Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90609
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain rouvenwessling.de from 80.241.60.212 cause and error)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_46101BFE-AC31-48A9-90EA-44C4A930C577"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR02MB2983F0BFC7CB364676CF177ACCB0@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:55:01 +0100
Cc: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <EBCC487A-96F7-4101-A273-1F4030D170D0@rouvenwessling.de>
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> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601131049220.3314@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl> <BY2PR02MB2983F0BFC7CB364676CF177ACCB0@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines (WAS: Adopt Code of Conduct)
From: me@rouvenwessling.de (=?utf-8?Q?Rouven_We=C3=9Fling?=)

--Apple-Mail=_46101BFE-AC31-48A9-90EA-44C4A930C577
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


> On 13 Jan 2016, at 14:57, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>=20
> I don't see it that way. I think I provided very relevant feedback - =
that yes, called for a very substantial revision of the proposal and a =
removal of a substantial part of it - but I still marked the concept of =
having a CoC as a good idea from the get go.  Separately, I think that =
if people think that a given proposal is a bad idea and cannot be =
improved - it's perfectly fine that they would voice their opinion.  =
Some ideas are just bad, and RFCs are often withdrawn or fail to pass.  =
Personally I don't think the CoC proposal is inherently bad - quite the =
opposite - but I think its implementation the way it's currently phrased =
is quite negative.  To be perfectly honest, I'm offended that despite =
spending literally hours on providing feedback and making my case for =
why even the latest draft is problematic (and how I think it can be =
improved to reach consensus) - feedback that were completely respectful =
- I received no response from any proponent of the RFC.  The same holds =
true for several other people - who provided relevant feedback which =
went ignored.  In fact, the response came as saying 'No more feedback =
please.  My next email will be presenting a final draft, after which =
I'll go to a vote after the minimum allotted time'.

As someone who is only occasionally participating on internals, maybe my =
2ct are worthwhile here. Note that I=E2=80=99ve only read the first ~150 =
emails (out of currently 323 mails) on the CoC thread - at some point it =
just took up too much time - so my opinion is based on that sample.

What happened in that thread (in other bigger discussions before) is =
that people feel the urge to reply to every point individually as soon =
as they see the mail. In my experience it=E2=80=99s much better to make =
a point, stand back while feedback comes in (also helps calm you if a =
topic agitates someone - it=E2=80=99s ok to have strong feeling, but =
getting angry isn=E2=80=99t helpful) and then respond to accumulated =
feedback in one email. Yes that=E2=80=99s more work than just firing off =
a quick reply, but quick replies aren=E2=80=99t what=E2=80=99s needed in =
a discussion of (hopefully) well considered arguments.

Instead what we have is people writing 6 emails in 15 minutes =
(admittedly an extreme example), someone writing a reply to the first =
message before the last message is even written, which then also gets an =
email and so. Also people seem to repeat themselves quite a bit. This =
makes it *incredibly* time consuming to follow just one issue, let alone =
the entire mailing lists.

TL;DR: If you find yourself replying more than once an hour to a thread, =
something is wrong.






--Apple-Mail=_46101BFE-AC31-48A9-90EA-44C4A930C577--