Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90641
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D2BD0D4A.6A53E%fsb@thefsb.org>
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>
	<D2BC3356.6A42C%fsb@thefsb.org>
	<5696E1C7.9070101@gmail.com>
	<D2BD0D4A.6A53E%fsb@thefsb.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 21:37:19 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU6T3unCuRFxjAu7kYb5VfTNDp+ugbR77Ye_6ugB95Hgyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Worster <fsb@thefsb.org>
Cc: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines -- "let's
 proceed to ideas"
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Tom Worster <fsb@thefsb.org> wrote:
> Hi Stas,
>
> Sorry for the follow up but I only noticed this after I woke up this
> morning.
>
> Amusing irony! In this instance, I tried to make a technical argument
> about language and you picked up the wrong end of the stick and blew up
> out of proportion because I didn't choose words that make clear me purpose.
>
> If I can get a smile out of Internals, I just gotta take it.
>
> That's all. I have to concentrate on other things today.
>
> Tom
>
>
> On 1/13/16, 6:46 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi!
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>I don't think it's right. This is basically claiming the right to deny
>>reality. Of course, each person has the right to be delusional, but if
>>we each operate on basis of our own delusions without basis in reality,
>>I don't see how collaboration would be possible.
>>
>>> wrong. But unless you did, "and still have no answer" is an accusation
>>>of
>>> me and/or John of being delinquent in answering it.
>>
>>No, it's not. It is trying to get us from venting bad feeling to looking
>>for solution - in which I failed miserably, evidently. You can build a
>>narrative of being offended and attacked out of anything, if you are
>>determined to do so. This, however, is an unproductive and
>>nonconstructive behavior, which will never find any solutions and
>>improve anything.
>>
>>I however would submit it presents an excellent example of the danger of
>>enforcing such vague and subtle things as "perception" and "atmosphere".
>>One can blow literally *anything* out of proportion and present it as an
>>attack and an insult, even if nothing like that was ever meant.
>>
>>> However, I am not sure this was your purpose. 1. thru 6. also suggest
>>>your
>>
>>My purpose was to start constructive process of producing ideas and
>>finding solutions, if there was a will to cooperate on that. So far my
>>impression is there's none. OK then, moving on to code fixes.
>>
>>--
>>Stas Malyshev
>>smalyshev@gmail.com

I think we get every one point about where we stand, between the
people against a CoC, against a CoC with teeth etc. This is getting
nowhere and we are really off topic.

I would suggest to stop talking in circle for now and wait the next
version of the RFC. Then we can focus on the content of the CoC, let
me rephrase that, then we can focus only on the content of the CoC and
the eventual "CoC group" and its role.

Please.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org