at 09:43, Pierre Joye wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 9, 2016 10:16 PM, "Paul M. Jones" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 23:25, Pierre Joye 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've checked it and I don't see the "aggressive" you are talking about. > Can you be more precise? Quoting my actual sentences would be good. Within the framework of the alternative PHP Contributor Etiquette , a moderator would jump in about now. The email would go something like this: --- BEGIN --- Hey Pierre and Paul, I hear what both you guys are saying. You're both making good points. I think, though, how the words are presented is causing some miscommunication. Pierre, when you say "Paul's reply [was] over aggressive", you're presenting an opinion word as a logical truth. Instead, consider phrasing like "I felt Paul's reply was over aggressive". That phrasing signals you're expressing a valid, true feeling you have rather than labeling the reply. Paul, when you say "You are wrong", you signal you've heard Pierre, but reject his statement. As the statement is a valid and true feeling Pierre presents, that is tantamount to rejecting Pierre as a person rather than refuting his argument. Instead, consider phrasing like. "I'm hearing you say my tone was aggressive. I mean to convey my passion, not attack anyone personally." Pierre, consider that the word "aggressive" connotes unprovoked or militant attacks: maybe "fiery" or "impassioned" might also fit. Paul, consider that "fascist" might be interpreted personally by those whose families lived under fascist rule. Perhaps "authoritarian" or "imperious" might also fit. What do you think? Feel free to write back, or chat further on Skype or IRC --- END --- The idea is direct, straightforward mediation: listen, validate, guide, and remain open. Cheers, bishop --001a11432edeb45c820528ea2c80--