Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90429
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEYWF=6bYpzw_fZUqDrOP0wTm6UpK+H4QqddS6mBiWCNYzxXCw@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>
	<A78519BC-83DF-4AA8-BCCF-8AA2CD75F3C4@gmail.com>
	<CAEYWF=6bYpzw_fZUqDrOP0wTm6UpK+H4QqddS6mBiWCNYzxXCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 08:39:54 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU60zM5j5cLNqabmm2p-yt9HdOgPQm=XBf49e9WQ6TLCpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bishop Bettini <bishop@php.net>
Cc: "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Bishop Bettini <bishop@php.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Jan 9, 2016, at 09:43, 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'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.

This is exactly what I have in mind with warnings. While the kind of
warning used in this case does not match with the one I would give in
this case. My example (sorry to do not have explicitly mentioned it,
my intention was to test the ground) was about telling Sarah "you have
no clue about..." or something like that (I do not remember the exact
wording but you get the idea). The warning should have started there,
for example.

In any case, this kind of warning is on spot to what I refer as
"warning" in this discussion. It allows people getting too passionate
to go one step back and cool down a little bit. That happens to all of
us at least once or more :)

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org