Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90632
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain thefsb.org designates 173.203.187.91 as permitted sender)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.9.151119
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 18:21:58 -0500
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>,
	John Bafford <jbafford@zort.net>
CC: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <D2BC3356.6A42C%fsb@thefsb.org>
Thread-Topic: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines -- "let's proceed to
 ideas"
References: <8B865D2A-6762-430D-9EA1-9B693DE8E8C3@zort.net>
 <56948002.1080802@gmail.com>
 <A51E3740-45AD-4522-AFB6-74698066DB95@zort.net>
 <56958530.2090903@gmail.com>
 <5696A315.9020509@thefsb.org>
 <5696C3AC.7030809@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5696C3AC.7030809@gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines -- "let's proceed to
 ideas"
From: fsb@thefsb.org (Tom Worster)

On 1/13/16, 4:37 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi!
>
>> Yes we can!
>> 
>> Let's say *we* would improve our conduct. I mean *we* as literally you
>> and me: two individuals. As a result the conduct of "whole of internals
>> as a group" would improve a bit. If improving our own individual conduct
>
>Not by definition given by John - he said that "behavior of the group"
>is not behavior of any individual, but something different (still have
>no idea what exactly).
>
>But fine, I'll buy it anyway. Let's improve our conduct, you and me.
>How? What you want to happen, can you describe specific action that has
>to be taken and specific result you expect to come from that action?
>
>I mean, I read your email, I read several John's emails, and still I
>have no answer on that simple question. Not "let's do lots of things so
>that everything would be awesome", but some specific things.

Right now I can call out your last paragraph. But before I do, remember
John's point about perception versus reality. I go further. With respect
to what goes down on a list-serv, there is only perception and nothing
else matters. The following characterizations may seem wrong to you but if
you really want some specific things, here we go...

1. I don't remember you asking me "that simple question". I could be
wrong. But unless you did, "and still have no answer" is an accusation of
me and/or John of being delinquent in answering it.

2. Yours is not a "simple question" at all, except in the trivial sense
that it requires few words to ask and sounds simple. It's a very complex
question which, if I am to answer it carefully, will take a lot of time.

3. Together 1. and 2. mean, indirectly, "Tom and John can't answer this
simple question and they are incoherent."

4. "let's do lots of things so that everything would be awesome" is a
misrepresentation. I shouldn't need to compare the content of my previous
email with this characterization to make it clear. I'm confident you're
smart enough to see the difference.

5. The same quoted phrase is just insulting enough to provoke me (and
perhaps John, idk) into an emotional response.

6. The same quoted phrase communicates to the group that we are silly
people asking for pie-in-the-sky things that cannot possibly work.

On the surface you appear to ask for specific suggestions of how to
communicate differently/better. Supposing this is your sincere and only
purpose with that paragraph, here's an answer: I suggest you avoid
inflammatory implications and subtexts (such as 1. thru 6.) and instead
ask the question straight. For example: "I mean, would you give some
specific examples of things that you or me or maybe others could have said
differently?"

However, I am not sure this was your purpose. 1. thru 6. also suggest your
purpose was to gain the upper hand by ridiculing me and denigrating the
content of my previous email, and to shut down this conversation. I have
some doubt that this is the whole story, hence I took the time to answer
the surface question.

If you want more examples, I can go through old emails, critique them and
give suggestions but I'll have to do it at my normal hourly rate :p
Obviously, I am not the one to be teaching this stuff. There are
specialists and textbooks that deal with difficult kinds of human
communications. The example above is only to demonstrate that improvements
are within easy reach. And because you asked, or maybe asked ;)

Tom