Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90565
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zort.net designates 96.241.205.2 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
In-Reply-To: <56948002.1080802@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:11:28 -0500
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <A51E3740-45AD-4522-AFB6-74698066DB95@zort.net>
References: <8B865D2A-6762-430D-9EA1-9B693DE8E8C3@zort.net> <56948002.1080802@gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines (WAS: Adopt Code of Conduct)
From: jbafford@zort.net (John Bafford)

Stas,

On Jan 11, 2016, at 23:24, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Hi!
>=20
>> This is yet another example of the toxic internals problem.
>> Regardless of one's views on the CoC proposal, the conduct of
>> php-internals as a whole has been reprehensible.
>=20
> What in your opinion was reprehensive, could you explain?

Let me reiterate that the question that was posed, and which I am =
answering is, =E2=80=9CWhy do people avoid internals?=E2=80=9D and =
=E2=80=9CDoes internals want to attract newcomers?=E2=80=9D

Let me make very clear:

	* I am talking about *perception*. In this context, perception =
is way more important than reality. Because to answer those two =
questions, perception is the key.

	* I am not indicting any one person or event or thing said in =
particular. I am indicting the *whole of internals as a group* on its =
conduct. (And so my comments in general should be taken in that light, =
and not as finger pointing at any one person/event/thing said in =
particular.)


What was reprehensible is not just the comments that were made, *how* =
they were made, and the *response* to them. It=E2=80=99s that it=E2=80=99s=
 a *persistent pattern of behavior*.

It=E2=80=99s not JUST the CoC RFC thread. It=E2=80=99s the STH thread. =
And every other thread like it.

It=E2=80=99s every time the conversation degenerates to nastiness.

It=E2=80=99s every time someone threatens that something needs to be =
their way or they'll take their ball and go home.

It=E2=80=99s every time someone takes their ball and goes home, whether =
they threatened to, or because they felt they had to.

It=E2=80=99s every time someone makes wild accusations and doesn=E2=80=99t=
 take the time to back up their arguments or provide something =
constructive to the discussion.

It=E2=80=99s every time someone nitpicks a proposal to death, =
conveniently (and/or intentionally) missing the point, and keeps doing =
it in an attempt to kill the proposal by attrition, rather than sound =
reasoning.

It=E2=80=99s every time that happens and people don=E2=80=99t shut up =
and admit that their opinion is divergent from consensus, and that =
sometimes we have to agree to disagree, and work towards making the =
whole better.

It=E2=80=99s every time a proposal comes up and people actively try to =
destroy it rather than actively making it better *even if they don=E2=80=99=
t agree with it*.

Toxic internals is not just bad words. It=E2=80=99s *all of the above*.


Every so often, there is a conversation in which someone says things in =
such a caustic manner (or just plain caustic things), and the general =
reaction beyond =E2=80=9C(well, maybe you should tone that done a little =
bit)=E2=80=9D is apologetically =E2=80=9Cwell, they=E2=80=99re not that =
bad in person=E2=80=9D, or, =E2=80=9Cthey=E2=80=99re not a bad =
person=E2=80=9D, or =E2=80=9Cyou just have to know them=E2=80=9D, or =
silent acceptance. And I mean caustic in both the =
corrosive/corroding/abrasive *and* sarcastic/cutting/biting meanings. It =
goes way beyond cute or funny. The level of vitrol is astounding.

And it is *not* acceptable.



I *know* the people on internals are good people. (I presume. I don=E2=80=99=
t know you all personally. But let=E2=80=99s take as given.) I *know* =
everyone here is smart, and hard working, and talented. But everyone put =
together in this pot called php-internals has produced something pretty =
foul. At least, it certainly smells that way.

I understand that we=E2=80=99re a passionate people, and that sometimes =
things get out of hand. But wow, when it gets out of hand, it really =
goes through the roof and people can=E2=80=99t help themselves but pile =
on when the appropriate response is to call a time out, sit back down in =
their chairs, meditate on .


Another part of the problem is the constant gaslighting and Sea-Lioning =
(as Anthony puts it). I=E2=80=99ve watched many conversations run around =
in circles, with everyone making the same points over and over again, =
the tone deteriorating over time (or starting out deteriorated). =
There=E2=80=99s always someone who seems intent on intentionally =
misunderstanding the situation. A lot of talk and nothing really said.


Again, a reminder: perception is more important than reality. Whether =
people like the way internals is, or even if they think that it=E2=80=99s =
simply =E2=80=9Cok=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cacceptable=E2=80=9D, looking at =
internals from the sidelines, the lot of us look brain-damaged, and not =
in a warm fuzzy endearing way, but in a psycopath way.

It doesn=E2=80=99t matter that everyone here is a decent person. I =
don=E2=80=99t think that anyone here is a psycopath. But internals =
itself gives that vibe. I=E2=80=99m sure it doesn=E2=80=99t mean to, but =
it does. Internals is *not* a nice group to work with. If internals were =
my client, I=E2=80=99d fire them. If it were my boss, I=E2=80=99d quit =
and go somewhere else. (Again: *internals, the group*, and not any =
individual person on this list.)




>> And *every* time I start to think, "ok, I'm finally going to dust off
>> those old patches and write some RFCs" this shit happens, and I
>> reconsider and go back to lurk mode because I have no interest in
>> participating in conversations about facists, whether real or
>> imagined.
>=20
> Precisely one person mentioned anything about "fascists", and pretty
> much everybody agreed that was over the top and we should not use such
> words. Was that reprehensible? OK, what would you do instead?

That was just one of the things. And it=E2=80=99s good that people =
jumped on it. It would be one thing if this were the first an only time =
something like that=E2=80=99s happened, but it=E2=80=99s not. This is a =
recurring problem, and it has not been dealt with. Not necessarily the =
same people or the same words, but it keeps happening. Or at least, it =
feels like it keeps happening.

Internals could all be best friends and love each other to death, but it =
sure doen=E2=80=99t look that way.


PHP has an amazing community. It=E2=80=99s one of the reasons I=E2=80=99ve=
 stuck around as long as I have. I like being part of the overall PHP =
community. But internals? I should not feel like I have to don an =
asbestos suit just to get into a trivial conversation.



>> This is getting a bit ranty. But internals deserves it. You all may
>> be great programmers, but in terms of making people *want* to work on
>> php-src, you're shitty salespeople.
>=20
> Maybe. For myself, I'm pretty much surely a shitty salesperson. How
> would you sell it instead?

I=E2=80=99d sell it by first *actually fixing the problem*.

This is going to get a bit more ranty, so please bear with me.

I don=E2=80=99t want to talk about a =E2=80=9CCode of Conduct=E2=80=9D =
(capitalized, as in, the written document with rules and penalties, as =
in, that thing that belongs in that other thread over there).

Instead, I want to talk about internals *actual perceived* =E2=80=9Ccode =
of conduct=E2=80=9D: the way internals *visibly* conducts its behavior, =
and focus strictly on that.

So *PLEASE* do not turn this back into a discussion of the RFC, or any =
particular Code of Conduct, or whether php-internals should have one or =
not because THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. I am not advocating for or =
against a Code of Conduct. I am simply describing internals=E2=80=99 =
actual, perceived, existing, code of conduct.


EVERY person has a code of conduct, a way of acting. EVERY group has =
one. Whether it=E2=80=99s written down and explicit, or whether it=E2=80=99=
s just the way they act, it=E2=80=99s there.

I have a personal code of conduct. Everyone who reads this does too. =
It=E2=80=99s probably not written down on paper. It doesn=E2=80=99t =
matter. There=E2=80=99s a way I act, and a way you act. It=E2=80=99s =
there. It=E2=80=99s what you are. It=E2=80=99s what the group is. By =
example: a code of conduct is not that you have a rule to not kick =
kittens. A code of conduct is *the observation* you don=E2=80=99t kick =
kittens. Whether you have a rule or not is immaterial. Whether there are =
penalties are not is immaterial. It is your *actual conduct*.

There=E2=80=99s a reason why we have character witnesses in trials. =
There=E2=80=99s a reason why words like trust and honor have meaning. =
There=E2=80=99s a reason =E2=80=9Cthey couldn=E2=80=99t have meant it =
that way=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cthat=E2=80=99s not them" carries any =
weight. Because there=E2=80=99s a way people and groups *choose to act*. =
Because there=E2=80=99s a code of conduct, written or unwritten, that is =
demonstrated by actions. (Distinction: *demonstrated*, not *enforced*.)

And when the code of conduct is broken, or when the code of conduct is =
bad to begin with, bad things happen.

Internal=E2=80=99s current code of conduct (and again: *perception* is =
more important than reality), *strictly from an observation of it=E2=80=99=
s actions*, is that the sort of vitrol and hate and gaslighting and =
sea-lioning and personal attacks and hyperbole and whatnot that were =
present in the prior thread is allowed. Because it keeps happening. Oh, =
yes, people get yelled at and they shut up for awhile eventually. But it =
keeps happening. This is not the first time it=E2=80=99s happened. =
It=E2=80=99s not even the second. Or the third.

Doesn=E2=80=99t matter if that=E2=80=99s what you believe, or how the =
group believes, that=E2=80=99s how it certainly looks, from my vantage =
point.

*That* is why people avoid internals. (Well, it=E2=80=99s why *I* avoid =
internals. I can=E2=80=99t speak for everyone, but I doubt I=E2=80=99m =
the only person with this opinion.)

Sitting here on the sidelines, I *want* to participate. I=E2=80=99d like =
to think I have a thick skin. But I absolutely don=E2=80=99t want to put =
up with bullshit and pettiness, and *every* time it happens (which seems =
to always be right around when I start dusting off an old patch or RFC), =
it makes me reconsider.

And this is with me giving internals the benefit of the doubt and =
understanding that the group is passionate and wants to ensure that PHP =
is the best ever. Imagine how bad it looks from someone who isn=E2=80=99t =
automatically inclined to give internals the benefit of the doubt; from =
someone who=E2=80=99s been warned to =E2=80=9Cnot go there, it's =
toxic=E2=80=9D.

The PHP community as a whole is warm, and welcoming, and friendly, AND =
IT SAYS INTERNALS IS TOXIC. What does it say about internals when the =
community it is centered around (or is the center of?) says the core is =
rotten?


The *only* reason I responded to Fran=C3=A7ois=E2=80=99 email, rather =
than putting internals back on the killfile *yet again* is because this =
time I actually have an RFC under discussion, and another one pending, =
and I=E2=80=99d rather not let that work languish for another two years. =
But if this had happened three weeks ago? I probably wouldn=E2=80=99t =
have bothered finishing my RFCs, left them to rot, and it probably would =
have been at least another year before I=E2=80=99d have considered =
wading back in. Because I *do not* want to be a part of the bullshit and =
pettyness.


=46rom the perspective of =E2=80=9Cwhy do people avoid internals=E2=80=9D,=
 and fixing the problem, it doesn=E2=80=99t matter if internals has a =
written Code of Conduct or not. That=E2=80=99s entirely irrelevant. What =
matters is that internals starts taking action by not allowing the =
misbehavior that=E2=80=99s lead us to this point. By not giving credence =
to the thought that it does need an explicit Code of Conduct. Codes of =
Conduct are a thing these days. One was going to show up at =
php-internals eventually. What ought to be embarrassing is that the very =
thread to discuss one can be used as a convincing argument *for* one.

I=E2=80=99m not going to point fingers. Some people are in the wrong and =
know it. Some people are in the wrong and refuse to admit it to =
themselves. Some people don=E2=80=99t realize they=E2=80=99re in the =
wrong. Some (most, really) people could call other people out and choose =
not to because they don=E2=80=99t want to get involved (which, honestly, =
is an entirely prudent choice and I wouldn=E2=80=99t fault anyone =
individually for that). It doesn=E2=80=99t matter. It all contributes to =
the problem.


But I digress.


What I want is for internals as a collective to stop carrying on in a =
manner that causes people to say, with all seriousness, =E2=80=9Cthese =
people need a Code of Conduct=E2=80=9D. I don=E2=80=99t care whether we =
have a written one or not. What I care about is that we stop acting in a =
way that makes people think we *need* one.

I want to look forward to all the awesome technical discussion about the =
next cool feature in PHP. I want to *be a part* of the next cool feature =
in PHP. I want to see a thread of 100 emails and go =E2=80=9Cthis is =
such an amazing discussion on the merits and drawbacks of the new =
Frobinator feature, I disagree with some of the ideas, but I never =
thought about it quite that way before, but gosh, I learned something =
here and it=E2=80=99s going to be amazing when it=E2=80=99s done=E2=80=9D.=


I DON=E2=80=99T want to see a thread of 100 emails and immediately =
think, =E2=80=9Coh, not this same old shit all over again=E2=80=9D. I =
didn=E2=80=99t read most of the CoC proposal thread. Why? Because it was =
the *same old shit all over again*. Could internals have had a reasoned =
discussion about a CoC? Yeah. Did it? No. It turned sour quickly and =
never really recovered. Maybe that was the point. I don=E2=80=99t know. =
Don=E2=80=99t care, doesn=E2=80=99t matter. But this sort of thing needs =
to *never happen again*. (To be explicit: conversations that run this =
course, and not the discussion of whether a CoC is needed and if so what =
it should look like.) When long-timers start killfiling threads because =
they go off the rails, the group as a whole suffers

And that prevents me from wanting to participate, because really, who =
can have a reasoned technical conversation when everyone=E2=80=99s all =
whipped into *actual anger* about this RFC or that other RFC. Whether =
you read the emails or not, that they=E2=80=99re even there and knowing =
(or suspecting) the sort of quality and tone they carry imposes a huge =
cognitive burden on getting awesome stuff done.


So, back to salespeople.

We=E2=80=99ve got a giant steaming pile of crap here. As awesome as =
U+1F4A9 is, the fix is to stop trying to polish the turd and actually =
clean up our act. You want php-internals to lose its toxic reputation? =
Here=E2=80=99s how: *STOP BEING TOXIC*. How? I dunno. I=E2=80=99m open =
to ideas. I=E2=80=99m happy to help. Want to, even. But this shitpile =
needs to be fixed. Internals needs to *accept* there=E2=80=99s a =
problem, and *actually do* something about it.

Once internals *actively puts forth effort* to counter its toxic =
reputation, by *being less toxic*, it will be much easier to attract new =
talent. Do that first. The rest will follow.

-John