Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90577
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.51 as permitted sender)
To: John Bafford <jbafford@zort.net>
References: <8B865D2A-6762-430D-9EA1-9B693DE8E8C3@zort.net>
 <56948002.1080802@gmail.com> <A51E3740-45AD-4522-AFB6-74698066DB95@zort.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <56958530.2090903@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:58:56 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A51E3740-45AD-4522-AFB6-74698066DB95@zort.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines (WAS: Adopt Code of
 Conduct)
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> Let me reiterate that the question that was posed, and which I am
> answering is, “Why do people avoid internals?” and “Does internals
> want to attract newcomers?”

Sure, but you talked about specific behavior in specific discussion.
Except of an incident of some unfortunate name-calling, my opinion was
that it was pretty common discussion which did not feature any
disruptive behavior, but you called it "reprehensive" - so I wanted to
know why, if you can explain.

> * 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.)

But we can not change the conduct of "whole of internals as a group". It
is just a metaphor describing set of behaviors of its members. So if we
can not move past "guys, you suck!" then it is understandable but we
can't do anything about it.

> Toxic internals is not just bad words. It’s *all of the above*.

OK, I could nitpick on specific but it's not important. What is
important is - what to do about it?

> them”, 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.

What would you do instead? I mean, telling people is not enough - what
else, bans?

> 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 must disagree with that. Put together we have produced something that
million people use and create amazing things based on it. Yes, sometimes
seeing how the sausage is made is not a pretty sight. But presenting it
as it's just that I think is wrong.

> Another part of the problem is the constant gaslighting and
> Sea-Lioning (as Anthony puts it). I’ve 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’s always someone who seems intent on
> intentionally misunderstanding the situation. A lot of talk and
> nothing really said.

I would caution you not to confuse "somebody is not agreeing with me"
with "somebody is maliciously misunderstanding me". There's a lot being
said, and most of what is being said was important to say (not all of it).

> Again, a reminder: perception is more important than reality. Whether

I must say I completely disagree with that statement. I think reality
does matter.

> community. But internals? I should not feel like I have to don an
> asbestos suit just to get into a trivial conversation.

Just a note - CoC is way apart from a "trivial conversation", it is a
big thing. So is STH and so on. "Trivial conversation" would be asking
for status of a pull request or committing a typo fix. Not much chance
for 1000-message discussion.

> Internal’s current code of conduct (and again: *perception* is more
> important than reality), *strictly from an observation of it’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.

I'm sorry but I must notice I think you observations is quite wrong (I
mean I don't doubt you feel that way, I just doubt it indeed happened
that way). There was a bit of hyperbole, I admit - but no personal
attacks, and no hate. Unless you are confusing disagreement with hate?
That's my personal perception.

> Oh, yes, people get yelled at and they shut up for awhile eventually.

OK, so telling people they are in the wrong not enough. What would be? I
mean, I got it, you think things are really bad. I am not sure I agree,
but never mind that, I got your point and I appreciate it. So, what's
your proposal? Bans? Special troika on enforcement of politeness? That
wouldn't work. Any better proposals?

> 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 “this 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’s going to be amazing when it’s done”.

That would be amazing, but real humans very rarely behave this way when
they think Frobinator feature is the best way to ensure PHP dies a slow
horrible death. And whatever you propose, however you think brilliant it
is, there might be be people that think exactly that. So, what we do
then? It's easy to be warm and supporting when everybody agrees, except
for some small unimportant details, but how would you be warm and
supporting while telling a person that you think the feature they worked
on for the whole last year is a horrible idea and they should not
mention it ever again? That's the real problem.

> Here’s how: *STOP BEING TOXIC*. How? I dunno. I’m open to ideas. I’m

So, let's proceed to ideas?
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com