Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90765
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.48 as permitted sender)
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, internals@lists.php.net
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601201851500.3314@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <BY2PR02MB298A1648FE4552693C7174EACC20@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <43.8B.22511.75120A65@pb1.pair.com>
Message-ID: <56A080E4.2070502@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:55:32 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <43.8B.22511.75120A65@pb1.pair.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> It might leave others feeling pressured, but it's not their fault if
> those contributors feel unsafe without a code of conduct. Nor is the

I don't want to be dismissive, but I do not see anything on the list
that should make anybody feel *unsafe* (unless of course I misunderstand
what you mean by "unsafe", in which case please correct me).
Uncomfortable - sure, exhausted and exasperated - oh yes, but unsafe?
I mean, everybody has the right to *feel* whatever they like, but I
don't see how we can accept any responsibility for those feelings if
they have no base in anything that actually happened? I feel like more
insight into this would definitely be useful - what concerns about
safety we have and CoC would fix?

> flip-side true: a certain person said they fear getting in trouble for
> their political views if the CoC passes, and if they wanted to leave as
> a result, so be it. Nobody is under any obligation to contribute to PHP,
> they can freely choose not to contribute if they wish, and that is their
> right.

That is certainly true, in general. In particular, though, the argument
"do as I tell, or I'll take my toys and leave" is not a very
constructive approach, because it leaves no space for seeking compromise
- either you do exactly as you told to, fully submitting to whatever the
other person says to do, or no collaboration happens ever. While on some
(very small set of) questions it may be the way to go, in most areas I
don't think this is a fair way to do things.

> I think it would be worse if you were not allowed to make such
> statements. It's better that people be aware of consequences than be
> surprised later.

I am a firm believer in freedom of expression, so "allowed" is not a
question, however some arguments definitely sound very manipulative, and
"do this, or I leave" is one of them. So it would be nice to avoid it if
at all possible. Especially when it comes to respected members of the
community whose contribution is valued - it is too easy to abuse that as
a means of just silencing anybody who disagrees.

> Personally, I don't see how expanding from covering serious misbehavior
> (harassment etc.) to covering more generally
> non-conducive-to-civil-discussion actions would make things more or less

Very easily. Instead of discussing things on merits, people start
rule-laywering and offense-sniping each other. In fact, we see this
happening from time to time even now, when people who dislike RFC try to
argue against it on technicalities, and I think it does not improve
matters, but if we officially enshrine this as a policy, this would grow
tenfold. It is much easier to say "she is posting too often!" or "he
disagrees with me too much and I feel offended and threatened!" and try
to shut the opponent up than to address the matter of disagreement. So
we are creating motivation for destructive behavior. This needs to be
addressed.

> Even if you believe that it's not a problem, that doesn't change the
> opinion of people who do think that an unenforced code of conduct is
> problematic.

Worse than not having any at all? If so, why exactly - what aspect or
behavior specifically is becoming worse?

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com