Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90643
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: stig.bakken@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR02MB2986AE0BE9BF510E836FFCAACCC0@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
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>
	<5696A98B.3060907@garfieldtech.com>
	<BY2PR02MB2986AE0BE9BF510E836FFCAACCC0@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:47:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CABM2syu9pxqH8Q5AVwt8Junia7C0MT_Lp3_MMRCLdyw-oEPZ2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c37aba9394fe05294d32b0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines -- "let's
 proceed to ideas"
From: stig@stigbakken.com (Stig Bakken)

--001a11c37aba9394fe05294d32b0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Larry Garfield [mailto:larry@garfieldtech.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 9:46 PM
> > To: internals@lists.php.net
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines --
> > "let's proceed to ideas"
>
>
> > There's an important point we've been glossing over here that I think is
> > important to make explicit, as it is part of the reticence people have
> about
> > CoCs, "culture change", etc.  That all presupposes that there are
> problems,
> > which means that fixing them implies some people's behavior will need to
> > change.  People don't like needing to change their behavior (regardless
> of
> > whether that behavior is subjectively "good" or "bad").
>
> I view this a bit differently.
>
> First, I think saying something like "People will have to change" is not a
> good description of what we're after.  If we're going to declare something
> along the lines of 'New rules here, you're going to have to change' - then
> yes, I think we're going to have a very hard time - both in getting buy-in,
> and in terms of the likelihood of this whole thing actually resulting in
> transforming the atmosphere on internals for the better.  I also don't
> think we need to create unanimous agreement that 'there is a problem'.
> That's the wrong first step - as it creates controversy from the get go (as
> it already did).  The way I see it, we don't need to acknowledge having a
> problem in order to want to improve.  I'm sure that resonates with most
> developers on this list - wanting to continuously improve does not mean
> you're saying that things were problematic to begin with.  Instead, it's an
> assumption which is literally always true - wherever you are, whatever you
> do, you can always do better.  It's true for everything - processes,
> relationships, code - and mailing list etiquette.
>
> The right question, IMHO, is do we want to improve?  Do we want to try and
> be more polite and respectful?  Do we want to try and improve the
> atmosphere?  That's a much easier goal to rally around, I think, and for
> the most part, I can hardly imagine there won't be consensus around it.
>
> > Many lists I'm on, particularly those with high churn, send out an email
> every
> > month automatically with list rules et al.  98% of people won't bother
> reading
> > them 98% of the time, but for the first time you see it it's an
> indication of "oh,
> > yeah, they've code some expectations in place, maybe I'll read them" and
> for
> > subsequent times it's a reminder of "oh yeah, that thing, it exists."
> Similar
> > idea to the company (I forget
> > which) that has the company principles printed out in everyone's cube to
> > read over every morning.
>
> Something along the lines of this should be at least a part of the
> solution, I think.  Continuing the point I made above, instead of having a
> laundry list of what not to do - we should focus on the values and behavior
> we want to encourage  - positive expectations.  I wouldn't call them
> 'rules', either, but guidelines, such as Please Be Respectful, or 'Please
> don't do to others would you wouldn't want others to do to you'.  Humans
> tend to react negatively when they're forced to do something, and much
> better when they're encouraged to do it - especially as we don't want to go
> in the direction of sanctions.  If we end up having a mediation team (not
> the CR team, but a team whose pure job is to mediate) - I think it would be
> fair for it to jump in in case it sees a discussion going south or a
> certain person that's going against the spirit of these values - and I
> believe that in the vast majority of cases, it would be more than enough
> for them to cool off.  Ultimately I think most people want to improve.


I agree whole-heartedly with Zeev here!

Anyone who has a clue about organizational psychology will tell you to
focus on what you want more of, not on what you want to eliminate.  Heck,
anyone who is a parent today should understand this intuitively.

The main focus of a CoC should be positive, describing or even giving
examples of respectful behavior, that way people are guided towards
"wanted" behavior, instead of having to figure it out by process of
elimination from a list of what NOT to do.  Granted, there is such a thing
as common sense, but it's not always that common, so providing positive
guidance is effective.

Several people have suggested splitting the RFC into two: one for the CoC
itself (which should be easier to rally around), and another for how
to deal with problems.  I think this is a very rational approach, it allows
us to learn from experience with the CoC as formulated before setting up
any kind of tribunal or banning system which could backfire badly in
various ways.

 - Stig

--001a11c37aba9394fe05294d32b0--