Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90436
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain heroku.com designates 209.85.223.181 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
In-Reply-To: <186c14463ddaecf83881a05bcc3da4d7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:19:38 -0800
Cc: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>,
 internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <BAD51E81-51FC-46B8-8155-2479D03C6C5B@heroku.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> <186c14463ddaecf83881a05bcc3da4d7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: dz@heroku.com (David Zuelke)

+1 to all the points below; pretty much my concerns and thoughts =
exactly.

> On 08.01.2016, at 08:30, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>=20
>> We've seen time and time again that the court of public opinion is a
>> horrific
>> judge for these style issues.
>=20
> This sentence has me worried in several different ways.  Would you =
care to
> provide some references how the court of public opinion was a horrific =
judge
> for these style issues?
> Secondly, it's the first time (I believe, could be wrong) that the =
word
> 'style' makes an entrance to this thread.  I thought we were dealing =
with
> truly unacceptable behaviors like personal attacks and harassment, not
> 'style issues'.
>=20
>=20
>> I'm 100% open to completely rewriting the RFC, to pulling in a =
different
>> CoC,
>> to rewriting or reusing a different conflict resolution policy. =
That's all
>> 100% on
>> the table. However, I will not support what many are suggesting here =
that
>> people will be required (even if just
>> initially) to report issues publicly.
>=20
> I for one don't feel strongly about having to report in public.  I =
don't
> mind having a private mediation team, personally I think it makes more
> sense.  The problem isn't public vs. private per se.  The problem is =
with
> this team having judicial powers, and with the RFC providing =
'structure for
> persecution'.  Once systems are in place, people start using them - =
and
> since these systems are going to be inherently flawed (I wrote about =
that in
> my other emails), that's a recipe for disaster.  And I do agree, the
> combination of a private team AND judicial powers is the worst.
>=20
> Private mediation team whose sole purpose is trying to diffuse =
conflicts -
> sure.  Private [anything] team with jurisdiction, plus some sort of =
pseudo
> ready-to-execute law as a part of the RFC - won't get my support.
>=20
>> Simply look at the level of attacks that me and a few other =
committers
>> have
>> received by making this proposal. I don't feel comfortable making any =
of
>> those attacks public (drawing more attention to them). In private, to =
a
>> team
>> that is trusted and has even a baseline set of "powers" to at least =
report
>> an
>> incident with identifying details redacted would be far better than =
just
>> requiring people to "come forward with any issue".
>=20
> I'm with Kevin here 100%.
> I just saw your reply to him while writing this.  It has me wondering =
&
> worried in two additional ways:
> Worried:  You say you don't think they constitute CoC violations.  Do =
you
> see the problem in that statement?  That's exactly the 'open for
> interpretation' issue we're pointing out. Maybe someone else in your
> position would feel differently and file a case, and plead it strongly
> before a non-professional CoC team and sway them his way?  While there =
were
> certainly some extreme statements made on this thread, I think a more
> accurate description of them is that none of them came even remotely =
close
> to being unacceptable.  And here's your difference in interpretation -
> "Probably not a CoC violation" vs. "Not even close to being =
unacceptable
> behavior".
> Wondering:  If you don't think they're CoC violations, how would this =
CoC
> help?  On one hand you seem to be pointing to them as a reason why the =
CoC
> is needed, but on the other, you're saying they probably don't violate =
it.
> In other words, how is it relevant to the discussion?
>=20
>> I think many do agree. If you look at this 225+ reply thread, the =
vast
>> majority
>> of karma holding people have not responded (even many who frequent =
this
>> list). A few (5+) of them have reached out to me personally to say =
that
>> they
>> are explicitly staying out of this discussion because of the level of
>> aggression
>> and tone, but would be willing to support a reasonable proposal (some
>> provided meaningful feedback on it, some support the current =
revision).
>>=20
>> Think about that. People who are long standing members of this =
community
>> and project do not feel that they can safely respond to this very =
thread.
>> Think of the irony there.
>=20
> To be honest, I thought hard before getting involved in this thread, =
and not
> for the reasons you think.  Opposing this RFC, IMHO, takes a lot more =
guts
> than supporting it - as it seemingly a "Let's make the world better, =
who's
> in favor?" RFC.  Who in his right mind doesn't want to make the world
> better?
> Also, most of the positive responses were before a good case against =
the RFC
> was established.  In fact, what I'm seeing is that some of the early
> supporters of the RFC changing their mind.
>=20
>> One active community member (though does not have karma here) is
>> quoted to say "The tone of the 'discussion' is such that I wouldn't =
dream
>> of
>> throwing in 2 cents, let alone attempt to spearhead real and lasting
>> change".
>=20
> If this RFC was accepted, would we be banning or otherwise taking =
measures
> against anybody based on it?
> If yes, let's discuss it right now because this is very worrisome.
> If not, how is it relevant?
> IMHO, it's not the end of the world that people stay of certain =
discussions
> because they can't take the 'heat' of the argument.  I've certainly =
done
> that many times, and it's perfectly fine.  I think we're a lot better =
off
> having strong, healthy discussions vs. having a safe place with ponies =
and
> rainbows where people can't truly say what they think.  We must not
> circumvent healthy discussions, although I think having a vision-like =
CoC
> that extends Rasmus' "Be Respectful" mantra is a good idea.
>=20
> Finally, this RFC was initially portrayed as a way to deal with =
extreme
> cases that rarely happen.  Now, we're hearing about threats and =
attacks left
> and right, that - supposedly (it's implied) - the RFC would have dealt =
with
> but that are all unavailable for review - so they're not helpful for =
us to
> analyze whether the RFC would have dealt with them well or not.  In =
fact, as
> I said, it has me worried that your definitions for attacks and =
threats may
> be different from my definitions, which in turn would be different =
from the
> members of the CoC team and everyone else's.  Worse - we're hearing - =
again,
> implied - that this RFC is actually designed to fix the 'toxic nature' =
of
> internals - or in other words, used quite frequently since if we're =
labeling
> internals as 'toxic', it's probably not a case here and there but more =
like
> a spring cleaning that's in order.  I'll state it right here and now - =
I
> don't think internals is toxic, and way too often 'toxic' is used to
> describe to-the-point scrutiny of or opposition to ideas, by people =
who have
> vested interest in having said ideas pass.
>=20
> Zeev
>=20
> --=20
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>=20