Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90660 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 50846 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2016 14:13:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Jan 2016 14:13:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:9605] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 4F/61-39304-58EF8965 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:13:27 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.240.16.115]) (Authenticated sender: flaupretre@free.fr) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 595E34B0002; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:11:55 +0100 (CET) To: Stig Bakken , Zeev Suraski References: <8B865D2A-6762-430D-9EA1-9B693DE8E8C3@zort.net> <56948002.1080802@gmail.com> <56958530.2090903@gmail.com> <5696A315.9020509@thefsb.org> <5696A98B.3060907@garfieldtech.com> Cc: Larry Garfield , "internals@lists.php.net" Message-ID: <5698FE79.7000300@php.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:13:13 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160115-1, 15/01/2016), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines -- "let's proceed to ideas" From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Laupretre?=) Le 14/01/2016 16:47, Stig Bakken a écrit : > > 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. I also think positive guidelines are way more effective than punitive rules. And, as we are talking psychology, I suggest we complement the approach with the powerful concept of 'compliance without pressure'. This concept states that someone will naturally respect better something he freely and explicitely agreed with (sorry for my poor english). In our case, it may take the form of a short statement, listing positive behaviors we want to encourage in the community, expressed in the first person, expanding the idea of 'I'll try to act with more empathy and respect among other community members'. Then, publish it and just let people click on a button when the want to mark their personal engagement to follow these guidelines. Under the statement, just list the names of people who 'signed' on it. The key point is that this must be a voluntary decision. There must be no pressure on list members to sign this 'good conduct' statement. This may sound naive but such 'soft power' mechanism already proved excessively successful in a lot of similar situations. Regards François