Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91149
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 14:33:10 +0000 (GMT)
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
cc: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR02MB2980991BC5A82BE60B75114ACD60@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1602091416580.7348@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1602091208150.7348@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl> <BY2PR02MB2980991BC5A82BE60B75114ACD60@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="8323329-1978737494-1455028391=:7348"
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Contributor Guidelines, and Updates to Code of
 Conduct progress
From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans)

--8323329-1978737494-1455028391=:7348
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Zeev Suraski wrote:

> 1.  "Debate the technical issues, and never attack a person's opinion.=20
> People will disagree, so be it."
>=20
> I think this sentence is problematic.  Not that I'm pro-attacks, but=20
> opinions - as ideas - should absolutely be up for scrutiny and debate. =
=20
> What I think we should say instead is this:
>=20
> "Debate the ideas, never attack the person holding them."
>=20
> Criticizing ideas is absolutely fine, and it's healthy.  Ideas can be=20
> bad even if they don't have any 'technical issues' in them.  It's the=20
> personal attacks we should avoid.  And of course, the criticism should=20
> be to-the-point - but the proposed text already covers that.
>=20
> We can consider adding another important part of the equation - "Don't=20
> consider critique of an idea you proposed as critique of you=20
> personally."  As humans, we tend to do that, and we shouldn't.

I've changed it to:

* Debate the technical issues, and ideas behind them, but never attack the
  person holding them. People will disagree, so be it.


> 2.  "Suggest improvements to the RFC, don't just shoot it down."
>=20
> I disagree that this is a Good Thing.  There are most certainly bad=20
> RFCs, that cannot be made better (typically ones that stem from bad=20
> ideas, which absolutely do exist as per the previous point).  These=20
> RFCs need to be shot down.  Moreover, there are cases when the person=20
> who is talented at finding holes in things isn't necessarily talented=20
> at coming up with solutions.  Finding holes (negative aspects) of RFCs=20
> is an exceptionally important task, and we don't want to silence=20
> people who find issues - only because they can't think of solutions=20
> for them.
>=20
> What I think we should say instead:
>=20
> "When you disagree with a certain proposal, try to think whether there=20
> are changes that can be made to the RFC that will enable you to=20
> support it.  If you come up with such improvements, respectfully=20
> propose them to the RFC author to try and evolve the idea into a=20
> better one.  Only resort towards arguing against the RFC if you think=20
> it's a bad idea and you can think of no ways to improve it.  When=20
> disagreeing..."

I've added this bit.

> 3.  s/Don't use hyperbole/Try avoiding hyperbole - both because=20
> hyperbole is difficult to define, and because people respond better to=20
> asking vs. demanding.

I've updated this to:

* Try to avoid hyperbole to defend your arguments.


> 4. s/Do not post when you are angry/Try avoiding posting when you are=20
> angry - for similar reasons

I'm leaving this one standing.

> 5.  I think the 'max 2 lines email signature' requirement is a bit=20
> archaic.  Who cares?  Do we expect people to change their signature=20
> especially for internals?  Not important, but if we're nitpicking :)

Heh - it's always been in there ! :=C3=BE

I've changed it to:

- Please configure your email client to use a real name.
- Please keep message signature short. Don't add legal disclaimers.

> Note that we have a serious issue with voting process on these topics,=20
> which is probably not much of an issue for this document (for which we=20
> should be able to garner a very strong majority, I believe, and you=20
> already said you consider the vote to be non-binding) - but will=20
> definitely be an issue for any CoC.  But that's something we should=20
> discuss separately.

Yeah, this twtpoll thing was a mistake too. Mostly, because you can post=20
multiple times, and everybody can. I have now created a wiki vote at:

https://wiki.php.net/adopt-code-of-conduct/guidelines (Will reply to=20
original message too)

cheers,
Derick
--8323329-1978737494-1455028391=:7348--