Hi,
This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list.
I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users
tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been
aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to
moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of
previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users
have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest.
If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific
instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the
internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve this.
Regards,
Nikita
Hi!
Hi,
This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list.
I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users
tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been
aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to
moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of
previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users
have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest.
+1
They've generated so much unnecessary noise on this mailing list that
I've had to set up rules in Outlook to automatically mark their emails as
read in order to skip past them.
Let's keep discussions on the mailing list on topic and fruitful.
-Tom
"Thomas Punt" wrote in message
news:AM4PR0901MB1265E675E7965065989892E5F9190@AM4PR0901MB1265.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com...
Hi!
Hi,
This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list.
I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users
tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been
aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests
to
moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of
previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two
users
have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest.+1
They've generated so much unnecessary noise on this mailing list that
I've had to set up rules in Outlook to automatically mark their emails as
read in order to skip past them.Let's keep discussions on the mailing list on topic and fruitful.
-Tom
You may not like what I have to say, but that is no reason to ban me from
saying it. I believe in democracy and free speech, and by banning or
suspending me you are effectively banning the right to free speech. As a
long time user of PHP I earn a living by selling my software all over the
world, so I have a vested interested in seeing that the language is not
changed in a detrimental way. I have seen too many RFCs which do not provide
genuine benefits for the greater PHP community, instead they pander to the
personal whims of a vociferous minority who want to change the language to
suit their personal coding style, or to fit their idea of purity.
As for all this so-called "dick measuring" if you bothered to read the posts
you should see that I try to keep my comments as civil as possible, but when
some prat attacks me personally on this list then I have the right to defend
myself. You should focus your attention of those who make personal attacks
and not those who are defending themselves.
--
Tony Marston
Hi!
You may not like what I have to say, but that is no reason to ban me
from saying it. I believe in democracy and free speech, and by banning
or suspending me you are effectively banning the right to free speech.
This has nothing to do with free speech. You are welcome to exercise
your rights to free speech any way you like. But you don't have the
rights to be in the list if the community does not want it and if your
behavior is unhelpful and un-conductive to the discussion. In that case,
you'd have to exercise your rights to free speech somewhere else. I am
sure the world of democracy will survive this. This, of course, is not
specific to anybody personally - anybody who does not think they can
abide by the rules of civilized discussion on the list could exercise
their free speech rights in other venues, of which there's always an
abundance. Polite, substantial, productive discussion is welcome - we do
not have any barriers or prerequisites for participation. Noise is not
welcome.
Nobody wants to see the noise on the list, and nobody wants to see yet
more noise by discussing who started it and who kicked or spat first and
who broke whose sand castle. Everybody must behave, or take a time out
and relax and think about more pleasant matters until they are able to
be polite again. Again, not about anybody personally, applies to all.
--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
"Stanislav Malyshev" wrote in message
news:cc1f4670-d201-5a06-7309-a2386f8194ee@gmail.com...
Hi!
You may not like what I have to say, but that is no reason to ban me
from saying it. I believe in democracy and free speech, and by banning
or suspending me you are effectively banning the right to free speech.This has nothing to do with free speech. You are welcome to exercise
your rights to free speech any way you like. But you don't have the
rights to be in the list if the community does not want it and if your
behavior is unhelpful and un-conductive to the discussion.
I can understand you banning or suspending someone because of personal abuse
or offensive/foul language, but banning someone simply because you don't
like what they say is a step too far. If this is allowed to happen then soon
you will get to stage where someone says "Anyone who disagrees with my point
of view is an idiot and should be banned from this list".
In that case,
you'd have to exercise your rights to free speech somewhere else. I am
sure the world of democracy will survive this. This, of course, is not
specific to anybody personally - anybody who does not think they can
abide by the rules of civilized discussion
Define "civilised". Anything which does not use foul or abusive language
should be regarded as civilised. Expressing an unpopular opinion is still
civilised. Anyone who tries to ban unpopular opinions should not be welcome
on any list as this prevents proper discussion.
on the list could exercise
their free speech rights in other venues, of which there's always an
abundance. Polite, substantial, productive discussion is welcome - we do
not have any barriers or prerequisites for participation. Noise is not
welcome.
There are too many delicate people on this list who regard any opinion which
differs from theirs as "noise".
Nobody wants to see the noise on the list, and nobody wants to see yet
more noise by discussing who started it and who kicked or spat first and
who broke whose sand castle.
I suggest you start by aiming your wrath at those who move off-topic and
start making personal attacks instead of those who defend themselves from
such attacks.
Everybody must behave, or take a time out
and relax and think about more pleasant matters until they are able to
be polite again. Again, not about anybody personally, applies to all.
--
Tony Marston
Tony, you have a point in the sense that a proposed Code of Conduct --
which would have been binding on posts to lists @php.net -- provoked a
fiery debate (to put it mildly) and was eventually withdrawn
(http://news.php.net/php.internals/90726).
The dominant objections to the CoC did not focus on relatively
apolitical cases like calling someone a habitual liar or implying
non-augmented humans can write bug-free code. Yet the point remains
that there is no doc whose letter or spirit can be debated, AFAIK.
As Stas points out, having a CoC for the list would not be a free
speech issue in the wider sense. But in the absence of such a
yardstick, I do agree with you that there's nothing to justify
ejecting you from the list.
You obviously love using PHP and do not come here simply to bash the
language (to me, that would be grounds for ejection because one would
not legitimately be joining the community, in essence a spam signup).
While I don't agree with your technical viewpoint in the recent flame
war, perhaps you do still have the right to express it here without
fear of suspension/ejection.
But consider this takeaway: while you may not realize it since you're
in too deep at present, the (scalar-pseudo-type-related) war you're
currently in with the other fellow has devolved into silliness.
Neither of you are in my killfile; more the reverse, as it's become so
over-the-top that it's funny.
I know, though, that you take this topic seriously -- but the way
things are going are entirely comedic, with accusations of fabulism (I
don't know where that's from) met by accusations of lack of coding
skill (just as unlikely for a longtime Internals participant).
Assuming you'd rather we take the technical aspects of the debate
seriously, for that reason alone it's worth a reset and a rethink.
—— S.
Am 03.01.18 um 10:55 schrieb Sanford Whiteman:
Tony, you have a point in the sense that a proposed Code of Conduct --
which would have been binding on posts to lists @php.net -- provoked a
fiery debate (to put it mildly) and was eventually withdrawn
(http://news.php.net/php.internals/90726).The dominant objections to the CoC did not focus on relatively
apolitical cases like calling someone a habitual liar or implying
non-augmented humans can write bug-free code. Yet the point remains
that there is no doc whose letter or spirit can be debated, AFAIK.
May I point to the headline "Mailing List Posting Guideline" at the
Mailing-List page[0]? Especially the references to the
README.MAILINGLIST_RULES[1] right at the end? Which in turn references
RFC 1855[2]?
So I'd say there actually is even more than one doc whose letter or
spirit can be debated. But debating is one thing, taking action is
another one.
Just my 0.02€
Cheers
Andreas
[0] http://php.net/mailing-lists.php
[1]
http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=blob_plain;f=README.MAILINGLIST_RULES;hb=HEAD
[2] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
,,,
(o o)
+---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+
| Andreas Heigl |
| mailto:andreas@heigl.org N 50°22'59.5" E 08°23'58" |
| http://andreas.heigl.org http://hei.gl/wiFKy7 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| http://hei.gl/root-ca |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Am 02.01.2018 um 11:49 schrieb Nikita Popov:
I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users
tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been
aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to
moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of
previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users
have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest.
+1
This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing
list.I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users
tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been
aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite
requests to moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a
number of previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time
these two users have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring
contest.
+1
If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific
instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the
internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve
this.
I tried to write these down as part of the community health project, but
as you know that didn't get anywhere...:
https://github.com/derickr/php-community-health/blob/master/RFC.rst
cheers,
Derick
This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing
list.I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users
tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been
aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite
requests to moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a
number of previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time
these two users have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring
contest.+1
If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific
instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the
internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve
this.I tried to write these down as part of the community health project, but
as you know that didn't get anywhere...:
https://github.com/derickr/php-community-health/blob/master/RFC.rstcheers,
Derick
+1
For What It's Worth, these two are the only two I've put on killfile here.
I'm probably not the only one to do so either.
Hi Nikita
2018-01-02 11:49 GMT+01:00 Nikita Popov nikita.ppv@gmail.com:
Hi,
This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list.
I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users
tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been
aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to
moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of
previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users
have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest.If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific
instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the
internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve this.
Huge +1, it was a rather annoying thing to begin the new year with,
that these just can't stop even after a few mails by other readers.
I'm cc'ing Rasmus as I can't think of anyone besides Derick that has
karma to make it happen.
--
regards,
Kalle Sommer Nielsen
kalle@php.net
Hi,
This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list.
I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users
tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been
aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to
moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of
previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users
have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest.If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific
instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the
internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve this.Regards,
Nikita
I doubt we have any official procedures. I agree with the proposed
suspension as long as the suspension for a set amount of time; I
believe in giving people a chance to reform. If they can't reform...
well then I'm fine with an indefinite suspension.
Levi Morrison
I doubt we have any official procedures. I agree with the proposed
suspension as long as the suspension for a set amount of time; I
believe in giving people a chance to reform. If they can't reform...
well then I'm fine with an indefinite suspension.
I, too, would be in favor of suspension over outright ban, simply
because I have never seen such a ban happen on this list. It saddens
me that, rather than focusing on rigorous discussion, many RFC
discussions are completely sidetracked the moment a topic comes up
that might encroach on either of these individual's "ego" (I temper
language, but agree with Nikita's characterization).
There are, indeed, nuggets of truth in contributions both
lists@rhsoft.net and tonymarston@hotmail.com have made. Both have
legitimate concerns and points of view. Unfortunately, it is on the
reader to decipher that from the "ego" measuring that happens every
time they start one of their back-and-forths.
I hope we can do something about this sooner rather than later. I,
myself, refuse to explicitly censor communication from the list based
on who's talking and I DO value both of their opinions and concerns,
but this behaviour has been observed many times with several folks
on-list asking for some professionalism in communication. There must
be some form of consequence, I feel.
Thanks.
--
Dustin Wheeler | Software Developer
NC State University
mdwheele@ncsu.edu
"If you don't know where you're going, it's easy to iteratively not get there."
I doubt we have any official procedures. I agree with the proposed
suspension as long as the suspension for a set amount of time; I
believe in giving people a chance to reform. If they can't reform...
well then I'm fine with an indefinite suspension.
I am not in favor of anyone else deciding for me that I am not allowed to see Tony's (or anyone else's) messages on this list. I can make that decision myself, and revisit that decision myself should I choose.
If someone dislikes Tony's commentary for any reason (or no reason!) they are free to filter his messages themselves -- and then unfilter his messages when they see fit.
--
Paul M. Jones
pmjones88@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com
Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp
Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php
I doubt we have any official procedures. I agree with the proposed
suspension as long as the suspension for a set amount of time; I
believe in giving people a chance to reform. If they can't reform...
well then I'm fine with an indefinite suspension.I am not in favor of anyone else deciding for me that I am not allowed to
see Tony's (or anyone else's) messages on this list. I can make that
decision myself, and revisit that decision myself should I choose.If someone dislikes Tony's commentary for any reason (or no reason!) they
are free to filter his messages themselves -- and then unfilter his
messages when they see fit.--
Paul M. Jones
pmjones88@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.comModernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphpSolving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php--
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/ http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed
filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty much
every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced filtering
as well.
Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may be,
let individual users filter them out as they see fit.
--
Chase Peeler
chasepeeler@gmail.com
Hi,
I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed
filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty much
every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced filtering
as well.Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may be,
let individual users filter them out as they see fit.
You have a point, but also have it in mind that we're talking about
individuals participating in a discussion thread, and that's not the
same as filtering out spam email or a news category that you're not
interested in.
Cheers,
Andrey.
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Chase Peeler chasepeeler@gmail.com
wrote:I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed
filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty
much
every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced
filtering
as well.Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may
be,
let individual users filter them out as they see fit.You have a point, but also have it in mind that we're talking about
individuals participating in a discussion thread, and that's not the
same as filtering out spam email or a news category that you're not
interested in.Cheers,
Andrey.
Are you saying you can't configure your client to delete/move to another
folder any emails with a subject beginning with [PHP-DEV] that are sent
from tonymarston@hotmail.com or lists@rhsoft.net?
-- Chase
chasepeeler@gmail.com
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Chase Peeler chasepeeler@gmail.com
wrote:I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed
filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty
much
every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced
filtering
as well.Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may
be,
let individual users filter them out as they see fit.You have a point, but also have it in mind that we're talking about
individuals participating in a discussion thread, and that's not the
same as filtering out spam email or a news category that you're not
interested in.Cheers,
Andrey.
Are you saying you can't configure your client to delete/move to another
folder any emails with a subject beginning with [PHP-DEV] that are sent
from tonymarston@hotmail.com or lists@rhsoft.net?
-- Chase
chasepeeler@gmail.com
Missing the point and going for personal attacks instead. You make the
point of the OP rather than your own.
What personal attack did I make? I asked a serious question. The fact that
you could even take a serious question and interpret it as a personal
attack is exactly why I am very wary of any attempts to suspend users. It's
too easy to misunderstand what someone says.
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Chase Peeler chasepeeler@gmail.com
wrote:I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed
filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty
much
every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced
filtering
as well.Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may
be,
let individual users filter them out as they see fit.You have a point, but also have it in mind that we're talking about
individuals participating in a discussion thread, and that's not the
same as filtering out spam email or a news category that you're not
interested in.Cheers,
Andrey.Are you saying you can't configure your client to delete/move to another
folder any emails with a subject beginning with [PHP-DEV] that are sent
from tonymarston@hotmail.com or lists@rhsoft.net?-- Chase
chasepeeler@gmail.comMissing the point and going for personal attacks instead. You make the
point of the OP rather than your own.
--
-- Chase
chasepeeler@gmail.com
Hi,
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Chase Peeler chasepeeler@gmail.com
wrote:I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed
filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty
much
every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced
filtering
as well.Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may
be,
let individual users filter them out as they see fit.You have a point, but also have it in mind that we're talking about
individuals participating in a discussion thread, and that's not the
same as filtering out spam email or a news category that you're not
interested in.Cheers,
Andrey.Are you saying you can't configure your client to delete/move to another
folder any emails with a subject beginning with [PHP-DEV] that are sent from
tonymarston@hotmail.com or lists@rhsoft.net?
No, what I am saying is that it results in parts missing from a
conversation, making it hard to follow. And I would still receive all
replies and quoted text, thus rendering the filter ineffective.
Cheers,
Andrey.
If someone dislikes Tony's commentary for any reason (or no reason!) they
are free to filter his messages themselves -- and then unfilter his
messages when they see fit.I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed
filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty much
every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced filtering
as well.
All fine and well, but it doesn't work when people start quoting the
offender. Also, filters don't stop the poison from affecting the mood of
the posters who interact with him.
In my experience loud and obnoxious voices drive off thoughtful and
introspective ones every time. That is the consequence of giving a platform
to them. As the saying goes, It's pointless to wrestle a pig - you'll just
get muddy and the pig enjoys it. From a moderators standpoint, if you
refuse to block jerks eventually all you'll be left with are jerks.
Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may be,
let individual users filter them out as they see fit.
Again, in my experience people usually elect to simply leave altogether
rather than set a long block list. And frankly Tony isn't worth even one
contributing coder.
Tony has been asked multiple times by multiple people to behave. He's been
banned from other PHP related forums I know of. He's not here to contribute
in any meaningful way, only complain and make passive agressive swipes at
other users. I could go on, but I think that alone makes the case that he
needs to be gone.
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Chase Peeler chasepeeler@gmail.com
wrote:On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Levi Morrison levim@php.net
wrote:If someone dislikes Tony's commentary for any reason (or no reason!)
they
are free to filter his messages themselves -- and then unfilter his
messages when they see fit.I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed
filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty
much
every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced
filtering
as well.All fine and well, but it doesn't work when people start quoting the
offender. Also, filters don't stop the poison from affecting the mood of
the posters who interact with him.In my experience loud and obnoxious voices drive off thoughtful and
introspective ones every time. That is the consequence of giving a platform
to them. As the saying goes, It's pointless to wrestle a pig - you'll just
get muddy and the pig enjoys it. From a moderators standpoint, if you
refuse to block jerks eventually all you'll be left with are jerks.I think self moderation still solves this. If the person is disruptive
enough, eventually enough people will block them and there won't be many
instances of them getting quoted or poisoning the thread.
If certain people decide to engage them, then others will start to block
them as well. In the end, they'll have to choose whether they want to
contribute in a positive way to the list, or, "wrestle with pigs." The two
options will be mutually exclusive, since you can't continue to pull
content others are trying to ignore back into the conversation without
getting ignored yourself.
Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may
be,
let individual users filter them out as they see fit.Again, in my experience people usually elect to simply leave altogether
rather than set a long block list. And frankly Tony isn't worth even one
contributing coder.Tony has been asked multiple times by multiple people to behave. He's been
banned from other PHP related forums I know of. He's not here to contribute
in any meaningful way, only complain and make passive agressive swipes at
other users. I could go on, but I think that alone makes the case that he
needs to be gone.
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, I don't want you making that decision for
me. I should be allowed to determine at which point someone's negative
contributions outweigh their positive ones to a point that I no longer feel
they are productive.
-- Chase
chasepeeler@gmail.com
I think self moderation still solves this. If the person is disruptive
enough, eventually enough people will block them and there won't be many
instances of them getting quoted or poisoning the thread.If certain people decide to engage them, then others will start to block
them as well.
That all sounds like a lot of wasted effort. If we're not careful,
endorsing that behaviour would end up with people sharing mail filter
definitions, proxying the list through a shared filter, or just setting up
a rival discussion forum. All of which just distract us further from making
PHP better.
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, I don't want you making that decision for
me. I should be allowed to determine at which point someone's negative
contributions outweigh their positive ones to a point that I no longer feel
they are productive.
I think maybe we have a different view of what a list like this is. To me,
it's a forum where we're collaborating to a common aim; it has an existence
in its own right, and we collectively shape that existence. I may be
misunderstanding, but it sounds like you view it more as a public space
where you can find individuals to communicate with, and you retain the
right to shape those communications. Does that sound a reasonable
characterisation? I'm not seeking to criticise, only to understand where
this idea of "making the decision for me" comes from, because to me,
moderation doesn't seem like a personal decision which is being taken away.
Regards,
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
+1
It's true that everyone can setup their own filters, but why should they
have too.
You don't get to conduct yourself however you want without consequence.
Cheers
Joe
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Rowan Collins rowan.collins@gmail.com
wrote:
I think self moderation still solves this. If the person is disruptive
enough, eventually enough people will block them and there won't be many
instances of them getting quoted or poisoning the thread.If certain people decide to engage them, then others will start to block
them as well.That all sounds like a lot of wasted effort. If we're not careful,
endorsing that behaviour would end up with people sharing mail filter
definitions, proxying the list through a shared filter, or just setting up
a rival discussion forum. All of which just distract us further from making
PHP better.Maybe, maybe not. Either way, I don't want you making that decision for
me. I should be allowed to determine at which point someone's negative
contributions outweigh their positive ones to a point that I no longer
feel
they are productive.I think maybe we have a different view of what a list like this is. To me,
it's a forum where we're collaborating to a common aim; it has an existence
in its own right, and we collectively shape that existence. I may be
misunderstanding, but it sounds like you view it more as a public space
where you can find individuals to communicate with, and you retain the
right to shape those communications. Does that sound a reasonable
characterisation? I'm not seeking to criticise, only to understand where
this idea of "making the decision for me" comes from, because to me,
moderation doesn't seem like a personal decision which is being taken away.Regards,
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
You don't get to conduct yourself however you want without consequence.
Sure. The question then, is, what is the proper consequence? I hold that it is not "banning" or "suspension" (which may or may not actually be within the delegated powers of anyone on this list). Instead, it is "to be ignored, by those who choose to ignore you."
--
Paul M. Jones
pmjones88@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com
Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp
Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php
The precedent has been set already: One of these users was already kicked
off the list and decided to resubscribe and continue to conduct themselves
in an unacceptable manner.
This is a forum for technical discussion regarding the development of PHP:
We must be able to keep conversation focused and one of the tools we have
to do that is restricting who is able to post. It seems perfectly
reasonable to exercise that power in order to improve the quality of
conversation and keep it focused.
Banning or suspending these users, and anyone else incapable of conducting
themselves reasonably, will serve that purpose.
Let's remember that there are a large number of people on the sidelines
that are not subscribed to the list directly, but choose to use news
readers, or the excellent externals.io; They may not able to filter
messages from any individuals, so they are in effect forced to navigate
through these "contributions" from problematic posters. That's not fair to
them, at all. All of the conversations here are a matter of public record,
not only existing in your mail client, or inbox, or whatever ... We can and
should be eliminating noise from that public record.
Cheers
Joe
You don't get to conduct yourself however you want without consequence.
Sure. The question then, is, what is the proper consequence? I hold that
it is not "banning" or "suspension" (which may or may not actually be
within the delegated powers of anyone on this list). Instead, it is "to be
ignored, by those who choose to ignore you."--
Paul M. Jones
pmjones88@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.comModernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphpSolving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php
Let's remember that there are a large number of people on the sidelines that are not subscribed to the list directly, but choose to use news readers, or the excellent externals.io; They may not able to filter messages from any individuals, so they are in effect forced to navigate through these "contributions" from problematic posters. That's not fair to them, at all. All of the conversations here are a matter of public record, not only existing in your mail client, or inbox, or whatever ... We can and should be eliminating noise from that public record.
It is indeed excellent. Perhaps this is an opportunity to create "expurgated.externals.io" that is under the control of whoever creates & manages it, to filter "noise" there so that others may peruse it in what they consider to be peace.
That's three postings for me on this topic today, which is probably a bit much; I'll leave it at that for now.
--
Paul M. Jones
pmjones88@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com
Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp
Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php
The precedent has been set already: One of these users was already kicked
off the list and decided to resubscribe and continue to conduct themselves
in an unacceptable manner.This is a forum for technical discussion regarding the development of PHP:
We must be able to keep conversation focused and one of the tools we have
to do that is restricting who is able to post. It seems perfectly
reasonable to exercise that power in order to improve the quality of
conversation and keep it focused.Banning or suspending these users, and anyone else incapable of conducting
themselves reasonably, will serve that purpose.Let's remember that there are a large number of people on the sidelines
that are not subscribed to the list directly, but choose to use news
readers, or the excellent externals.io; They may not able to filter
messages from any individuals, so they are in effect forced to navigate
through these "contributions" from problematic posters. That's not fair to
them, at all. All of the conversations here are a matter of public record,
not only existing in your mail client, or inbox, or whatever ... We can and
should be eliminating noise from that public record.Cheers
Joe
Exactly. There needs to be consequences when someone cannot conduct themselves in a manner that's fitting to a technical discussion. It's infuriating when people on this list make personal attacks and then act as though nothing wrong has been done. Clearly either they don't understand or do not care. Either way they need to know there are consequences for such actions.
This is not at all about silencing those whose opinions differ from the majority. Those viewpoints are important and must be heard. However relentlessly pushing a particular viewpoint and resorting to personal attacks becomes a problem. At some point it is no longer constructive and is just spam.
I and many others avoid participating on the list unless absolutely necessary. There is no time or energy to wade through the noise to find the actual discussion of the topic at hand.
You don't get to conduct yourself however you want without consequence.
Sure. The question then, is, what is the proper consequence? I hold that
it is not "banning" or "suspension" (which may or may not actually be
within the delegated powers of anyone on this list). Instead, it is "to be
ignored, by those who choose to ignore you."
Trying to filter out all messages from certain users is untenable. Either too much is filtered because a banned person is CC'ed on a constructive comment, or too little is filtered and there's still noise from those replying to the filtered user. Banning or suspension should not be used lightly, but I think we've reached a point where it is warranted.
I think a simple PHP CoC similar to the JS Foundation [1] would be helpful by providing a basis for what is deemed acceptable.
Aaron Piotrowski
If someone dislikes Tony's commentary for any reason (or no reason!)
they
are free to filter his messages themselves -- and then unfilter his
messages when they see fit.I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed
filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty much
every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced
filtering
as well.All fine and well, but it doesn't work when people start quoting the
offender. Also, filters don't stop the poison from affecting the mood of
the posters who interact with him.In my experience loud and obnoxious voices drive off thoughtful and
introspective ones every time. That is the consequence of giving a platform
to them. As the saying goes, It's pointless to wrestle a pig - you'll just
get muddy and the pig enjoys it. From a moderators standpoint, if you
refuse to block jerks eventually all you'll be left with are jerks.
^^ That. Exactly that. Active refusal to police a community results in a
race to the bottom. Every time. Every single time. Add up the amount of
time we're even discussing it, multiply by hour hourly rate... That's how
much it's costing us to even have this discussion about whether or not we
should expel a long time troll.
Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may
be,
let individual users filter them out as they see fit.Again, in my experience people usually elect to simply leave altogether
rather than set a long block list. And frankly Tony isn't worth even one
contributing coder.
Precisely.
"Instead of banning abusive users on Twitter, no matter how egregious their
offenses may be, let individual users do the work of blocking them as they see
fit."
Because putting all of the penalty on the people being attacked, belittled,
and distracted is a great idea. Or they'll just self-filter and leave.
Tony has been asked multiple times by multiple people to behave. He's been
banned from other PHP related forums I know of. He's not here to contribute
in any meaningful way, only complain and make passive agressive swipes at
other users. I could go on, but I think that alone makes the case that he
needs to be gone.
+1 for outright removal of both, but Tony in particular. In my 10 years on
this list I haven't seen Tony post constructively once. I've seen him insult,
gaslight, and whataboutism a hundred times. Please, whoever runs this list,
put him out of our misery.
--Larry Garfield
I am not in favor of anyone else deciding for me that I am not allowed to
see Tony's (or anyone else's) messages on this list. I can make that
decision myself, and revisit that decision myself should I choose.If someone dislikes Tony's commentary for any reason (or no reason!) they
are free to filter his messages themselves -- and then unfilter his
messages when they see fit.
The problem is that off-topic and insensitive messages tend to draw in
other people, and distract energy away from what we're all here for.
If enough people ignore someone, it's basically a "shadowban", which are
generally highly controversial, because they give the illusion of allowing
someone to participate without any of the actual value. On the other hand,
if enough people engage with someone who's ignored, the flamewars show up
anyway - filtering systems are rarely sophisticated enough to block replies
to a blocked message.
I'm sure everyone would agree that the best course of action would be for
everyone to take a deep breath, step away from any arguments they're in
(something I've had to do myself), and concentrate on positive proposals
and listening respectfully to people with differing opinions. But sometimes
an enforced timeout is the best way to get someone to take that deep breath.
Moderation is always tricky, but pretty much every forum I've ever used has
had it in some form.
Regards,
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been
aggressively derailing
He was blocked in 2012 already:
https://externals.io/message/59395#59421
johannes
lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been
aggressively derailingHe was blocked in 2012 already:
I hadn't even noticed this thread until the flurry of activity
kept throwing it to the top of my inbox, but if you remember, that
2012 ban by Rasmus was far from the only time he caused issues. And
it's not just with PHP either.
Reindl Harald has an established pattern of foul
language and harassment of community members in a number of open
source projects. In the notes I keep on people who abuse our
services, I have his first entry coming up on eight years ago, in
July, 2010, where he devolved into profanity and personal attacks
because he didn't like something that was being discussed.
He's had a number of opportunities to correct his abusive
behavior. I, too, agree in second - and even third - chances, but
when this pattern of behavior spans the better part of a decade, and
racks-up enough entries in my notes that I can remember who he is
right off the top of my head, I think enough is enough.
I, for one, say permanently ban him and move on.
Ok, both have been added to the ezmlm deny list for internals
Hi,
This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list.
I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users
tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been
aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to
moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of
previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users
have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest.If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific
instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the
internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve this.Regards,
Nikita
Hi,
"rhsoft" continues their aggressive behaviour on the bug tracker still
too. One recent illustration is
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76184&edit=1
Do we have any methods to ban people from there too?
cheers,
Derick
Ok, both have been added to the ezmlm deny list for internals
Hi,
This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list.
I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users
tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been
aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to
moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of
previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users
have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest.If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific
instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the
internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve this.Regards,
Nikita
--
https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: https://xdebug.org/donate.php,
or become my Patron: https://www.patreon.com/derickr
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
Hi,
"rhsoft" continues their aggressive behaviour on the bug tracker still
too. One recent illustration is
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76184&edit=1Do we have any methods to ban people from there too?
cheers,
DerickOk, both have been added to the ezmlm deny list for internals
Hi,
This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list.
I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users
tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been
aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to
moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of
previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users
have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest.If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific
instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the
internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve this.Regards,
Nikita
Yes please.
I have seen only crap behavior on the bug tracker by rhsoft.
Pieter
"rhsoft" continues their aggressive behaviour on the bug tracker still
too. One recent illustration is
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76184&edit=1Do we have any methods to ban people from there too?
Yes please.
I have seen only crap behavior on the bug tracker by rhsoft.
Well, then have a look at https://bugs.php.net/76172, for instance. :)
While I most certainly don't like the sometimes explicit and/or
aggressive language used by Harald, I consider him a valuable bug
reporter nonetheless[1].
--
Christoph M. Becker
"rhsoft" continues their aggressive behaviour on the bug tracker
still
too. One recent illustration is
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76184&edit=1Do we have any methods to ban people from there too?
Yes please.
I have seen only crap behavior on the bug tracker by rhsoft.
Well, then have a look at https://bugs.php.net/76172, for instance.
:)While I most certainly don't like the sometimes explicit and/or
aggressive language used by Harald, I consider him a valuable bug
reporter nonetheless.
At some point, you have to weigh the harm to the community of letting him represent us to others against the benefit he brings. On the bug above he has just described himself as "preferring the Torvalds style"; accepting his contributions means accepting that as a legitimate approach to discussion, and I don't think that's a road we want to go down.
Regards,
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
While I most certainly don't like the sometimes explicit and/or
aggressive language used by Harald, I consider him a valuable bug
reporter nonetheless[1].
I just sorted that list by status, and of 111 bugs, 27 are closed as "not a bug", 6 "won't fix", and 2 were detected as spam, including one with the intriguing title " PHP >= 5.6.0 is broken by definition".
There may be some genuinely useful reports in there, and even some of the not-a-bugs might not be awful, but is it really a list we can't do without, for the sake of not scaring everyone else away?
Regards,
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
While I most certainly don't like the sometimes explicit and/or
aggressive language used by Harald, I consider him a valuable bug
reporter nonetheless[1].I just sorted that list by status, and of 111 bugs, 27 are closed as "not a bug", 6 "won't fix", and 2 were detected as spam, including one with the intriguing title " PHP >= 5.6.0 is broken by definition".
However, 27 reports have been closed (I'm assuming they have been valid
and have been resolved), a few are analyzed or assigned, and there are a
lot of still open tickets, which may be valid or not.
There may be some genuinely useful reports in there, and even some of the not-a-bugs might not be awful, but is it really a list we can't do without, for the sake of not scaring everyone else away?
Indeed, that is the question! (A follow-up question might be how to
block somebody from the bugtracker, since to my knowledge one could
state basically arbitrary email addresses).
Quoting spam2 at rhsoft dot net from https://bugs.php.net/76184:
| […] but i prefer the Torvalds style
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. :)
--
Christoph M. Becker
Hi Derick
2018-04-04 20:42 GMT+02:00 Derick Rethans derick@php.net:
Hi,
"rhsoft" continues their aggressive behaviour on the bug tracker still
too. One recent illustration is
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76184&edit=1Do we have any methods to ban people from there too?
Sadly we do not as far as I'm aware of, the best thing we could do is
to add rhsoft or similar to the spam keywords, but even that is easily
bypassable.
--
regards,
Kalle Sommer Nielsen
kalle@php.net
+1
This kind of language shouldn't be allowed here.
Hi,
"rhsoft" continues their aggressive behaviour on the bug tracker still
too. One recent illustration is
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76184&edit=1Do we have any methods to ban people from there too?
cheers,
DerickOk, both have been added to the ezmlm deny list for internals
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:49 AM, Nikita Popov nikita.ppv@gmail.com
wrote:Hi,
This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing
list.I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users
tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been
aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite
requests to
moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of
previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two
users
have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest.If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific
instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the
internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve
this.Regards,
Nikita--
https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: https://xdebug.org/donate.php,
or become my Patron: https://www.patreon.com/derickr
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
Hi Nikita,
Hi,
This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list.
I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users
tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been
aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to
moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of
previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users
have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest.If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific
instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the
internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve this.Regards,
Nikita
At first, I don't understand at all what the issue here at all.
However, I'm -1 on this in general.
Who are going to decide what kind of discussion is correct or wrong?
The last discussion with you about HKDF was total nonsense.
I think you are great programmer, but you were ignorant regarding secure
key derivations. You don't even know what FS (Forward Secrecy), nor PFS
(Perfect Forward Secrecy) that are very basic idea for secure key
derivations.
Without FS, it is considered very vulnerable today. PFS is mandatory for
many
applications. i.e. Slat parameter must be the 1st tional parameter at
least, or
better, it should be a required parameter.
I might be +1 depending on the behavior, but -1 as long as their attitude
is acceptable.
Regards,
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net