Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90901
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.169 as permitted sender)
To: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>
References: <56A3F0FA.1050609@mprelu.de>
 <BY2PR02MB298857B07D0082648965EF4ACC50@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <EC.4C.03822.02364A65@pb1.pair.com>
 <BY2PR02MB298BEF430C5AD938564AE86ACC60@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <56A533BC.3060003@gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuRUC771+vTA_MCAMxxbthezoUyVcs-sSpgE0vjJ0M+Hrg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <56A5B16C.60107@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:23:56 -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: <CA+kxMuRUC771+vTA_MCAMxxbthezoUyVcs-sSpgE0vjJ0M+Hrg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> You've watered down the text about bad behaviour in general and in
> particular the bits explicitly listing bad behaviour surrounding
> discussion of RFCs; I do not like that direction.

I purposefully removed some examples of bad behavior, restricting it to
minimal list showing in broad lines what we won't accept. This is not
random - that's the whole point, telling what we *want* to see, and
spending only as much time on what we *do not* want to see as necessary
to give reasonable person an idea what they are not supposed to do,
without turning the thing into a penal code.
As for discussion of RFCs specifically, I think it should be guided by
the same rules as any other discussion on the project, and thus needs no
specific treatment, at least within the bounds of CoC. If we want
specific RFC-targeted advice, we can have it in the docs where we
describe how to make an RFC.

> A significant number of technical RFC discussions have been less
> productive than they should be, due to people repeatedly sending
> emails against an RFC, that repeat what they have already said, which

And if you think CoC can or should prevent this, then we have radically
different views on what CoC is supposed to be. To me, CoC has two tasks:

1. Nudge people in the direction of better cooperation by showing them
how we expect them to behave (this is much more powerful thing than one
may think) and by establishing environment which would attract people
willing to cooperate nicely.

2. Provide tools to deal with rare exceptional events which may
seriously disrupt or destroy cooperation in the project.

For me, if people would use CoC to count how many times they sent a
message on the list and then start arguing about *that* instead of the
actual matter, then we made things worse, not better. The thought that
somebody can be banned from discussion solely because they sent extra
email per hour, or repeated an argument, makes me cringe. We certainly
do not need anything like that here.

It looks like you want CoC to make discussions somehow more structured
or closed to how your ideal of the discussion looks like. If that is the
case, then indeed we have very different ideas of what CoC is for, and I
think most CoCs we have seen so far are nothing like that and never
intended to do that - i.e. regulate the content of non-abusive
non-conflict discussions.


> Also, you probably ought to put your own name as the author names on a
> document when making large changes, instead of leaving other people's
> at the top.

As I said, I did not touch almost anything beyond CoC part. This is
nowhere near finished document, it's just a draft, so whatever name is
there does not matter now. When (if) we get to something finalized, then
we'd put names as appropriate.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com