Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90443 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 66784 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2016 04:11:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Jan 2016 04:11:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.52 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.218.52 mail-oi0-f52.google.com Received: from [209.85.218.52] ([209.85.218.52:35275] helo=mail-oi0-f52.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5E/E7-14657-1E9D1965 for ; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 23:11:13 -0500 Received: by mail-oi0-f52.google.com with SMTP id p187so16263771oia.2 for ; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 20:11:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=qotprzmPt6O0KFJzxbxsbchV6QNSsbPXb5xh57v9zSI=; b=X3UOhI7nndnVOavmP8Lr+XD11Rc/33Jk4x7fIMlUENCMJVJ67suHBzcYQrXR4RYVOl VuCvmiyTm3W4hBsMF6lwgMlh8nW61PASek1dJSp4yh/NQc+TOJ/A1vEHHbLpsf/Uu6WT vSOADRIewNCVWupimrNO8sb+YhFTDW/69JdWFhLJkajTyLxgqvH85mbgaB6/8ETsZyXj YZdt97qH/KJfNvi/Ov6yRJqxboWHNbRHSd8ep2lK/HEkrS6i871oQD705WLytiL0KaxE bC5m8LAriCb7s2NSSuATqyyUz7JxGfOgOEz2GsOMk/P6EvWBbyWFcg7qsTTapf+DsQos +V6A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.71.213 with SMTP id u204mr84713777oia.63.1452399069983; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 20:11:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.64.136 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 20:11:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.64.136 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 20:11:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <910b145571b2c3e98338d54c0dd6a981@mail.gmail.com> <186c14463ddaecf83881a05bcc3da4d7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 11:11:08 +0700 Message-ID: To: David Zuelke Cc: Anthony Ferrara , PHP internals , Zeev Suraski Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e5154a37c180528f302f3 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) --001a113e5154a37c180528f302f3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Jan 10, 2016 10:19 AM, "David Zuelke" wrote: > > +1 to all the points below; pretty much my concerns and thoughts exactly. I am bit confused by your last replies. On one side you said you don't feel comfortable and on the other you agree to say that it is not a toxic environment. I am on the same line than Zeev on this point. I do not see most of the discussions here as non toxic, at worst passionate and sometimes stubborn. There is only one problem with that. We are not alone. Most of the oldest (no offense meant ;) get used to this. And we know each other since years and get around one or another comment well, filtering the message to get the actual information. This is not the case for anyone new, or someone who recently joined us. And this is what it is all about. To create a better context. And if we have to give up our little habits to achieve it, then let do it. I think it would be much easier if we start to accept how we are seen and how people feel about what we do. Whether we agree or not with it is not relevant for such things. These are clear signs that we do things in a not so optimal way, preventing new people or not regular contributors to actively participate to the development of php. > > On 08.01.2016, at 08:30, Zeev Suraski wrote: >> 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. --001a113e5154a37c180528f302f3--