Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90583
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain garfieldtech.com from 66.111.4.27 cause and error)
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <8B865D2A-6762-430D-9EA1-9B693DE8E8C3@zort.net>
 <56948002.1080802@gmail.com> <A51E3740-45AD-4522-AFB6-74698066DB95@zort.net>
 <BY2PR02MB2988A3093E76D1E675BFD74ACCA0@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <BY2PR02MB298DE99C343CCB5B58D02E5ACCA0@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <56959467.5040404@garfieldtech.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:03:51 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR02MB298DE99C343CCB5B58D02E5ACCA0@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines (WAS:
 Adopt Code of Conduct)
From: larry@garfieldtech.com (Larry Garfield)

On 1/12/16 5:27 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> 4.  As soon as authors notice substantial opposition, they'll quickly realize
>> they're dealing with an RFC that's very unlikely to pass, and probably eiter
>> abandon it or go back to the drawing board - and eliminate any contention
>> that may have otherwise surrounded it.
> One other thing I forgot to mention is that if I run the same statistics for the RFCs that were rejected, I *believe* that the most contentious ones would be the ones that garnered around 40-60% of support.  These, by definition, are controversial RFCs.  Those too are likely not to get too far off the ground and cause storms, and we'd be saving the headache associated with them as well, not just the ones which barely cleared 67%, for the same reason stated in item #4 above.  I haven't checked this theory though.
>
> Zeev

If I'm understanding you correctly, your suggestion is essentially to 
make it easier for a vocal minority to in effect filibuster an RFC so 
that said vocal minority doesn't have to get as up-in-arms to convince 
others to join them?

While an interesting concept, I fear it would just move the up-in-arms 
to the other side.  Vis, if a strong proponent of an RFC saw (gasp) 5 
people opposed, knowing that could kill the RFC in a vote, they're as 
likely to "advocate harder" as back off, just as you suggest its 
opponents "advocate harder" now.  We're net-zero in terms of the people 
who feel a need to "advocate harder", but with fewer RFCs passing.

I'm still of the mind that the lack of formal structure is part of the 
issue, because when things bubble over there's no one responsible for 
holding people accountable for their bubbling, and there's no one we can 
look to as responsible for doing so.  As John mentioned there's the 
Bystander Problem.

"The culture of any organization is shaped by the worst behavior the 
leader is willing to tolerate." - Since we don't have a formal leader 
(deliberately), that means it's shaped by the worst behavior someone is 
able to get away with.  The ever-shifting list of informal, de facto 
leaders needs to step up more often and not tolerate, and we need to 
recognize who that is.

-- 
--Larry Garfield