Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91159
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain heroku.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1602091416580.7348@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:23:06 +0100
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>,
 PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <25F60A93-8DB5-4383-B799-C326E535C31A@heroku.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1602091208150.7348@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl> <BY2PR02MB2980991BC5A82BE60B75114ACD60@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1602091416580.7348@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Contributor Guidelines, and Updates to Code of Conduct progress
From: dz@heroku.com (David Zuelke)

On 09.02.2016, at 15:33, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:
>=20
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> I've changed it to:
>=20
> * Debate the technical issues, and ideas behind them, but never attack =
the
>  person holding them. People will disagree, so be it.

I agree with Zeev here. It would be good to simplify this, and adding an =
explicit note about the inverse as well.

Something like:

"Debate issues and ideas, not the person holding them. Regardless of =
what side of a discussion you're on, realize that criticism of ideas or =
actions is distinct from criticism of a person."

David