Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90611
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <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>
	<EBCC487A-96F7-4101-A273-1F4030D170D0@rouvenwessling.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:15:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAObuZdvT4nOcYpbHv1cf-BLcpjZYVuXk61aS5De4+UonJTcbmw@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Rouven_We=C3=9Fling?= <me@rouvenwessling.de>
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122f05443bd42052938a250
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines (WAS:
 Adopt Code of Conduct)
From: derokorian@gmail.com (Ryan Pallas)

--089e0122f05443bd42052938a250
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Rouven We=C3=9Fling <me@rouvenwessling.de>
wrote:

>
> > On 13 Jan 2016, at 14:57, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 just bad, and RFCs are often withdrawn or fail to pass.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 thi=
nk
> 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 an=
y
> proponent of the RFC.  The same holds true for several other people - who
> provided relevant feedback which went ignored.  In fact, the response cam=
e
> 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 tim=
e'.
>
> 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 to=
ok
> 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 h=
elpful) and then
> respond to accumulated feedback in one email. Yes that=E2=80=99s more wor=
k 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 entir=
e
> mailing lists.
>
> TL;DR: If you find yourself replying more than once an hour to a thread,
> something is wrong.
>
>
>
Yup, this is explicitly part of "mailing list rules"

Do not post when you are angry. Any post can wait a few hours. Review
      your post after a good breather or a good nights sleep.

Try to wait a bit longer before
      sending your replies to give other people more time to digest your an=
swers
      and more importantly give you the opportunity to make sure that you
      aggregate your current position into a single mail instead of multipl=
e
      ones. [1]


Of course, it also says things like "Do not top post" and we see how often
that happens...

[1]
http://git.php.net/?p=3Dphp-src.git;a=3Dblob_plain;f=3DREADME.MAILINGLIST_R=
ULES;hb=3DHEAD

--089e0122f05443bd42052938a250--