Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90785
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <8F.19.09073.02BF0A65@pb1.pair.com>
To: 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> <56A080E4.2070502@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:36:59 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:42.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0 SeaMonkey/2.39
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56A080E4.2070502@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)

Hi Stas,

Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> 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?

Safety isn't usually something people have to worry about with the list, 
I think. Usually we're civil.

That being said, the CoC discussion seems to have attracted attention 
from other parts of the Internet, and at least I, personally, do not 
feel entirely safe speaking out about it now because I fear becoming the 
newest target of online harassment from right-wing groups. This 
discussion is already being watched by them.

I can't really talk about other people's motives for not contributing, 
however. Certainly safety isn't the only concern people might have.

>> 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.

It's not a nice way to conduct negotiations, but I don't think this is a 
deliberate attempt at forcing people to accept a code of conduct. 
Rather, I think people who have said they might leave do so because they 
have gotten sick of the "toxicity" of the list and are the code of 
conduct being rejected because of it would be a last straw. I can't 
claim to speak for them, though, so I'll stop talking about this.

It comes off as manipulative, but what can be done? Would it be better 
to silently disappear after a code of conduct is rejected?

>
>> 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.

Ah, actually I can see what you're getting at. It does sometimes happen 
that people complain about how others are behaving in discussions, 
others who disagree with them. But I think often those concerns are 
quite valid nonetheless... surely it must be possible to design things 
so that dealing with such behaviour doesn't give the opposing side an 
unfortunate advantage. Perhaps if you were to temporarily ban someone 
from the list, say, it would delay the RFC they were dicussing. It must 
be possible to deal with people's behaviour separately from their 
technical opinions. I worry if people can be immune from criticism 
because they favour a particular side of a technical argument.

That's just a very quick thought though, don't take it as a concrete 
proposal, it's more a musing.

>> 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?

It could be, it's arguable. If you have a set of rules but nothing is 
done if they are violated, then someone who sees the set of rules and is 
unaware they are unenforced might be given a false impression.

Thanks.
-- 
Andrea Faulds
https://ajf.me/