Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90594 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 97170 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2016 10:58:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Jan 2016 10:58:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:46961] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A6/12-13057-FED26965 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 05:58:56 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66BA6E20F0; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:58:50 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:58:49 +0000 (GMT) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Zeev Suraski cc: John Bafford , PHP internals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <8B865D2A-6762-430D-9EA1-9B693DE8E8C3@zort.net> <56948002.1080802@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines (WAS: Adopt Code of Conduct) From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Zeev Suraski wrote: > I think that no matter what we do, CoC, guidelines or teams we have in > place - as long as there'll be divisive RFCs, there are going to be > heated, toxic discussions. I think the main issue is the whole concept of "divisive RFCs" as a term. An RFC is a request for *comments*. Instead of people saying (paraphrased) "that is crap, unwanted, needless", the whole point of an RFC is to improve the proposals - before a vote is arranged. The recent discussion on Antony's CoC RFC, has very little people/comments trying to improve it, but instead trying to torpedo it because of "why do we even need it? we're not 'toxic'" (again, paraphrased). > Had we had a 90% bar, it does mean that STH wouldn't have made it into > the language, but it also means that we would probably not have the > discussion saga on internals either, and all of the bad vibes that > surrounded it. That however, makes it very easy for a vocal majority to torpedo everything. I think this is only just going to cause more resentment to the few people that tend to vote against nearly every RFC. But - it's an interesting theory. cheers, Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine