[Apologies for the re-post; I’m re-sending this with a new subject because it’s really not about the CoC RFC.]
If we want to deal with the reasons why people avoid internals, the let's go and analyze the problem first ? I will start asking whether we really want to attract newcomers. The question may sound ridiculous but I think we don't, mostly because most people here see newcomers as just a source of annoyment and silly questions/RFCs. Additional evidence shows that we never did much effort to help integrate newcomers.
So, the tone on the list is, IMO, just a small part of the problem. As long as there's no consensus on whether we want to attract newcomers and the effort we're ready to do to integrate them, discussing about the details of a CoC seems a bit prematurate to me.
I agree with this 100%.
This is yet another example of the toxic internals problem. Regardless of one's views on the CoC proposal, the conduct of php-internals as a whole has been reprehensible.
Whether anyone agrees with that statement or not is almost besides the point. Internals has a reputation for being toxic, and whether or not that reputation is justified, it exists, and internals is not doing anything to counter that reputation. Certainly not with the CoC discussion.
I have watched internals for probably ten years now. I have never gotten the impression that internals was actually seriously interested in cultivating newcomers. Lip service is paid from time to time, but at the end of the day, nothing ever changes.
So let's say, hypothetically, internals actually, seriously, wants newcomers.
I've used C since 1997, PHP since 1999, come from a CS background, and PHP is my favorite language (well, maybe it's a tie with Objective-C). At least, it's the language I use most often, so I have a vested interest in helping it get better. I am exactly the sort of person internals should be courting to join the "team".
And every time I start to think, "ok, I'm finally going to dust off those old patches and write some RFCs" this shit happens, and I reconsider and go back to lurk mode because I have no interest in participating in conversations about facists, whether real or imagined.
I've got one RFC under discussion, and another one in draft that should be ready for discussion soon. Hell, I had been collecting emails for a few weeks and was just about to start work on (what I had hoped would be an ongoing series of) a weekly summary of internals (similar to what Pascal Martin had been doing in 2014) as an excuse to actually read all of internals to help wrap my head around what was actually going on from a tech perspective. Then the CoC thing blows up, and it's all so disheartening. Makes me question whether putting in the effort was worth it, and well, you can forget about anyone trying to write an impartial summary of the CoC discussion.
And that's just internals. There's also apparently twitter and reddit flamewars and namecalling going on that I'm just as happy to know nothing about.
This is getting a bit ranty. But internals deserves it. You all may be great programmers, but in terms of making people want to work on php-src, you're shitty salespeople.
The reputation for internals being toxic surely bleeds over to everyone else who knocks PHP as being a shitty language. Only now, they get to say, "what a bunch of amateurs, the language devs can't even discuss a code of conduct without calling each other nazis".
Stop the nonsense. Get better, grow up, treat each other with respect, and act like the adults you are. I'd like to work with you all, but you make it dammned hard to want to.
-John
Hi!
This is yet another example of the toxic internals problem.
Regardless of one's views on the CoC proposal, the conduct of
php-internals as a whole has been reprehensible.
What in your opinion was reprehensive, could you explain?
And every time I start to think, "ok, I'm finally going to dust off
those old patches and write some RFCs" this shit happens, and I
reconsider and go back to lurk mode because I have no interest in
participating in conversations about facists, whether real or
imagined.
Precisely one person mentioned anything about "fascists", and pretty
much everybody agreed that was over the top and we should not use such
words. Was that reprehensible? OK, what would you do instead?
emails for a few weeks and was just about to start work on (what I
had hoped would be an ongoing series of) a weekly summary of
internals (similar to what Pascal Martin had been doing in 2014) as
That would be awesome. But this is very hard work - which is why nobody
is doing it for long.
This is getting a bit ranty. But internals deserves it. You all may
be great programmers, but in terms of making people want to work on
php-src, you're shitty salespeople.
Maybe. For myself, I'm pretty much surely a shitty salesperson. How
would you sell it instead?
--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
This is getting a bit ranty. But internals deserves it. You all may
be great programmers, but in terms of making people want to work on
php-src, you're shitty salespeople.
Maybe. For myself, I'm pretty much surely a shitty salesperson. How
would you sell it instead?
I'll be the first to put up my hand as to being a lousy salesperson. I'm
an engineer and don't charge enough but I can't personally justify
ripping clients off for the amount of time it sometimes takes to fix the
problems others cause through often unnecessary 'upgrades'. I've had a
few sites out over Christmas due to one niggle or another. A couple due
to missing fixes when porting the PHP over from the 5.2 servers. I have
to take the hit for the time spent ... it's not the clients fault the
site failed?
I've just spent the best part of a week rebuilding my development
platform, starting again from scratch with a clean copy of Eclipse + PDT
with it's new PHP7 validator so I can HOPEFULLY now see what extra work
needs doing but there is nothing here I can 'sell' to a client. They
just want their sites to keep working ... that is what they pay me for.
I've now got to port the existing projects over since many of the
problems I've lived with for the last few years turn out to be due to
poor upgrades to project files in Eclipse over time. And learn PDT since
I've been using PHPEclipse for the past 10+ years.
I've been TRYING to pick up the remaining niggles with the
Firebird/Interbase extension, and work through the ADOdb patches to make
that compliant with PHP7, but it does not qualify me as an 'internals'
contributor. Only what I conciser an active PHP contributor and
certainly not a salesperson for PHP. Today understanding the core code
of PHP is even more difficult than it was when I first fixed bugs in
extensions 15 years ago so we are more reliant on the few people who
actually understand the changes and I doubt now I will ever have the
time to get any closer to the code than that.
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
Stas,
Hi!
This is yet another example of the toxic internals problem.
Regardless of one's views on the CoC proposal, the conduct of
php-internals as a whole has been reprehensible.What in your opinion was reprehensive, could you explain?
Let me reiterate that the question that was posed, and which I am answering is, “Why do people avoid internals?” and “Does internals want to attract newcomers?”
Let me make very clear:
* I am talking about *perception*. In this context, perception is way more important than reality. Because to answer those two questions, perception is the key.
* I am not indicting any one person or event or thing said in particular. I am indicting the *whole of internals as a group* on its conduct. (And so my comments in general should be taken in that light, and not as finger pointing at any one person/event/thing said in particular.)
What was reprehensible is not just the comments that were made, how they were made, and the response to them. It’s that it’s a persistent pattern of behavior.
It’s not JUST the CoC RFC thread. It’s the STH thread. And every other thread like it.
It’s every time the conversation degenerates to nastiness.
It’s every time someone threatens that something needs to be their way or they'll take their ball and go home.
It’s every time someone takes their ball and goes home, whether they threatened to, or because they felt they had to.
It’s every time someone makes wild accusations and doesn’t take the time to back up their arguments or provide something constructive to the discussion.
It’s every time someone nitpicks a proposal to death, conveniently (and/or intentionally) missing the point, and keeps doing it in an attempt to kill the proposal by attrition, rather than sound reasoning.
It’s every time that happens and people don’t shut up and admit that their opinion is divergent from consensus, and that sometimes we have to agree to disagree, and work towards making the whole better.
It’s every time a proposal comes up and people actively try to destroy it rather than actively making it better even if they don’t agree with it.
Toxic internals is not just bad words. It’s all of the above.
Every so often, there is a conversation in which someone says things in such a caustic manner (or just plain caustic things), and the general reaction beyond “(well, maybe you should tone that done a little bit)” is apologetically “well, they’re not that bad in person”, or, “they’re not a bad person”, or “you just have to know them”, or silent acceptance. And I mean caustic in both the corrosive/corroding/abrasive and sarcastic/cutting/biting meanings. It goes way beyond cute or funny. The level of vitrol is astounding.
And it is not acceptable.
I know the people on internals are good people. (I presume. I don’t know you all personally. But let’s take as given.) I know everyone here is smart, and hard working, and talented. But everyone put together in this pot called php-internals has produced something pretty foul. At least, it certainly smells that way.
I understand that we’re a passionate people, and that sometimes things get out of hand. But wow, when it gets out of hand, it really goes through the roof and people can’t help themselves but pile on when the appropriate response is to call a time out, sit back down in their chairs, meditate on .
Another part of the problem is the constant gaslighting and Sea-Lioning (as Anthony puts it). I’ve watched many conversations run around in circles, with everyone making the same points over and over again, the tone deteriorating over time (or starting out deteriorated). There’s always someone who seems intent on intentionally misunderstanding the situation. A lot of talk and nothing really said.
Again, a reminder: perception is more important than reality. Whether people like the way internals is, or even if they think that it’s simply “ok” or “acceptable”, looking at internals from the sidelines, the lot of us look brain-damaged, and not in a warm fuzzy endearing way, but in a psycopath way.
It doesn’t matter that everyone here is a decent person. I don’t think that anyone here is a psycopath. But internals itself gives that vibe. I’m sure it doesn’t mean to, but it does. Internals is not a nice group to work with. If internals were my client, I’d fire them. If it were my boss, I’d quit and go somewhere else. (Again: internals, the group, and not any individual person on this list.)
And every time I start to think, "ok, I'm finally going to dust off
those old patches and write some RFCs" this shit happens, and I
reconsider and go back to lurk mode because I have no interest in
participating in conversations about facists, whether real or
imagined.Precisely one person mentioned anything about "fascists", and pretty
much everybody agreed that was over the top and we should not use such
words. Was that reprehensible? OK, what would you do instead?
That was just one of the things. And it’s good that people jumped on it. It would be one thing if this were the first an only time something like that’s happened, but it’s not. This is a recurring problem, and it has not been dealt with. Not necessarily the same people or the same words, but it keeps happening. Or at least, it feels like it keeps happening.
Internals could all be best friends and love each other to death, but it sure doen’t look that way.
PHP has an amazing community. It’s one of the reasons I’ve stuck around as long as I have. I like being part of the overall PHP community. But internals? I should not feel like I have to don an asbestos suit just to get into a trivial conversation.
This is getting a bit ranty. But internals deserves it. You all may
be great programmers, but in terms of making people want to work on
php-src, you're shitty salespeople.Maybe. For myself, I'm pretty much surely a shitty salesperson. How
would you sell it instead?
I’d sell it by first actually fixing the problem.
This is going to get a bit more ranty, so please bear with me.
I don’t want to talk about a “Code of Conduct” (capitalized, as in, the written document with rules and penalties, as in, that thing that belongs in that other thread over there).
Instead, I want to talk about internals actual perceived “code of conduct”: the way internals visibly conducts its behavior, and focus strictly on that.
So PLEASE do not turn this back into a discussion of the RFC, or any particular Code of Conduct, or whether php-internals should have one or not because THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. I am not advocating for or against a Code of Conduct. I am simply describing internals’ actual, perceived, existing, code of conduct.
EVERY person has a code of conduct, a way of acting. EVERY group has one. Whether it’s written down and explicit, or whether it’s just the way they act, it’s there.
I have a personal code of conduct. Everyone who reads this does too. It’s probably not written down on paper. It doesn’t matter. There’s a way I act, and a way you act. It’s there. It’s what you are. It’s what the group is. By example: a code of conduct is not that you have a rule to not kick kittens. A code of conduct is the observation you don’t kick kittens. Whether you have a rule or not is immaterial. Whether there are penalties are not is immaterial. It is your actual conduct.
There’s a reason why we have character witnesses in trials. There’s a reason why words like trust and honor have meaning. There’s a reason “they couldn’t have meant it that way” and “that’s not them" carries any weight. Because there’s a way people and groups choose to act. Because there’s a code of conduct, written or unwritten, that is demonstrated by actions. (Distinction: demonstrated, not enforced.)
And when the code of conduct is broken, or when the code of conduct is bad to begin with, bad things happen.
Internal’s current code of conduct (and again: perception is more important than reality), strictly from an observation of it’s actions, is that the sort of vitrol and hate and gaslighting and sea-lioning and personal attacks and hyperbole and whatnot that were present in the prior thread is allowed. Because it keeps happening. Oh, yes, people get yelled at and they shut up for awhile eventually. But it keeps happening. This is not the first time it’s happened. It’s not even the second. Or the third.
Doesn’t matter if that’s what you believe, or how the group believes, that’s how it certainly looks, from my vantage point.
That is why people avoid internals. (Well, it’s why I avoid internals. I can’t speak for everyone, but I doubt I’m the only person with this opinion.)
Sitting here on the sidelines, I want to participate. I’d like to think I have a thick skin. But I absolutely don’t want to put up with bullshit and pettiness, and every time it happens (which seems to always be right around when I start dusting off an old patch or RFC), it makes me reconsider.
And this is with me giving internals the benefit of the doubt and understanding that the group is passionate and wants to ensure that PHP is the best ever. Imagine how bad it looks from someone who isn’t automatically inclined to give internals the benefit of the doubt; from someone who’s been warned to “not go there, it's toxic”.
The PHP community as a whole is warm, and welcoming, and friendly, AND IT SAYS INTERNALS IS TOXIC. What does it say about internals when the community it is centered around (or is the center of?) says the core is rotten?
The only reason I responded to François’ email, rather than putting internals back on the killfile yet again is because this time I actually have an RFC under discussion, and another one pending, and I’d rather not let that work languish for another two years. But if this had happened three weeks ago? I probably wouldn’t have bothered finishing my RFCs, left them to rot, and it probably would have been at least another year before I’d have considered wading back in. Because I do not want to be a part of the bullshit and pettyness.
From the perspective of “why do people avoid internals”, and fixing the problem, it doesn’t matter if internals has a written Code of Conduct or not. That’s entirely irrelevant. What matters is that internals starts taking action by not allowing the misbehavior that’s lead us to this point. By not giving credence to the thought that it does need an explicit Code of Conduct. Codes of Conduct are a thing these days. One was going to show up at php-internals eventually. What ought to be embarrassing is that the very thread to discuss one can be used as a convincing argument for one.
I’m not going to point fingers. Some people are in the wrong and know it. Some people are in the wrong and refuse to admit it to themselves. Some people don’t realize they’re in the wrong. Some (most, really) people could call other people out and choose not to because they don’t want to get involved (which, honestly, is an entirely prudent choice and I wouldn’t fault anyone individually for that). It doesn’t matter. It all contributes to the problem.
But I digress.
What I want is for internals as a collective to stop carrying on in a manner that causes people to say, with all seriousness, “these people need a Code of Conduct”. I don’t care whether we have a written one or not. What I care about is that we stop acting in a way that makes people think we need one.
I want to look forward to all the awesome technical discussion about the next cool feature in PHP. I want to be a part of the next cool feature in PHP. I want to see a thread of 100 emails and go “this is such an amazing discussion on the merits and drawbacks of the new Frobinator feature, I disagree with some of the ideas, but I never thought about it quite that way before, but gosh, I learned something here and it’s going to be amazing when it’s done”.
I DON’T want to see a thread of 100 emails and immediately think, “oh, not this same old shit all over again”. I didn’t read most of the CoC proposal thread. Why? Because it was the same old shit all over again. Could internals have had a reasoned discussion about a CoC? Yeah. Did it? No. It turned sour quickly and never really recovered. Maybe that was the point. I don’t know. Don’t care, doesn’t matter. But this sort of thing needs to never happen again. (To be explicit: conversations that run this course, and not the discussion of whether a CoC is needed and if so what it should look like.) When long-timers start killfiling threads because they go off the rails, the group as a whole suffers
And that prevents me from wanting to participate, because really, who can have a reasoned technical conversation when everyone’s all whipped into actual anger about this RFC or that other RFC. Whether you read the emails or not, that they’re even there and knowing (or suspecting) the sort of quality and tone they carry imposes a huge cognitive burden on getting awesome stuff done.
So, back to salespeople.
We’ve got a giant steaming pile of crap here. As awesome as U+1F4A9 is, the fix is to stop trying to polish the turd and actually clean up our act. You want php-internals to lose its toxic reputation? Here’s how: STOP BEING TOXIC. How? I dunno. I’m open to ideas. I’m happy to help. Want to, even. But this shitpile needs to be fixed. Internals needs to accept there’s a problem, and actually do something about it.
Once internals actively puts forth effort to counter its toxic reputation, by being less toxic, it will be much easier to attract new talent. Do that first. The rest will follow.
-John
Hi John,
And it is not acceptable.
May I ask who put you in charge to determine whether something is "acceptable"
or "reprehensible"?
Sascha
On Jan 12, 2016 11:17 PM, "Sascha Schumann" <
sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com> wrote:
Hi John,
And it is not acceptable.
May I ask who put you in charge to determine whether something is
"acceptable"
or "reprehensible"?
(for him) and other.
Everyone speaks for himself or a small group of persons he talked to.
Let focus on the points where we know to be correct, as in, let get out of
the kitchen for a change and see what our guests think while watching about
us cooking, do we motivate them to learn ro cook and join? Or are we
telling them to stay away and just eat?
I hope this image comes over correctly. :)
Cheers,
Pierre
Can we please move on past this and get back to actual code. Because if
not, perhaps PHP Internals has outgrown the email format and should migrate
to a forum type format.
On Jan 12, 2016 11:17 PM, "Sascha Schumann" <
sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com> wrote:Hi John,
And it is not acceptable.
May I ask who put you in charge to determine whether something is
"acceptable"
or "reprehensible"?(for him) and other.
Everyone speaks for himself or a small group of persons he talked to.
Let focus on the points where we know to be correct, as in, let get out of
the kitchen for a change and see what our guests think while watching about
us cooking, do we motivate them to learn ro cook and join? Or are we
telling them to stay away and just eat?I hope this image comes over correctly. :)
Cheers,
Pierre
Can we please move on past this and get back to actual code. Because if
not, perhaps PHP Internals has outgrown the email format and should migrate
to a forum type format.
Agreed.
Sascha
2016-01-13 7:26 GMT+01:00 Sascha Schumann sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com
:
On January 12, 2016 at 7:05 PM Adam Howard oldschooldsl@gmail.com
wrote:Can we please move on past this and get back to actual code. Because if
not, perhaps PHP Internals has outgrown the email format and should
migrate
to a forum type format.Agreed.
Sascha
--
This is really a bad argument.
Every modern mail client supports threading, so you just have one thread
with all those mails.
If you dont want to read them, you dont have too.
Best regards.
Well, I'm glad someone is in agreement. I really wish we'd get back to the
actual code. Because if not, I do think perhaps PHP Internals as outlived
the email format and should migrate to a forum format. I think I and many
others did not subscribe to a mailing list for this type of argument and at
this point it is becoming hard to follow, assume you were interested in it.
This little link http://www.php.net/unsub.php to unsubscribe is the last
report, but if this all we're going to keep arguing about, it sure isn't
going to encourage newbies, let alone long-timers such as myself.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Sascha Schumann <
sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com> wrote:
On January 12, 2016 at 7:05 PM Adam Howard oldschooldsl@gmail.com
wrote:Can we please move on past this and get back to actual code. Because if
not, perhaps PHP Internals has outgrown the email format and should
migrate
to a forum type format.Agreed.
Sascha
Adam, Sascha,
Well, I'm glad someone is in agreement. I really wish we'd get back to the actual code. Because if not, I do think perhaps PHP Internals as outlived the email format and should migrate to a forum format. I think I and many others did not subscribe to a mailing list for this type of argument and at this point it is becoming hard to follow, assume you were interested in it.
This little link http://www.php.net/unsub.php to unsubscribe is the last report, but if this all we're going to keep arguing about, it sure isn't going to encourage newbies, let alone long-timers such as myself.
Can we please move on past this and get back to actual code. Because if
not, perhaps PHP Internals has outgrown the email format and should migrate
to a forum type format.Agreed.
This is almost exactly the point I was trying to make.
There is a serious problem with the conversation on internals, and the immediate reaction is, “there’s no problem, this is a distraction, stop talking about this and talk about something else”.
Even if you didn’t mean that, that’s what was heard.
In one email, and one “me too” follow-up you’ve:
- attempted to silence an important discussion
- suggested that that the opinion held (and François’ question) is not worthy of discussion
- distracted the discussion with an unusable suggestion [* see below]
- provided nothing constructive to help actually solve the problem
- reinforced the notion that nothing is wrong and everything is fine.
THIS is toxic internals.
Let me elaborate on the third point, particularly the distracted and unusable bits:
You make the assertion that this conversation is an indication that php-internals has outgrown email and should migrate platforms. And you propose an alternative.
But you don’t explain why you think that this conversation has outgrown email, and even more importantly, you don’t you don’t actually explain why a forum format would be an improvement.
I’m not saying that a forum couldn’t be an improvement. But without you giving any supporting argument, you’ve given nothing concrete that anyone can have a discussion about. It’s not actively helping to solve the problem. It’s just more noise that serves to make people think their comments don’t matter. (For the record: I don’t like forums. And I really don’t see how forums would solve the culture problem. But me saying that, and only that, is just as constructive as you saying only that we should switch to one.)
So, your suggestion is unusable, because it provides nothing constructive or actionable; and it is a distraction because the platform we use to talk is entirely irrelevant to how people hold conversations on that platform, and rather than discussing the problem, you try to talk about something completely unrelated instead.
I didn’t sign up for internals looking to deal with this either. But there is a problem, and it is keeping me from actually contributing code. And I’ve been sitting on the sidelines here for a long time. I’m trying to make it so that newbies feel welcome to contribute. I’m trying to make it so that the old-timers who have reduced their participation feel like they can come back and be productive again.
I would love to talk about code now. I wish we didn’t have to talk about this. But silencing the conversation and wishing the problem away doesn’t fix the the giant elephpant in the room. It just makes it worse.
-John
Alright, you want a straight up answer, I'll provide you one. Here is
my constructive criticism. I'd like to be able to opt-out of this
conversation and not further have it flood my inbox and be able to actually
get back to what matters and what I and most everyone else signed up for
(PHP Development, Code).
I'm not saying it doesn't have merit, but I've long since lost interest
and feel it is being unnecessarily drawn out and extended indefinitely (or
at least well beyond my point of interest)..
I feel you HAVE been given an answer numerous times and simply because you
dislike that answer(s), you refuse to move past it.
You seem to be under the false assumption that by complaining and dragging
this conversation out, people will give in blindly just to shut you up.
You're wrong. If anything, it has only strengthen my resolve to pointing
out that this conversation is outside of the scope of the conversation that
I and others subscribed toward (PHP code development).
With that all said, your merit that there is a level of abuse that can
hypothetically take place is valid but no more so than anywhere else.
Abuse happens. People are not always nice. And it doesn't matter where
you go, someone is likely going to be a bad apple. Welcome to humanity If
you know how to fix that level of humanity, please do share. Because any
measure of change we could possibly make, anywhere, can and will be abused
by someone, always. Writing down a guideline or code of conduct will not
change that.
But if you want to write that code of conduct, please, feel free to
actually publish an outline code of conduct here, right now, and I and
everyone else will be happy to review it. Because as it stands now, all I
hear (read) is arguing and complaining, but you've yet to offer an actual
draft (solution).
Adam, Sascha,
Well, I'm glad someone is in agreement. I really wish we'd get back to
the actual code. Because if not, I do think perhaps PHP Internals as
outlived the email format and should migrate to a forum format. I think I
and many others did not subscribe to a mailing list for this type of
argument and at this point it is becoming hard to follow, assume you were
interested in it.This little link http://www.php.net/unsub.php to unsubscribe is the
last report, but if this all we're going to keep arguing about, it sure
isn't going to encourage newbies, let alone long-timers such as myself.On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Sascha Schumann <
sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com> wrote:On January 12, 2016 at 7:05 PM Adam Howard oldschooldsl@gmail.com
wrote:Can we please move on past this and get back to actual code. Because
if
not, perhaps PHP Internals has outgrown the email format and should
migrate
to a forum type format.Agreed.
This is almost exactly the point I was trying to make.
There is a serious problem with the conversation on internals, and the
immediate reaction is, “there’s no problem, this is a distraction, stop
talking about this and talk about something else”.Even if you didn’t mean that, that’s what was heard.
In one email, and one “me too” follow-up you’ve:
- attempted to silence an important discussion
- suggested that that the opinion held (and François’ question) is not
worthy of discussion- distracted the discussion with an unusable suggestion [* see below]
- provided nothing constructive to help actually solve the problem
- reinforced the notion that nothing is wrong and everything is fine.
THIS is toxic internals.
Let me elaborate on the third point, particularly the distracted and
unusable bits:You make the assertion that this conversation is an indication that
php-internals has outgrown email and should migrate platforms. And you
propose an alternative.But you don’t explain why you think that this conversation has outgrown
email, and even more importantly, you don’t you don’t actually explain
why a forum format would be an improvement.I’m not saying that a forum couldn’t be an improvement. But without you
giving any supporting argument, you’ve given nothing concrete that anyone
can have a discussion about. It’s not actively helping to solve the
problem. It’s just more noise that serves to make people think their
comments don’t matter. (For the record: I don’t like forums. And I really
don’t see how forums would solve the culture problem. But me saying that,
and only that, is just as constructive as you saying only that we should
switch to one.)So, your suggestion is unusable, because it provides nothing constructive
or actionable; and it is a distraction because the platform we use to talk
is entirely irrelevant to how people hold conversations on that platform,
and rather than discussing the problem, you try to talk about something
completely unrelated instead.I didn’t sign up for internals looking to deal with this either. But there
is a problem, and it is keeping me from actually contributing code. And
I’ve been sitting on the sidelines here for a long time. I’m trying to
make it so that newbies feel welcome to contribute. I’m trying to make it
so that the old-timers who have reduced their participation feel like they
can come back and be productive again.I would love to talk about code now. I wish we didn’t have to talk about
this. But silencing the conversation and wishing the problem away doesn’t
fix the the giant elephpant in the room. It just makes it worse.-John
Alright, you want a straight up answer, I'll provide you one. Here is
my constructive criticism. I'd like to be able to opt-out of this
conversation and not further have it flood my inbox and be able to actually
get back to what matters and what I and most everyone else signed up for
(PHP Development, Code).
- You're top-posting
- You're posting from a gmail address. Gmail has mute function. Use it
Regards
--
<hype>
WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk
CV: careers.stackoverflow.com/peterlind
LinkedIn: plind
Twitter: kafe15
</hype
I honestly think most of the people who have replied dragging on this
nonsense have been top-posting, so you'll excuse me if I feel that argument
is moot.
Alright, you want a straight up answer, I'll provide you one. Here is
my constructive criticism. I'd like to be able to opt-out of this
conversation and not further have it flood my inbox and be able to
actually
get back to what matters and what I and most everyone else signed up for
(PHP Development, Code).
- You're top-posting
- You're posting from a gmail address. Gmail has mute function. Use it
Regards
--
<hype>
WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk
CV: careers.stackoverflow.com/peterlind
LinkedIn: plind
Twitter: kafe15
</hype
I'm pretty sure everyone here has ignored emails before. A CoC is pretty
darn important(in my opinion) but if you've decided the discussion isn't
useful to you, just add a filter or just don't open the emails. Its not
that hard.
Adam, Sascha,
Well, I'm glad someone is in agreement. I really wish we'd get back to
the actual code. Because if not, I do think perhaps PHP Internals as
outlived the email format and should migrate to a forum format. I think I
and many others did not subscribe to a mailing list for this type of
argument and at this point it is becoming hard to follow, assume you were
interested in it.This little link http://www.php.net/unsub.php to unsubscribe is the
last report, but if this all we're going to keep arguing about, it sure
isn't going to encourage newbies, let alone long-timers such as myself.On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Sascha Schumann <
sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com> wrote:On January 12, 2016 at 7:05 PM Adam Howard oldschooldsl@gmail.com
wrote:Can we please move on past this and get back to actual code. Because
if
not, perhaps PHP Internals has outgrown the email format and should
migrate
to a forum type format.Agreed.
This is almost exactly the point I was trying to make.
There is a serious problem with the conversation on internals, and the
immediate reaction is, “there’s no problem, this is a distraction, stop
talking about this and talk about something else”.Even if you didn’t mean that, that’s what was heard.
In one email, and one “me too” follow-up you’ve:
- attempted to silence an important discussion
- suggested that that the opinion held (and François’ question) is not
worthy of discussion- distracted the discussion with an unusable suggestion [* see below]
- provided nothing constructive to help actually solve the problem
- reinforced the notion that nothing is wrong and everything is fine.
THIS is toxic internals.
Let me elaborate on the third point, particularly the distracted and
unusable bits:You make the assertion that this conversation is an indication that
php-internals has outgrown email and should migrate platforms. And you
propose an alternative.But you don’t explain why you think that this conversation has outgrown
email, and even more importantly, you don’t you don’t actually explain
why a forum format would be an improvement.I’m not saying that a forum couldn’t be an improvement. But without you
giving any supporting argument, you’ve given nothing concrete that anyone
can have a discussion about. It’s not actively helping to solve the
problem. It’s just more noise that serves to make people think their
comments don’t matter. (For the record: I don’t like forums. And I really
don’t see how forums would solve the culture problem. But me saying that,
and only that, is just as constructive as you saying only that we should
switch to one.)So, your suggestion is unusable, because it provides nothing constructive
or actionable; and it is a distraction because the platform we use to talk
is entirely irrelevant to how people hold conversations on that platform,
and rather than discussing the problem, you try to talk about something
completely unrelated instead.I didn’t sign up for internals looking to deal with this either. But there
is a problem, and it is keeping me from actually contributing code. And
I’ve been sitting on the sidelines here for a long time. I’m trying to
make it so that newbies feel welcome to contribute. I’m trying to make it
so that the old-timers who have reduced their participation feel like they
can come back and be productive again.I would love to talk about code now. I wish we didn’t have to talk about
this. But silencing the conversation and wishing the problem away doesn’t
fix the the giant elephpant in the room. It just makes it worse.-John
And I'll repeat..
If you want to write that code of conduct, please, feel free to actually
publish an outline code of conduct here, right now, and I and everyone else
will be happy to review it. Because as it stands now, all I hear (read) is
arguing and complaining, but you've yet to offer an actual draft (solution).
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:50 AM, James Gilliland neclimdul@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm pretty sure everyone here has ignored emails before. A CoC is pretty
darn important(in my opinion) but if you've decided the discussion isn't
useful to you, just add a filter or just don't open the emails. Its not
that hard.Adam, Sascha,
Well, I'm glad someone is in agreement. I really wish we'd get back to
the actual code. Because if not, I do think perhaps PHP Internals as
outlived the email format and should migrate to a forum format. I think I
and many others did not subscribe to a mailing list for this type of
argument and at this point it is becoming hard to follow, assume you were
interested in it.This little link http://www.php.net/unsub.php to unsubscribe is the
last report, but if this all we're going to keep arguing about, it sure
isn't going to encourage newbies, let alone long-timers such as myself.On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Sascha Schumann <
sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com> wrote:On January 12, 2016 at 7:05 PM Adam Howard oldschooldsl@gmail.com
wrote:Can we please move on past this and get back to actual code. Because
if
not, perhaps PHP Internals has outgrown the email format and should
migrate
to a forum type format.Agreed.
This is almost exactly the point I was trying to make.
There is a serious problem with the conversation on internals, and the
immediate reaction is, “there’s no problem, this is a distraction, stop
talking about this and talk about something else”.Even if you didn’t mean that, that’s what was heard.
In one email, and one “me too” follow-up you’ve:
- attempted to silence an important discussion
- suggested that that the opinion held (and François’ question) is not
worthy of discussion- distracted the discussion with an unusable suggestion [* see below]
- provided nothing constructive to help actually solve the problem
- reinforced the notion that nothing is wrong and everything is fine.
THIS is toxic internals.
Let me elaborate on the third point, particularly the distracted and
unusable bits:You make the assertion that this conversation is an indication that
php-internals has outgrown email and should migrate platforms. And you
propose an alternative.But you don’t explain why you think that this conversation has outgrown
email, and even more importantly, you don’t you don’t actually explain
why a forum format would be an improvement.I’m not saying that a forum couldn’t be an improvement. But without you
giving any supporting argument, you’ve given nothing concrete that anyone
can have a discussion about. It’s not actively helping to solve the
problem. It’s just more noise that serves to make people think their
comments don’t matter. (For the record: I don’t like forums. And I really
don’t see how forums would solve the culture problem. But me saying that,
and only that, is just as constructive as you saying only that we should
switch to one.)So, your suggestion is unusable, because it provides nothing constructive
or actionable; and it is a distraction because the platform we use to talk
is entirely irrelevant to how people hold conversations on that platform,
and rather than discussing the problem, you try to talk about something
completely unrelated instead.I didn’t sign up for internals looking to deal with this either. But
there is a problem, and it is keeping me from actually contributing code.
And I’ve been sitting on the sidelines here for a long time. I’m trying
to make it so that newbies feel welcome to contribute. I’m trying to make
it so that the old-timers who have reduced their participation feel like
they can come back and be productive again.I would love to talk about code now. I wish we didn’t have to talk
about this. But silencing the conversation and wishing the problem away
doesn’t fix the the giant elephpant in the room. It just makes it worse.-John
Sascha,
Hi John,
And it is not acceptable.
May I ask who put you in charge to determine whether something is "acceptable"
or "reprehensible”?
I avoid internals because I believe the conduct here is reprehensible, and not acceptable.
So in the context of the questions “Why do people avoid internals?” and “Does internals want to attract newcomers?”, the only questions which I am attempting to answer, and in terms of my own personal view of internals as a whole in response to those questions, I did, because it is strictly my opinion.
You [= the reader, not Sascha specifically] may or may not agree. That is fine. You may think that that there is a problem, but it doesn’t rise to the level of being reprehensive. That’s fine too. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. But this is my opinion, my answer to the question at hand, and it is up to you, and everyone else, to make their own decision as to whether there actually is a problem on internals. I think there is, and I’ve outlined what I see to be the problem. Someone else can answer the questions differently. They may not think internals’ conduct is reprehensible. They may think the conduct is acceptable. That debate can be had, but it doesn’t change my perception.
-John
We’ve got a giant steaming pile of crap here. As awesome as U+1F4A9 is,
the fix is to stop trying to polish the turd and actually clean up our act.
You want php-internals to lose its toxic reputation? Here’s how: STOP
BEING TOXIC. How? I dunno. I’m open to ideas. I’m happy to help. Want to,
even. But this shitpile needs to be fixed. Internals needs to accept
there’s a problem, and actually do something about it.Once internals actively puts forth effort to counter its toxic
reputation, by being less toxic, it will be much easier to attract new
talent. Do that first. The rest will follow.-John
Hi John,
thanks for sharing your opinion in such a level headed and well articulated
manner, I wish if this won't be lost amongst the hundreds of mails sent in
the last couple of days on the list.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Hi!
Let me reiterate that the question that was posed, and which I am
answering is, “Why do people avoid internals?” and “Does internals
want to attract newcomers?”
Sure, but you talked about specific behavior in specific discussion.
Except of an incident of some unfortunate name-calling, my opinion was
that it was pretty common discussion which did not feature any
disruptive behavior, but you called it "reprehensive" - so I wanted to
know why, if you can explain.
- I am not indicting any one person or event or thing said in
particular. I am indicting the whole of internals as a group on its
conduct. (And so my comments in general should be taken in that
light, and not as finger pointing at any one person/event/thing said
in particular.)
But we can not change the conduct of "whole of internals as a group". It
is just a metaphor describing set of behaviors of its members. So if we
can not move past "guys, you suck!" then it is understandable but we
can't do anything about it.
Toxic internals is not just bad words. It’s all of the above.
OK, I could nitpick on specific but it's not important. What is
important is - what to do about it?
them”, or silent acceptance. And I mean caustic in both the
corrosive/corroding/abrasive and sarcastic/cutting/biting meanings.
It goes way beyond cute or funny. The level of vitrol is astounding.And it is not acceptable.
What would you do instead? I mean, telling people is not enough - what
else, bans?
here is smart, and hard working, and talented. But everyone put
together in this pot called php-internals has produced something
pretty foul. At least, it certainly smells that way.
I must disagree with that. Put together we have produced something that
million people use and create amazing things based on it. Yes, sometimes
seeing how the sausage is made is not a pretty sight. But presenting it
as it's just that I think is wrong.
Another part of the problem is the constant gaslighting and
Sea-Lioning (as Anthony puts it). I’ve watched many conversations run
around in circles, with everyone making the same points over and over
again, the tone deteriorating over time (or starting out
deteriorated). There’s always someone who seems intent on
intentionally misunderstanding the situation. A lot of talk and
nothing really said.
I would caution you not to confuse "somebody is not agreeing with me"
with "somebody is maliciously misunderstanding me". There's a lot being
said, and most of what is being said was important to say (not all of it).
Again, a reminder: perception is more important than reality. Whether
I must say I completely disagree with that statement. I think reality
does matter.
community. But internals? I should not feel like I have to don an
asbestos suit just to get into a trivial conversation.
Just a note - CoC is way apart from a "trivial conversation", it is a
big thing. So is STH and so on. "Trivial conversation" would be asking
for status of a pull request or committing a typo fix. Not much chance
for 1000-message discussion.
Internal’s current code of conduct (and again: perception is more
important than reality), strictly from an observation of it’s
actions, is that the sort of vitrol and hate and gaslighting and
sea-lioning and personal attacks and hyperbole and whatnot that were
present in the prior thread is allowed. Because it keeps happening.
I'm sorry but I must notice I think you observations is quite wrong (I
mean I don't doubt you feel that way, I just doubt it indeed happened
that way). There was a bit of hyperbole, I admit - but no personal
attacks, and no hate. Unless you are confusing disagreement with hate?
That's my personal perception.
Oh, yes, people get yelled at and they shut up for awhile eventually.
OK, so telling people they are in the wrong not enough. What would be? I
mean, I got it, you think things are really bad. I am not sure I agree,
but never mind that, I got your point and I appreciate it. So, what's
your proposal? Bans? Special troika on enforcement of politeness? That
wouldn't work. Any better proposals?
I want to look forward to all the awesome technical discussion about
the next cool feature in PHP. I want to be a part of the next cool
feature in PHP. I want to see a thread of 100 emails and go “this is
such an amazing discussion on the merits and drawbacks of the new
Frobinator feature, I disagree with some of the ideas, but I never
thought about it quite that way before, but gosh, I learned something
here and it’s going to be amazing when it’s done”.
That would be amazing, but real humans very rarely behave this way when
they think Frobinator feature is the best way to ensure PHP dies a slow
horrible death. And whatever you propose, however you think brilliant it
is, there might be be people that think exactly that. So, what we do
then? It's easy to be warm and supporting when everybody agrees, except
for some small unimportant details, but how would you be warm and
supporting while telling a person that you think the feature they worked
on for the whole last year is a horrible idea and they should not
mention it ever again? That's the real problem.
Here’s how: STOP BEING TOXIC. How? I dunno. I’m open to ideas. I’m
So, let's proceed to ideas?
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
But we can not change the conduct of "whole of internals as a group".
Yes we can!
Let's say we would improve our conduct. I mean we as literally you
and me: two individuals. As a result the conduct of "whole of internals
as a group" would improve a bit. If improving our own individual conduct
was deliberate then I think we could say that we changed the conduct
of "whole of internals as a group" a bit.
Now let's say several individuals would improve their conduct. The
change in the conduct of "whole of internals as a group" is larger. And
they effected the change.
Since programmers like us are skilled with variables and inference, we
can try this over some more descriptors of sets of individuals such as
'several more individuals', 'many people', 'half the regulars', and so
forth.
So I am sure we can change the conduct of "whole of internals as a
group".
More speculative but interesting are descriptors like 'a few key
Internals participants', 'some of the thought leaders on Internals',
'the most prolific contributors of poor conduct in Internals', and so
on, whatever these terms may mean, use your imagination, invent more.
It's really fascinating to ponder this and it gives me hope.
Increasing the speculation a bit more, people typically try to fit in to
their social context (which, incidentally, is part of Internals' culture
problem). How many of the most influential voices here need to change
before we see others following the lead and yet others introducing
themselves?
Even further, what if some of these took it upon themselves to try to
steer others to better conduct from time to time?
Here’s how: STOP BEING TOXIC. How? I dunno. I’m open to ideas. I’m
So, let's proceed to ideas?
Culture is not easy to change but it can be done. Every individual here
has a moral choice (in the philosopher's sense) how they contribute to
that culture. If people want to reduce overall toxicity and are willing
to make some effort, I can see a path forwards based on the ideas above.
What does it take for any given individual to change their habits of
communication in Internals? Lots of things, I suppose. And it's probably
not easy. But I think only pathological cases are incapable.
One obvious question is: Who goes first? In other words, how do I
benefit if I become civil and others don't.
Another: Is there any need for or value in trying to organize this a
bit? I think so.
I imagine there are good sources of information on effective
communications in various contexts. So perhaps Internals could adopt
something as their style guide, so to speak, that's voluntary but
recommended. It would be useful in a number of ways, one being something
specific to point at when asking a correspondent to modify her or his
style. While it addresses a different problem, Raymond's "How To Ask
Questions The Smart Way," is quite well know. It at least supports the
notion that The Internals Style Guide I imagine could possibly exist.
Finally, I remarked yesterday that the current Internals culture serves
a political purpose: to support the existing power hierarchy. That's
rather pessimistic but there remains hope if one believes power can be
exerted effectively through good conduct.
[Btw: I prefer to divorce this question of Internals culture from the
effort to establish a Code of Conduct to prepare for, help prevent and
recover from cases of online harassment. I think the two matters benefit
from different kinds of solution and I only mean to address the former
in this email.]
Tom
But we can not change the conduct of "whole of internals as a group".
Yes we can!
Let's say we would improve our conduct. I mean we as literally you
and me: two individuals. As a result the conduct of "whole of
internals as a group" would improve a bit. If improving our own
individual conduct was deliberate then I think we could say that we
changed the conduct of "whole of internals as a group" a bit.Now let's say several individuals would improve their conduct. The
change in the conduct of "whole of internals as a group" is larger.
And they effected the change.Since programmers like us are skilled with variables and inference, we
can try this over some more descriptors of sets of individuals such as
'several more individuals', 'many people', 'half the regulars', and so
forth.So I am sure we can change the conduct of "whole of internals as a
group".More speculative but interesting are descriptors like 'a few key
Internals participants', 'some of the thought leaders on Internals',
'the most prolific contributors of poor conduct in Internals', and so
on, whatever these terms may mean, use your imagination, invent more.It's really fascinating to ponder this and it gives me hope.
Increasing the speculation a bit more, people typically try to fit in
to their social context (which, incidentally, is part of Internals'
culture problem). How many of the most influential voices here need to
change before we see others following the lead and yet others
introducing themselves?Even further, what if some of these took it upon themselves to try to
steer others to better conduct from time to time?
There's an important point we've been glossing over here that I think is
important to make explicit, as it is part of the reticence people have
about CoCs, "culture change", etc. That all presupposes that there are
problems, which means that fixing them implies some people's behavior
will need to change. People don't like needing to change their behavior
(regardless of whether that behavior is subjectively "good" or "bad").
If we want to improve the culture on Internals (whether via a CoC or
not), that means a not-small percentage of people in this community will
need to change their behavior. That is by definition what is being
discussed. That process will be much smoother if people feel
incentivized to do so themselves rather than forced to externally, for
the simple reason that we're all humans (aside from the one or two
Andorians who are lurking). But yes, either approach (formal or
informal) means culture change, and therefore behavior change by a lot
of people.
Let's not forget that, but let's also acknowledge that and accept that
we will need to change.
Here’s how: STOP BEING TOXIC. How? I dunno. I’m open to ideas. I’m
So, let's proceed to ideas?
Culture is not easy to change but it can be done. Every individual
here has a moral choice (in the philosopher's sense) how they
contribute to that culture. If people want to reduce overall toxicity
and are willing to make some effort, I can see a path forwards based
on the ideas above.What does it take for any given individual to change their habits of
communication in Internals? Lots of things, I suppose. And it's
probably not easy. But I think only pathological cases are incapable.One obvious question is: Who goes first? In other words, how do I
benefit if I become civil and others don't.Another: Is there any need for or value in trying to organize this a
bit? I think so.I imagine there are good sources of information on effective
communications in various contexts. So perhaps Internals could adopt
something as their style guide, so to speak, that's voluntary but
recommended. It would be useful in a number of ways, one being
something specific to point at when asking a correspondent to modify
her or his style. While it addresses a different problem, Raymond's
"How To Ask Questions The Smart Way," is quite well know. It at least
supports the notion that The Internals Style Guide I imagine could
possibly exist.
Many lists I'm on, particularly those with high churn, send out an email
every month automatically with list rules et al. 98% of people won't
bother reading them 98% of the time, but for the first time you see it
it's an indication of "oh, yeah, they've code some expectations in
place, maybe I'll read them" and for subsequent times it's a reminder of
"oh yeah, that thing, it exists." Similar idea to the company (I forget
which) that has the company principles printed out in everyone's cube to
read over every morning.
That email would include either the text of or links to a "list rules"
doc (which is not necessarily easy to find as is), a link to a CoC
should one pass, etc. Keep it reasonably short, but having it
in-your-face for even a few seconds once a month can be helpful over time.
Finally, I remarked yesterday that the current Internals culture
serves a political purpose: to support the existing power hierarchy.
That's rather pessimistic but there remains hope if one believes power
can be exerted effectively through good conduct.
^^ This.
Tom
--
--Larry Garfield
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:46 PM Larry Garfield larry@garfieldtech.com
wrote:
But we can not change the conduct of "whole of internals as a group".
Yes we can!
Let's say we would improve our conduct. I mean we as literally you
and me: two individuals. As a result the conduct of "whole of
internals as a group" would improve a bit. If improving our own
individual conduct was deliberate then I think we could say that we
changed the conduct of "whole of internals as a group" a bit.Now let's say several individuals would improve their conduct. The
change in the conduct of "whole of internals as a group" is larger.
And they effected the change.Since programmers like us are skilled with variables and inference, we
can try this over some more descriptors of sets of individuals such as
'several more individuals', 'many people', 'half the regulars', and so
forth.So I am sure we can change the conduct of "whole of internals as a
group".More speculative but interesting are descriptors like 'a few key
Internals participants', 'some of the thought leaders on Internals',
'the most prolific contributors of poor conduct in Internals', and so
on, whatever these terms may mean, use your imagination, invent more.It's really fascinating to ponder this and it gives me hope.
Increasing the speculation a bit more, people typically try to fit in
to their social context (which, incidentally, is part of Internals'
culture problem). How many of the most influential voices here need to
change before we see others following the lead and yet others
introducing themselves?Even further, what if some of these took it upon themselves to try to
steer others to better conduct from time to time?There's an important point we've been glossing over here that I think is
important to make explicit, as it is part of the reticence people have
about CoCs, "culture change", etc. That all presupposes that there are
problems, which means that fixing them implies some people's behavior
will need to change. People don't like needing to change their behavior
(regardless of whether that behavior is subjectively "good" or "bad").If we want to improve the culture on Internals (whether via a CoC or
not), that means a not-small percentage of people in this community will
need to change their behavior. That is by definition what is being
discussed. That process will be much smoother if people feel
incentivized to do so themselves rather than forced to externally, for
the simple reason that we're all humans (aside from the one or two
Andorians who are lurking). But yes, either approach (formal or
informal) means culture change, and therefore behavior change by a lot
of people.I think you're actually missing the point as to why most of the people
were against a CoC (or at least the proposed CoC). It wasn't a matter of
what the status quo was, but that the CoC, at best, wouldn't solve the
issues it was meant to solve (whether such issues existed is irrelevant)
and, at worst, would lead a more negative atmosphere rife with unintended
consequences. Yes, there were a few people asking "do we even need this,"
but in terms of those against the proposal, they were the minority from
what I could tell.
tl;dr; - Even if you could never find a more wretched hive of scum and
villainy than PHP internals, I (and my others) would still not support the
proposed CoC.
Let's not forget that, but let's also acknowledge that and accept that
we will need to change.Here’s how: STOP BEING TOXIC. How? I dunno. I’m open to ideas. I’m
So, let's proceed to ideas?
Culture is not easy to change but it can be done. Every individual
here has a moral choice (in the philosopher's sense) how they
contribute to that culture. If people want to reduce overall toxicity
and are willing to make some effort, I can see a path forwards based
on the ideas above.What does it take for any given individual to change their habits of
communication in Internals? Lots of things, I suppose. And it's
probably not easy. But I think only pathological cases are incapable.One obvious question is: Who goes first? In other words, how do I
benefit if I become civil and others don't.Another: Is there any need for or value in trying to organize this a
bit? I think so.I imagine there are good sources of information on effective
communications in various contexts. So perhaps Internals could adopt
something as their style guide, so to speak, that's voluntary but
recommended. It would be useful in a number of ways, one being
something specific to point at when asking a correspondent to modify
her or his style. While it addresses a different problem, Raymond's
"How To Ask Questions The Smart Way," is quite well know. It at least
supports the notion that The Internals Style Guide I imagine could
possibly exist.Many lists I'm on, particularly those with high churn, send out an email
every month automatically with list rules et al. 98% of people won't
bother reading them 98% of the time, but for the first time you see it
it's an indication of "oh, yeah, they've code some expectations in
place, maybe I'll read them" and for subsequent times it's a reminder of
"oh yeah, that thing, it exists." Similar idea to the company (I forget
which) that has the company principles printed out in everyone's cube to
read over every morning.That email would include either the text of or links to a "list rules"
doc (which is not necessarily easy to find as is), a link to a CoC
should one pass, etc. Keep it reasonably short, but having it
in-your-face for even a few seconds once a month can be helpful over time.Finally, I remarked yesterday that the current Internals culture
serves a political purpose: to support the existing power hierarchy.
That's rather pessimistic but there remains hope if one believes power
can be exerted effectively through good conduct.^^ This.
Tom
--
--Larry Garfield--
--
-- Chase
chasepeeler@gmail.com
I think you're actually missing the point as to why most of the people
were against a CoC (or at least the proposed CoC). It wasn't a matter of
what the status quo was, but that the CoC, at best, wouldn't solve the
issues it was meant to solve (whether such issues existed is irrelevant)
and, at worst, would lead a more negative atmosphere rife with unintended
consequences. Yes, there were a few people asking "do we even need this,"
but in terms of those against the proposal, they were the minority from
what I could tell.tl;dr; - Even if you could never find a more wretched hive of scum and
villainy than PHP internals, I (and my others) would still not support the
proposed CoC.
To quote Larry, "^^ This."
--
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Garfield [mailto:larry@garfieldtech.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 9:46 PM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines --
"let's proceed to ideas"
There's an important point we've been glossing over here that I think is
important to make explicit, as it is part of the reticence people have about
CoCs, "culture change", etc. That all presupposes that there are problems,
which means that fixing them implies some people's behavior will need to
change. People don't like needing to change their behavior (regardless of
whether that behavior is subjectively "good" or "bad").
I view this a bit differently.
First, I think saying something like "People will have to change" is not a good description of what we're after. If we're going to declare something along the lines of 'New rules here, you're going to have to change' - then yes, I think we're going to have a very hard time - both in getting buy-in, and in terms of the likelihood of this whole thing actually resulting in transforming the atmosphere on internals for the better. I also don't think we need to create unanimous agreement that 'there is a problem'. That's the wrong first step - as it creates controversy from the get go (as it already did). The way I see it, we don't need to acknowledge having a problem in order to want to improve. I'm sure that resonates with most developers on this list - wanting to continuously improve does not mean you're saying that things were problematic to begin with. Instead, it's an assumption which is literally always true - wherever you are, whatever you do, you can always do better. It's true for everything - processes, relationships, code - and mailing list etiquette.
The right question, IMHO, is do we want to improve? Do we want to try and be more polite and respectful? Do we want to try and improve the atmosphere? That's a much easier goal to rally around, I think, and for the most part, I can hardly imagine there won't be consensus around it.
Many lists I'm on, particularly those with high churn, send out an email every
month automatically with list rules et al. 98% of people won't bother reading
them 98% of the time, but for the first time you see it it's an indication of "oh,
yeah, they've code some expectations in place, maybe I'll read them" and for
subsequent times it's a reminder of "oh yeah, that thing, it exists." Similar
idea to the company (I forget
which) that has the company principles printed out in everyone's cube to
read over every morning.
Something along the lines of this should be at least a part of the solution, I think. Continuing the point I made above, instead of having a laundry list of what not to do - we should focus on the values and behavior we want to encourage - positive expectations. I wouldn't call them 'rules', either, but guidelines, such as Please Be Respectful, or 'Please don't do to others would you wouldn't want others to do to you'. Humans tend to react negatively when they're forced to do something, and much better when they're encouraged to do it - especially as we don't want to go in the direction of sanctions. If we end up having a mediation team (not the CR team, but a team whose pure job is to mediate) - I think it would be fair for it to jump in in case it sees a discussion going south or a certain person that's going against the spirit of these values - and I believe that in the vast majority of cases, it would be more than enough for them to cool off. Ultimately I think most people want to improve.
The other part, IMHO, is minimizing contentious topics, even if it's at the price of doing less.
That email would include either the text of or links to a "list rules"
doc (which is not necessarily easy to find as is), a link to a CoC should one
pass, etc. Keep it reasonably short, but having it in-your-face for even a few
seconds once a month can be helpful over time.Finally, I remarked yesterday that the current Internals culture
serves a political purpose: to support the existing power hierarchy.
That's rather pessimistic but there remains hope if one believes power
can be exerted effectively through good conduct.^^ This.
If we do end up having a laundry list of what not to do, would it include not making vague statements that imply accusations? :)
Zeev
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Garfield [mailto:larry@garfieldtech.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 9:46 PM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines --
"let's proceed to ideas"There's an important point we've been glossing over here that I think is
important to make explicit, as it is part of the reticence people have
about
CoCs, "culture change", etc. That all presupposes that there are
problems,
which means that fixing them implies some people's behavior will need to
change. People don't like needing to change their behavior (regardless
of
whether that behavior is subjectively "good" or "bad").I view this a bit differently.
First, I think saying something like "People will have to change" is not a
good description of what we're after. If we're going to declare something
along the lines of 'New rules here, you're going to have to change' - then
yes, I think we're going to have a very hard time - both in getting buy-in,
and in terms of the likelihood of this whole thing actually resulting in
transforming the atmosphere on internals for the better. I also don't
think we need to create unanimous agreement that 'there is a problem'.
That's the wrong first step - as it creates controversy from the get go (as
it already did). The way I see it, we don't need to acknowledge having a
problem in order to want to improve. I'm sure that resonates with most
developers on this list - wanting to continuously improve does not mean
you're saying that things were problematic to begin with. Instead, it's an
assumption which is literally always true - wherever you are, whatever you
do, you can always do better. It's true for everything - processes,
relationships, code - and mailing list etiquette.The right question, IMHO, is do we want to improve? Do we want to try and
be more polite and respectful? Do we want to try and improve the
atmosphere? That's a much easier goal to rally around, I think, and for
the most part, I can hardly imagine there won't be consensus around it.Many lists I'm on, particularly those with high churn, send out an email
every
month automatically with list rules et al. 98% of people won't bother
reading
them 98% of the time, but for the first time you see it it's an
indication of "oh,
yeah, they've code some expectations in place, maybe I'll read them" and
for
subsequent times it's a reminder of "oh yeah, that thing, it exists."
Similar
idea to the company (I forget
which) that has the company principles printed out in everyone's cube to
read over every morning.Something along the lines of this should be at least a part of the
solution, I think. Continuing the point I made above, instead of having a
laundry list of what not to do - we should focus on the values and behavior
we want to encourage - positive expectations. I wouldn't call them
'rules', either, but guidelines, such as Please Be Respectful, or 'Please
don't do to others would you wouldn't want others to do to you'. Humans
tend to react negatively when they're forced to do something, and much
better when they're encouraged to do it - especially as we don't want to go
in the direction of sanctions. If we end up having a mediation team (not
the CR team, but a team whose pure job is to mediate) - I think it would be
fair for it to jump in in case it sees a discussion going south or a
certain person that's going against the spirit of these values - and I
believe that in the vast majority of cases, it would be more than enough
for them to cool off. Ultimately I think most people want to improve.
I agree whole-heartedly with Zeev here!
Anyone who has a clue about organizational psychology will tell you to
focus on what you want more of, not on what you want to eliminate. Heck,
anyone who is a parent today should understand this intuitively.
The main focus of a CoC should be positive, describing or even giving
examples of respectful behavior, that way people are guided towards
"wanted" behavior, instead of having to figure it out by process of
elimination from a list of what NOT to do. Granted, there is such a thing
as common sense, but it's not always that common, so providing positive
guidance is effective.
Several people have suggested splitting the RFC into two: one for the CoC
itself (which should be easier to rally around), and another for how
to deal with problems. I think this is a very rational approach, it allows
us to learn from experience with the CoC as formulated before setting up
any kind of tribunal or banning system which could backfire badly in
various ways.
- Stig
Le 14/01/2016 16:47, Stig Bakken a écrit :
I agree whole-heartedly with Zeev here!
Anyone who has a clue about organizational psychology will tell you to
focus on what you want more of, not on what you want to eliminate. Heck,
anyone who is a parent today should understand this intuitively.The main focus of a CoC should be positive, describing or even giving
examples of respectful behavior, that way people are guided towards
"wanted" behavior, instead of having to figure it out by process of
elimination from a list of what NOT to do. Granted, there is such a thing
as common sense, but it's not always that common, so providing positive
guidance is effective.
I also think positive guidelines are way more effective than punitive
rules. And, as we are talking psychology, I suggest we complement the
approach with the powerful concept of 'compliance without pressure'.
This concept states that someone will naturally respect better something
he freely and explicitely agreed with (sorry for my poor english).
In our case, it may take the form of a short statement, listing positive
behaviors we want to encourage in the community, expressed in the first
person, expanding the idea of 'I'll try to act with more empathy and
respect among other community members'. Then, publish it and just let
people click on a button when the want to mark their personal engagement
to follow these guidelines. Under the statement, just list the names of
people who 'signed' on it. The key point is that this must be a
voluntary decision. There must be no pressure on list members to sign
this 'good conduct' statement. This may sound naive but such 'soft
power' mechanism already proved excessively successful in a lot of
similar situations.
Regards
François
Hi,
As we are talking about newcomers and the way we should encourage them,
may I suggest you all to read Dustin's 'friend class' RFC
(https://wiki.php.net/rfc/friend-classes). That's his first RFC and he
got only one (negative) reply. Whether you like it or not, his work
deserves being read and commented, just as anybody else's.
Today, after one week, almost nobody bothered reading his RFC, just
because his name is not well-known. Typically, the next step will be his
RFC being massively rejected when he opens the vote. I'll say this again
and again : that's not the way it is supposed to be and this is very
discouraging for newcomers.
Regards
François
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:13 PM, François Laupretre francois@php.net
wrote:
Le 14/01/2016 16:47, Stig Bakken a écrit :
I agree whole-heartedly with Zeev here!
Anyone who has a clue about organizational psychology will tell you to
focus on what you want more of, not on what you want to eliminate. Heck,
anyone who is a parent today should understand this intuitively.The main focus of a CoC should be positive, describing or even giving
examples of respectful behavior, that way people are guided towards
"wanted" behavior, instead of having to figure it out by process of
elimination from a list of what NOT to do. Granted, there is such a thing
as common sense, but it's not always that common, so providing positive
guidance is effective.I also think positive guidelines are way more effective than punitive
rules. And, as we are talking psychology, I suggest we complement the
approach with the powerful concept of 'compliance without pressure'. This
concept states that someone will naturally respect better something he
freely and explicitely agreed with (sorry for my poor english).In our case, it may take the form of a short statement, listing positive
behaviors we want to encourage in the community, expressed in the first
person, expanding the idea of 'I'll try to act with more empathy and
respect among other community members'. Then, publish it and just let
people click on a button when the want to mark their personal engagement to
follow these guidelines. Under the statement, just list the names of people
who 'signed' on it. The key point is that this must be a voluntary
decision. There must be no pressure on list members to sign this 'good
conduct' statement. This may sound naive but such 'soft power' mechanism
already proved excessively successful in a lot of similar situations.
I really like this idea. It may not effectively give "compliance without
pressure", as people will expect one to mark their engagement, so there
would be some social pressure within the community. But I don't see that
as a problem.
Reading through the CoC-related threads I must admit that I'm a bit uneasy
about the fact that the RFC process, which was designed to discuss
technical features in the PHP core, is being used to define something
approaching bylaws for the entire project. I understand that RFCs are a
handy tool, but I still question whether it is the right one to use here,
at least with the CoC RFC's scope including "punishment" of community
members.
- Stig
I agree whole-heartedly with Zeev here!
Anyone who has a clue about organizational psychology will tell you to
focus on what you want more of, not on what you want to eliminate. Heck,
anyone who is a parent today should understand this intuitively.The main focus of a CoC should be positive, describing or even giving
examples of respectful behavior, that way people are guided towards
"wanted" behavior, instead of having to figure it out by process of
elimination from a list of what NOT to do. Granted, there is such a thing
as common sense, but it's not always that common, so providing positive
guidance is effective.Several people have suggested splitting the RFC into two: one for the CoC
itself (which should be easier to rally around), and another for how
to deal with problems. I think this is a very rational approach, it allows
us to learn from experience with the CoC as formulated before setting up
any kind of tribunal or banning system which could backfire badly in
various ways.
I agree with Stig and it mirrors what’s happening in psychology - less carrot and stick and more focused on positive reinforcement and expectations.
I also question whether the RFC process is supposed to even address such issues.
The RFC process exists to vote on product related issues (features, EOL, BC breakage, …). It feels weird to me to use it for such an initiative.
But going with Stig’s suggestion, I think it’d be nice to work on a consensus-based (not RFC-based) guideline of the kind of positive behaviors we expect from people on internals@.
Andi
On 1/14/16, 7:47 AM, "stig.bakken@gmail.com on behalf of Stig Bakken" <
stig.bakken@gmail.com on behalf of stig@stigbakken.com> wrote:I agree whole-heartedly with Zeev here!
Anyone who has a clue about organizational psychology will tell you to
focus on what you want more of, not on what you want to eliminate. Heck,
anyone who is a parent today should understand this intuitively.The main focus of a CoC should be positive, describing or even giving
examples of respectful behavior, that way people are guided towards
"wanted" behavior, instead of having to figure it out by process of
elimination from a list of what NOT to do. Granted, there is such a thing
as common sense, but it's not always that common, so providing positive
guidance is effective.Several people have suggested splitting the RFC into two: one for the CoC
itself (which should be easier to rally around), and another for how
to deal with problems. I think this is a very rational approach, it
allows
us to learn from experience with the CoC as formulated before setting up
any kind of tribunal or banning system which could backfire badly in
various ways.I agree with Stig and it mirrors what’s happening in psychology - less
carrot and stick and more focused on positive reinforcement and
expectations.
I also question whether the RFC process is supposed to even address such
issues.
The RFC process exists to vote on product related issues (features, EOL,
BC breakage, …). It feels weird to me to use it for such an initiative.But going with Stig’s suggestion, I think it’d be nice to work on a
consensus-based (not RFC-based) guideline of the kind of positive behaviors
we expect from people on internals@.
Yes, let's first answer the question "What positive environment do we want
to have?"
Here's an excerpt from Elephpant Etiquette, an alternative take on a
"code of conduct":
As a contributor, you also represent PHP and are responsible for...
*Your words: *
- Be understanding
- Be polite
- Be concise
- Speak honestly with constructive language
- Discuss the position, not the person
*Your behavior: *
- Actively listen to those who are speaking
- Affirm what you hear
- Remain calm (strive for equanimity)
- Keep your voice down (NO CAPS)
- Stay out of other's personal space
- Heed the advice of community moderators
Full text.
<http://cerebriform.blogspot.com/2016/01/proposed-elephant-etiquette.html
The way I see it, we don't need to acknowledge having a problem in order to want to improve. I'm sure that resonates with most developers on this list - wanting to continuously improve does not mean you're saying that things were problematic to begin with. Instead, it's an assumption which is literally always true - wherever you are, whatever you do, you can always do better. It's true for everything - processes, relationships, code - and mailing list etiquette.
The right question, IMHO, is do we want to improve? Do we want to try and be more polite and respectful? Do we want to try and improve the atmosphere? That's a much easier goal to rally around, I think, and for the most part, I can hardly imagine there won't be consensus around it.
I really like this line of thinking, and the positivity it projects.
David
Hi!
Yes we can!
Let's say we would improve our conduct. I mean we as literally you
and me: two individuals. As a result the conduct of "whole of internals
as a group" would improve a bit. If improving our own individual conduct
Not by definition given by John - he said that "behavior of the group"
is not behavior of any individual, but something different (still have
no idea what exactly).
But fine, I'll buy it anyway. Let's improve our conduct, you and me.
How? What you want to happen, can you describe specific action that has
to be taken and specific result you expect to come from that action?
I mean, I read your email, I read several John's emails, and still I
have no answer on that simple question. Not "let's do lots of things so
that everything would be awesome", but some specific things.
--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
Hi!
Yes we can!
Let's say we would improve our conduct. I mean we as literally you
and me: two individuals. As a result the conduct of "whole of internals
as a group" would improve a bit. If improving our own individual conductNot by definition given by John - he said that "behavior of the group"
is not behavior of any individual, but something different (still have
no idea what exactly).But fine, I'll buy it anyway. Let's improve our conduct, you and me.
How? What you want to happen, can you describe specific action that has
to be taken and specific result you expect to come from that action?I mean, I read your email, I read several John's emails, and still I
have no answer on that simple question. Not "let's do lots of things so
that everything would be awesome", but some specific things.
Right now I can call out your last paragraph. But before I do, remember
John's point about perception versus reality. I go further. With respect
to what goes down on a list-serv, there is only perception and nothing
else matters. The following characterizations may seem wrong to you but if
you really want some specific things, here we go...
-
I don't remember you asking me "that simple question". I could be
wrong. But unless you did, "and still have no answer" is an accusation of
me and/or John of being delinquent in answering it. -
Yours is not a "simple question" at all, except in the trivial sense
that it requires few words to ask and sounds simple. It's a very complex
question which, if I am to answer it carefully, will take a lot of time. -
Together 1. and 2. mean, indirectly, "Tom and John can't answer this
simple question and they are incoherent." -
"let's do lots of things so that everything would be awesome" is a
misrepresentation. I shouldn't need to compare the content of my previous
email with this characterization to make it clear. I'm confident you're
smart enough to see the difference. -
The same quoted phrase is just insulting enough to provoke me (and
perhaps John, idk) into an emotional response. -
The same quoted phrase communicates to the group that we are silly
people asking for pie-in-the-sky things that cannot possibly work.
On the surface you appear to ask for specific suggestions of how to
communicate differently/better. Supposing this is your sincere and only
purpose with that paragraph, here's an answer: I suggest you avoid
inflammatory implications and subtexts (such as 1. thru 6.) and instead
ask the question straight. For example: "I mean, would you give some
specific examples of things that you or me or maybe others could have said
differently?"
However, I am not sure this was your purpose. 1. thru 6. also suggest your
purpose was to gain the upper hand by ridiculing me and denigrating the
content of my previous email, and to shut down this conversation. I have
some doubt that this is the whole story, hence I took the time to answer
the surface question.
If you want more examples, I can go through old emails, critique them and
give suggestions but I'll have to do it at my normal hourly rate :p
Obviously, I am not the one to be teaching this stuff. There are
specialists and textbooks that deal with difficult kinds of human
communications. The example above is only to demonstrate that improvements
are within easy reach. And because you asked, or maybe asked ;)
Tom
Hi!
Right now I can call out your last paragraph. But before I do, remember
John's point about perception versus reality. I go further. With respect
to what goes down on a list-serv, there is only perception and nothing
else matters. The following characterizations may seem wrong to you but if
I don't think it's right. This is basically claiming the right to deny
reality. Of course, each person has the right to be delusional, but if
we each operate on basis of our own delusions without basis in reality,
I don't see how collaboration would be possible.
wrong. But unless you did, "and still have no answer" is an accusation of
me and/or John of being delinquent in answering it.
No, it's not. It is trying to get us from venting bad feeling to looking
for solution - in which I failed miserably, evidently. You can build a
narrative of being offended and attacked out of anything, if you are
determined to do so. This, however, is an unproductive and
nonconstructive behavior, which will never find any solutions and
improve anything.
I however would submit it presents an excellent example of the danger of
enforcing such vague and subtle things as "perception" and "atmosphere".
One can blow literally anything out of proportion and present it as an
attack and an insult, even if nothing like that was ever meant.
However, I am not sure this was your purpose. 1. thru 6. also suggest your
My purpose was to start constructive process of producing ideas and
finding solutions, if there was a will to cooperate on that. So far my
impression is there's none. OK then, moving on to code fixes.
--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
Hi!
Right now I can call out your last paragraph. But before I do, remember
John's point about perception versus reality. I go further. With respect
to what goes down on a list-serv, there is only perception and nothing
else matters. The following characterizations may seem wrong to you but
ifI don't think it's right. This is basically claiming the right to deny
reality. Of course, each person has the right to be delusional, but if
we each operate on basis of our own delusions without basis in reality,
I don't see how collaboration would be possible.
Collaboration is perfectly compatible with relative epistemology. All we
need is some consensus on useful descriptions of reality. Just because I
allow the possibility that someone can have a conflicting appreciation of
such-and-such from mine, and I allow the possibility of doubt over which
is better, doesn't mean that all appreciations, including delusional one,
are worth considering. Far from it.
wrong. But unless you did, "and still have no answer" is an accusation
of
me and/or John of being delinquent in answering it.No, it's not. It is trying to get us from venting bad feeling to looking
for solution - in which I failed miserably, evidently.
I didn't think so. That's why I took up your request.
You can build a
narrative of being offended and attacked out of anything, if you are
determined to do so. This, however, is an unproductive and
nonconstructive behavior, which will never find any solutions and
improve anything.
Well, never say never. But this was in any case an exercise. At least,
that's how I approached it.
I however would submit it presents an excellent example of the danger of
enforcing such vague and subtle things as "perception" and "atmosphere".
I never advocated enforcing civility. That's a bad idea. If you didn't get
this, it means I failed to make my point.
One can blow literally anything out of proportion and present it as an
attack and an insult, even if nothing like that was ever meant.
Many things? Yes, obviously you can. "Literally anything"? Don't think so.
Some things are really hard to blow out of proportion and present as an
attack or insult. Statements can any anywhere between really easy to
really hard to blow out of proportion, which is kinda the whole point I'm
making.
However, I am not sure this was your purpose. 1. thru 6. also suggest
yourMy purpose was to start constructive process of producing ideas and
finding solutions, if there was a will to cooperate on that. So far my
impression is there's none.
Actually such will was there. Still is, in fact. I attempted to present
a spectrum of interpretations of a few of your lines as a practical
illustration of how we have choices in how things can be said. It was
probably my mistake to attempt to answer the same question that I chose to
analyze. I think this made it seem like I was all bent out of shape over
your email when I was not at all. I had to work to come up with that
analysis.
OK then, moving on to code fixes.
Tom
Hi Stas,
Sorry for the follow up but I only noticed this after I woke up this
morning.
Amusing irony! In this instance, I tried to make a technical argument
about language and you picked up the wrong end of the stick and blew up
out of proportion because I didn't choose words that make clear me purpose.
If I can get a smile out of Internals, I just gotta take it.
That's all. I have to concentrate on other things today.
Tom
Hi!
Right now I can call out your last paragraph. But before I do, remember
John's point about perception versus reality. I go further. With respect
to what goes down on a list-serv, there is only perception and nothing
else matters. The following characterizations may seem wrong to you but
ifI don't think it's right. This is basically claiming the right to deny
reality. Of course, each person has the right to be delusional, but if
we each operate on basis of our own delusions without basis in reality,
I don't see how collaboration would be possible.wrong. But unless you did, "and still have no answer" is an accusation
of
me and/or John of being delinquent in answering it.No, it's not. It is trying to get us from venting bad feeling to looking
for solution - in which I failed miserably, evidently. You can build a
narrative of being offended and attacked out of anything, if you are
determined to do so. This, however, is an unproductive and
nonconstructive behavior, which will never find any solutions and
improve anything.I however would submit it presents an excellent example of the danger of
enforcing such vague and subtle things as "perception" and "atmosphere".
One can blow literally anything out of proportion and present it as an
attack and an insult, even if nothing like that was ever meant.However, I am not sure this was your purpose. 1. thru 6. also suggest
yourMy purpose was to start constructive process of producing ideas and
finding solutions, if there was a will to cooperate on that. So far my
impression is there's none. OK then, moving on to code fixes.--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
Hi Stas,
Sorry for the follow up but I only noticed this after I woke up this
morning.Amusing irony! In this instance, I tried to make a technical argument
about language and you picked up the wrong end of the stick and blew up
out of proportion because I didn't choose words that make clear me purpose.If I can get a smile out of Internals, I just gotta take it.
That's all. I have to concentrate on other things today.
Tom
Hi!
Right now I can call out your last paragraph. But before I do, remember
John's point about perception versus reality. I go further. With respect
to what goes down on a list-serv, there is only perception and nothing
else matters. The following characterizations may seem wrong to you but
ifI don't think it's right. This is basically claiming the right to deny
reality. Of course, each person has the right to be delusional, but if
we each operate on basis of our own delusions without basis in reality,
I don't see how collaboration would be possible.wrong. But unless you did, "and still have no answer" is an accusation
of
me and/or John of being delinquent in answering it.No, it's not. It is trying to get us from venting bad feeling to looking
for solution - in which I failed miserably, evidently. You can build a
narrative of being offended and attacked out of anything, if you are
determined to do so. This, however, is an unproductive and
nonconstructive behavior, which will never find any solutions and
improve anything.I however would submit it presents an excellent example of the danger of
enforcing such vague and subtle things as "perception" and "atmosphere".
One can blow literally anything out of proportion and present it as an
attack and an insult, even if nothing like that was ever meant.However, I am not sure this was your purpose. 1. thru 6. also suggest
yourMy purpose was to start constructive process of producing ideas and
finding solutions, if there was a will to cooperate on that. So far my
impression is there's none. OK then, moving on to code fixes.--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
I think we get every one point about where we stand, between the
people against a CoC, against a CoC with teeth etc. This is getting
nowhere and we are really off topic.
I would suggest to stop talking in circle for now and wait the next
version of the RFC. Then we can focus on the content of the CoC, let
me rephrase that, then we can focus only on the content of the CoC and
the eventual "CoC group" and its role.
Please.
Cheers,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
I think we get every one point about where we stand, between the
people against a CoC, against a CoC with teeth etc.
I wasn't talking about the Code of Conduct. Different topic.
This is getting
nowhere and we are really off topic.I would suggest to stop talking in circle for now and wait the next
version of the RFC. Then we can focus on the content of the CoC, let
me rephrase that, then we can focus only on the content of the CoC and
the eventual "CoC group" and its role.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Worster [mailto:fsb@thefsb.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:26 PM
To: Pierre Joye pierre.php@gmail.com
Cc: Stanislav Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com; PHP internals
internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines --
"let's proceed to ideas"I think we get every one point about where we stand, between the people
against a CoC, against a CoC with teeth etc.I wasn't talking about the Code of Conduct. Different topic.
Exactly my point re: 'widespread confusion'.
Zeev
Right now I can call out your last paragraph. But before I do,
remember John's point about perception versus reality. I go further.
With respect to what goes down on a list-serv, there is only
perception and nothing else matters. The following characterizations
may seem wrong to you but ifI don't think it's right. This is basically claiming the right to deny
reality. Of course, each person has the right to be delusional, but if
we each operate on basis of our own delusions without basis in
reality, I don't see how collaboration would be possible.wrong. But unless you did, "and still have no answer" is an
accusation of me and/or John of being delinquent in answering it.No, it's not. It is trying to get us from venting bad feeling to
looking for solution - in which I failed miserably, evidently. You can
build a narrative of being offended and attacked out of anything, if
you are determined to do so. This, however, is an unproductive and
nonconstructive behavior, which will never find any solutions and
improve anything.I however would submit it presents an excellent example of the danger
of enforcing such vague and subtle things as "perception" and
"atmosphere". One can blow literally anything out of proportion and
present it as an attack and an insult, even if nothing like that was
ever meant.However, I am not sure this was your purpose. 1. thru 6. also
suggest yourMy purpose was to start constructive process of producing ideas and
finding solutions, if there was a will to cooperate on that. So far my
impression is there's none. OK then, moving on to code fixes.
I'd like to point out, that this again sounds very dismissive. Exactly
what Tom pointed out regarding your previous response. As an example,
the following would have sounded a lot more cooperative:
"My purpose was to start a constructive process of producing ideas and
finding solutions."
That's all you needed. The rest was superfluous, and dismissive.
cheers,
Derick
--
http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine
John,
Thanks for taking the time to write that lengthy email.
There are a lot of things in there I agree with, and a lot I disagree with, but that's beside the point for now.
One part in particular in your message got me thinking:
I understand that we’re a passionate people, and that sometimes things get
out of hand. But wow, when it gets out of hand, it really goes through the
roof and people can’t help themselves but pile on when the appropriate
response is to call a time out, sit back down in their chairs, meditate on .
That resonated with me, as while I said I don't view internals as toxic a couple of days ago, I had to agree with you that there are situations where it does become toxic. These situations - even though they're temporary - reflect very badly on the perception of internals as a whole.
While I think an extended CoC that's along the lines of Rasmus' "Be Respectful"++ can help, it can only go so far. Instead, if we find a way to eliminate the triggers that cause these meltdowns, we're much more likely to succeed in really improving the situation on internals.
I had a theory, and decided to run some analysis regarding all the votes that went into PHP 7.0. It's available at bit.ly/php7rfcs.
Observations:
Out of 45 approved RFC, 34 would have cleared a 90% bar, 35 would have cleared an 85% bar, and 38 would have cleared a 75% bar.
To the best of my recollection, all of the RFCs that generated major storms fall in the these 7 RFCs that cleared the 67% mark, but failed the 75% mark.
Very importantly, out of the RFCs that cleared 85% and 90% - none had more than 5 people opposing, most had 0, and most of the rest had less than 3.
It's also worth noting that once you clear the 75% mark, you're very likely to also clear 85% and 90%. Only 3 RFCs cleared 75% and didn't clear 90%.
What I'm getting at is this:
Most passed RFCs are manage to gain something that's very close to consensus, way higher than 2/3, with barely a handful of people opposing.
If the vote is close to 2/3 - there are very high chances that the RFC is controversial, that people who oppose it will be opposing it passionately, and that as civilized as we try to be - bad vibes are likely to ensue.
How? I dunno. I’m open to ideas.
I have one idea. I made an awful mistake while drafting the Voting RFC, requiring a 2/3 majority for language changes. It should have been 85-90%. When you have a 85-90% majority - it's likely to imply several things:
- There's overwhelming majority for it.
- At least based on past experience - not only the relative amount of opposition is low, but also the absolute one.
- Unlike today, when the storms occur when there isn't consensus but when there are two sizable 'camps', even if one is bigger than the other - if we require an overwhelming majority to approve RFCs, I think that the issue of people "not shutting up and admit their opinion diverges from the consensus" will disappear. If there are 9 people who support the idea for every one that opposes it, it's very different than having only 2 for every one that opposes it. Radically different.
- As soon as authors notice substantial opposition, they'll quickly realize they're dealing with an RFC that's very unlikely to pass, and probably eiter abandon it or go back to the drawing board - and eliminate any contention that may have otherwise surrounded it.
- A high bar would push authors to address as many the points of opposition before they move to a vote, resulting in a better RFC. From a quick glance at the ones that failed clearing 85/90% - it seems that at least some could have cleared it with some improvements.
I think that no matter what we do, CoC, guidelines or teams we have in place - as long as there'll be divisive RFCs, there are going to be heated, toxic discussions.
Had we had a 90% bar, it does mean that STH wouldn't have made it into the language, but it also means that we would probably not have the discussion saga on internals either, and all of the bad vibes that surrounded it. Plus, STH is already behind us - we're talking about the future.
So I believe it boils down to this - are we willing to give up on a few features in order to vastly improve the atmosphere on internals?
Zeev
- As soon as authors notice substantial opposition, they'll quickly realize
they're dealing with an RFC that's very unlikely to pass, and probably eiter
abandon it or go back to the drawing board - and eliminate any contention
that may have otherwise surrounded it.
One other thing I forgot to mention is that if I run the same statistics for the RFCs that were rejected, I believe that the most contentious ones would be the ones that garnered around 40-60% of support. These, by definition, are controversial RFCs. Those too are likely not to get too far off the ground and cause storms, and we'd be saving the headache associated with them as well, not just the ones which barely cleared 67%, for the same reason stated in item #4 above. I haven't checked this theory though.
Zeev
- As soon as authors notice substantial opposition, they'll quickly realize
they're dealing with an RFC that's very unlikely to pass, and probably eiter
abandon it or go back to the drawing board - and eliminate any contention
that may have otherwise surrounded it.
One other thing I forgot to mention is that if I run the same statistics for the RFCs that were rejected, I believe that the most contentious ones would be the ones that garnered around 40-60% of support. These, by definition, are controversial RFCs. Those too are likely not to get too far off the ground and cause storms, and we'd be saving the headache associated with them as well, not just the ones which barely cleared 67%, for the same reason stated in item #4 above. I haven't checked this theory though.Zeev
If I'm understanding you correctly, your suggestion is essentially to
make it easier for a vocal minority to in effect filibuster an RFC so
that said vocal minority doesn't have to get as up-in-arms to convince
others to join them?
While an interesting concept, I fear it would just move the up-in-arms
to the other side. Vis, if a strong proponent of an RFC saw (gasp) 5
people opposed, knowing that could kill the RFC in a vote, they're as
likely to "advocate harder" as back off, just as you suggest its
opponents "advocate harder" now. We're net-zero in terms of the people
who feel a need to "advocate harder", but with fewer RFCs passing.
I'm still of the mind that the lack of formal structure is part of the
issue, because when things bubble over there's no one responsible for
holding people accountable for their bubbling, and there's no one we can
look to as responsible for doing so. As John mentioned there's the
Bystander Problem.
"The culture of any organization is shaped by the worst behavior the
leader is willing to tolerate." - Since we don't have a formal leader
(deliberately), that means it's shaped by the worst behavior someone is
able to get away with. The ever-shifting list of informal, de facto
leaders needs to step up more often and not tolerate, and we need to
recognize who that is.
--
--Larry Garfield
Hi!
I have one idea. I made an awful mistake while drafting the Voting
RFC, requiring a 2/3 majority for language changes. It should have
been 85-90%. When you have a 85-90% majority - it's likely to imply
several things:
I have a feeling that wouldn't help. Instead of "it's toxic because
people argue endlessly" it'd be "it's toxic because every time anybody
has an idea somebody shows up and shuts it down, so nothing worthy ever
gets done" (please don't take it wrong way, I don't say unanimous RFCs
are unworthy, that would just be the perception for people whose RFCs
gained no support).
I.e. if now we have bad reputation and more RFCs passing, with higher
barrier we'd have (different) bad reputation and less RFCs passing. I
thing that won't be the fix we're looking for. Though we probably would
save some time ;)
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:smalyshev@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:11 AM
To: Zeev Suraski zeev@zend.com; John Bafford jbafford@zort.net
Cc: PHP internals internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines
(WAS: Adopt Code of Conduct)Hi!
I have one idea. I made an awful mistake while drafting the Voting
RFC, requiring a 2/3 majority for language changes. It should have
been 85-90%. When you have a 85-90% majority - it's likely to imply
several things:I have a feeling that wouldn't help. Instead of "it's toxic because people
argue endlessly" it'd be "it's toxic because every time anybody has an idea
somebody shows up and shuts it down, so nothing worthy ever gets done"
(please don't take it wrong way, I don't say unanimous RFCs are unworthy,
that would just be the perception for people whose RFCs gained no
support).
I.e. if now we have bad reputation and more RFCs passing, with higher
barrier we'd have (different) bad reputation and less RFCs passing. I thing
that won't be the fix we're looking for. Though we probably would save
some time ;)
Not impossible, but I think very unlikely.
There may be another ingredient missing here - but generally, I think the numbers are telling a different story. Not that the ruleset couldn't have affected the numbers - but I doubt it would be to an extreme.
The intense discussions - that sometimes venture into being disrespectful discussions - and even when not reflect badly on internals and scare people away, are the ones that have many people passionately arguing against, not ones where a handful of people disagree. The latter, at least from hovering over them - doesn't seem to be in situations where people think it's a "horrible idea", but rather, a situation where people think it's "not a good idea", and there's a big different between the two. The situations where people thinks adding X is going to truly negatively influence PHP are not that common.
Thinking out loud, in terms of missing ingredients, it may be that we need ways to recognize a 'heated' subject. It may be possible to do it methodically.
For instance, require a 67% majority for votes that have up to 50 people voting, but 85% above it. That way, vocal individuals can't shoot down 'smaller' RFCs, but if the RFC generates enough interest so that it attracted more than 50 people to vote - it needs to be unanimous.
Another idea is to keep the bar where it is, but give users limited number of 'double No' votes per year (perhaps just one per year). Both in guidelines and in practice, you would be limited to using this 'special power' only in extreme situations - given its very limited supply and its exposure to public scrutiny (we can demand an explanation when this 'power' is used).
There may be other ideas.
The goal in both cases is to influence the RFC authors, and dissuade them from pursuing divisive RFCs, knowing that if they bump into substantial opposition - both in size and in conviction - the likelihood of passing the RFC is slim, and the likelihood of creating bad vibes is high. Right now, the motivation is the opposite - "let's pursue it, cross fingers and touch wood - maybe we'll pass the 67% bar".
It's the divisive RFCs that are the key source of the contention on internals, and any solution that won't strongly discourage them is not going to solve the problem. There needs to be something built into the system that makes RFC authors not only strive for majority, but strive for consensus.
Zeev
It's the divisive RFCs that are the key source of the contention on internals, and any solution that won't strongly discourage them is not going to solve the problem. There needs to be something built into the system that makes RFC authors not only strive for majority, but strive for consensus.
I seem to recall part of the debate on requiring a simple majority was
that a consensus SHOULD be achieved before opening voting, and the need
for a 2/3rds majority was to help that. The reality is that there are
some areas such as STD and Exceptions where there is still not a
consensus that this is the right way to take PHP and while both have
made progress in PHP7 and have to be lived with, they are not the
natural progression for a large group of users. It will be interesting
to see if STD comes into general use or is always switched off, but the
replacement of error_return style of programming with exception only
style is more of a hot potato still? Killing '@' seems to be a slippery
slop to having to get away from error_return style altogether? The lack
of a general acceptable direction seems to be what is missing?
But I still don't recognise 'threatening behaviour' as a problem in any
of these debates ... perhaps that is just me being think skinned ...
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
I think that no matter what we do, CoC, guidelines or teams we have in
place - as long as there'll be divisive RFCs, there are going to be
heated, toxic discussions.
I think the main issue is the whole concept of "divisive RFCs" as a
term. An RFC is a request for comments. Instead of people saying
(paraphrased) "that is crap, unwanted, needless", the whole point of an
RFC is to improve the proposals - before a vote is arranged.
The recent discussion on Antony's CoC RFC, has very little
people/comments trying to improve it, but instead trying to torpedo it
because of "why do we even need it? we're not 'toxic'" (again,
paraphrased).
Had we had a 90% bar, it does mean that STH wouldn't have made it into
the language, but it also means that we would probably not have the
discussion saga on internals either, and all of the bad vibes that
surrounded it.
That however, makes it very easy for a vocal majority to torpedo
everything. I think this is only just going to cause more resentment to
the few people that tend to vote against nearly every RFC.
But - it's an interesting theory.
cheers,
Derick
--
http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine
-----Original Message-----
From: Derick Rethans [mailto:derick@php.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 12:59 PM
To: Zeev Suraski zeev@zend.com
Cc: John Bafford jbafford@zort.net; PHP internals
internals@lists.php.net
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines
(WAS: Adopt Code of Conduct)I think that no matter what we do, CoC, guidelines or teams we have in
place - as long as there'll be divisive RFCs, there are going to be
heated, toxic discussions.I think the main issue is the whole concept of "divisive RFCs" as a term. An
RFC is a request for comments. Instead of people saying
(paraphrased) "that is crap, unwanted, needless", the whole point of an RFC
is to improve the proposals - before a vote is arranged.
While RFC does stand for 'Request For Comments', in practice it's much more than that. It's the declaration of intent to introduce a change subject to a vote on a relatively short timeline.
In some cases, the proposed ideas are awesome and enjoy consensus. In some cases, they're downright bad - or at least perceived to be bad by an overwhelming majority of the voters, or are even withdrawn before going into a vote. Then, there are those ideas that create two polar groups, both sizeable - with one thinking the idea is awesome, and the other thinking it's awful. Those are the ones that are causing the heated debates on internals, and those are the ones we need to find a way to avoid. Even though it's clearly not a 'defined term', and I will obviously not propose an RFC to ban 'Controversial RFCs' as they're impossible to define ahead of time, simply put they are RFCs that create controversy. Based on my analysis yesterday, I think there's a relatively easy way to spot them if you look at the numbers (for those reading this message out of context - bit.ly/php7rfcs), and I believe we can come up with a mechanism to minimize them or outright avoid them altogether. It would come at a price - we would have to agree that improving the atmosphere on internals by focusing on ideas that are enjoying widespread consensus is more important than approving any one particular idea.
The recent discussion on Antony's CoC RFC, has very little people/comments
trying to improve it, but instead trying to torpedo it because of "why do we
even need it? we're not 'toxic'" (again, paraphrased).
I don't see it that way. I think I provided very relevant feedback - that yes, called for a very substantial revision of the proposal and a removal of a substantial part of it - but I still marked the concept of having a CoC as a good idea from the get go. Separately, I think that if people think that a given proposal is a bad idea and cannot be improved - it's perfectly fine that they would voice their opinion. Some ideas are just bad, and RFCs are often withdrawn or fail to pass. Personally I don't think the CoC proposal is inherently bad - quite the opposite - but I think its implementation the way it's currently phrased is quite negative. To be perfectly honest, I'm offended that despite spending literally hours on providing feedback and making my case for why even the latest draft is problematic (and how I think it can be improved to reach consensus) - feedback that were completely respectful - I received no response from any proponent of the RFC. The same holds true for several other people - who provided relevant feedback which went ignored. In fact, the response came as saying 'No more feedback please. My next email will be presenting a final draft, after which I'll go to a vote after the minimum allotted time'.
I think the current CoC RFC is a perfect example of a controversial RFC. It's creating controversy. It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. The chances of it hitting consensus (85-90% mark) seem very slim. It might reach 67%, I have no way to predict it - but having 9 supporters for every person thinking it's bad? Doesn't sound very plausible based on the internals discussion so far. Specifically the CoC discussion is also controversial for another reason - it's using the RFC process for a purpose it was never designed to fulfill. But I'd rather not discuss the specifics of the CoC RFC right now, and try to solve our fundamental problem instead. A problem which even the proponents of that RFC aren't saying it's supposed to solve.
Another point to consider is that when as RFC authors, you have a 85-90% bar to clear - you're much less likely to be ignoring substantial amounts of feedback and just pressing on to a vote, which is what's happening here.
Had we had a 90% bar, it does mean that STH wouldn't have made it into
the language, but it also means that we would probably not have the
discussion saga on internals either, and all of the bad vibes that
surrounded it.That however, makes it very easy for a vocal majority to torpedo everything.
I believe you meant a 'vocal minority', but that's the wrong way to describe it in my opinion - the right term is a substantial minority. Vocal minority makes sense when we're talking about a handful of people, or even less than a handful, that are vocal well beyond their representation in the voter base. I do think we need to find ways to prevent a true vocal minority from shooting down ideas, and I proposed a couple which I actually think aren't that bad. The problematic RFCs are the ones that generate a lot of interest, with a lot of people having an opinion about them - but opposing ones. RFCs that generate a lot of interest AND have close call votes are quite uncommon. Today, what happens is that these RFCs begin with large feedback threads, often heated, and they result in large voter turnarounds. Once the vote is over (whether it's approved or declined), it's a zero sum game - the winning side is happy, the losing side is sad. More importantly - we've already paid the price in terms of making internals a tiny bit more unattractive to everyone - not just newcomers.
I think this is only just going to cause more resentment to the few people
that tend to vote against nearly every RFC.
I think the mechanisms proposed - either a 2/3 majority until 50 votes and 90% beyond that, or keeping the bar at 2/3 but having a 'double no vote' that voters will be able to use very selectively (because of limited supply) - can prevent that from being an issue. I'm sure people will be able to poke holes in these ideas, but I believe they can be solved.
Again, the premise of this proposal is simple - do we care more about one particular idea, or about focusing on the areas we all agree on? For me it's a no brainer, and if we agree the consensus is more important than any one particular idea, I believe we can find the voting system to enforce it.
But - it's an interesting theory.
Thanks!
Zeev
I don't see it that way. I think I provided very relevant feedback - that yes, called for a very substantial revision of the proposal and a removal of a substantial part of it - but I still marked the concept of having a CoC as a good idea from the get go. Separately, I think that if people think that a given proposal is a bad idea and cannot be improved - it's perfectly fine that they would voice their opinion. Some ideas are just bad, and RFCs are often withdrawn or fail to pass. Personally I don't think the CoC proposal is inherently bad - quite the opposite - but I think its implementation the way it's currently phrased is quite negative. To be perfectly honest, I'm offended that despite spending literally hours on providing feedback and making my case for why even the latest draft is problematic (and how I think it can be improved to reach consensus) - feedback that were completely respectful - I received no response from any proponent of the RFC. The same holds true for several other people - who provided relevant feedback which went ignored. In fact, the response came as saying 'No more feedback please. My next email will be presenting a final draft, after which I'll go to a vote after the minimum allotted time'.
As someone who is only occasionally participating on internals, maybe my 2ct are worthwhile here. Note that I’ve only read the first ~150 emails (out of currently 323 mails) on the CoC thread - at some point it just took up too much time - so my opinion is based on that sample.
What happened in that thread (in other bigger discussions before) is that people feel the urge to reply to every point individually as soon as they see the mail. In my experience it’s much better to make a point, stand back while feedback comes in (also helps calm you if a topic agitates someone - it’s ok to have strong feeling, but getting angry isn’t helpful) and then respond to accumulated feedback in one email. Yes that’s more work than just firing off a quick reply, but quick replies aren’t what’s needed in a discussion of (hopefully) well considered arguments.
Instead what we have is people writing 6 emails in 15 minutes (admittedly an extreme example), someone writing a reply to the first message before the last message is even written, which then also gets an email and so. Also people seem to repeat themselves quite a bit. This makes it incredibly time consuming to follow just one issue, let alone the entire mailing lists.
TL;DR: If you find yourself replying more than once an hour to a thread, something is wrong.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Rouven Weßling me@rouvenwessling.de
wrote:
I don't see it that way. I think I provided very relevant feedback -
that yes, called for a very substantial revision of the proposal and a
removal of a substantial part of it - but I still marked the concept of
having a CoC as a good idea from the get go. Separately, I think that if
people think that a given proposal is a bad idea and cannot be improved -
it's perfectly fine that they would voice their opinion. Some ideas are
just bad, and RFCs are often withdrawn or fail to pass. Personally I don't
think the CoC proposal is inherently bad - quite the opposite - but I think
its implementation the way it's currently phrased is quite negative. To be
perfectly honest, I'm offended that despite spending literally hours on
providing feedback and making my case for why even the latest draft is
problematic (and how I think it can be improved to reach consensus) -
feedback that were completely respectful - I received no response from any
proponent of the RFC. The same holds true for several other people - who
provided relevant feedback which went ignored. In fact, the response came
as saying 'No more feedback please. My next email will be presenting a
final draft, after which I'll go to a vote after the minimum allotted time'.As someone who is only occasionally participating on internals, maybe my
2ct are worthwhile here. Note that I’ve only read the first ~150 emails
(out of currently 323 mails) on the CoC thread - at some point it just took
up too much time - so my opinion is based on that sample.What happened in that thread (in other bigger discussions before) is that
people feel the urge to reply to every point individually as soon as they
see the mail. In my experience it’s much better to make a point, stand back
while feedback comes in (also helps calm you if a topic agitates someone -
it’s ok to have strong feeling, but getting angry isn’t helpful) and then
respond to accumulated feedback in one email. Yes that’s more work than
just firing off a quick reply, but quick replies aren’t what’s needed in a
discussion of (hopefully) well considered arguments.Instead what we have is people writing 6 emails in 15 minutes (admittedly
an extreme example), someone writing a reply to the first message before
the last message is even written, which then also gets an email and so.
Also people seem to repeat themselves quite a bit. This makes it
incredibly time consuming to follow just one issue, let alone the entire
mailing lists.TL;DR: If you find yourself replying more than once an hour to a thread,
something is wrong.
Yup, this is explicitly part of "mailing list rules"
Do not post when you are angry. Any post can wait a few hours. Review
your post after a good breather or a good nights sleep.
Try to wait a bit longer before
sending your replies to give other people more time to digest your answers
and more importantly give you the opportunity to make sure that you
aggregate your current position into a single mail instead of multiple
ones. [1]
Of course, it also says things like "Do not top post" and we see how often
that happens...
[1]
http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=blob_plain;f=README.MAILINGLIST_RULES;hb=HEAD
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Rouven Weßling me@rouvenwessling.de
wrote:TL;DR: If you find yourself replying more than once an hour to a thread,
something is wrong.Yup, this is explicitly part of "mailing list rules"
Do not post when you are angry. Any post can wait a few hours. Review
your post after a good breather or a good nights sleep.Try to wait a bit longer before
sending your replies to give other people more time to digest your answers
and more importantly give you the opportunity to make sure that you
aggregate your current position into a single mail instead of multiple
ones. [1]Of course, it also says things like "Do not top post" and we see how often
that happens...[1]
http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=blob_plain;f=README.MAILINGLIST_RULES;hb=HEAD
Oh, wow. I guess that shows how well I know the rules. cough
To me that shifts the question a bit to: What can be done to have people follow these rules?
I mean in a parallel thread someone kept top posting after being reminded of the rules. I doubt
it would go any better if I were to tell someone they are writing too many mails in a row.
Best regards
Rouven
Hi all,
Out of 45 approved RFC, 34 would have cleared a 90% bar, 35 would have cleared an 85% bar, and 38 would have cleared a 75% bar.
To the best of my recollection, all of the RFCs that generated major storms fall in the these 7 RFCs that cleared the 67% mark, but failed the 75% mark.
Very importantly, out of the RFCs that cleared 85% and 90% - none had more than 5 people opposing, most had 0, and most of the rest had less than 3.
It's also worth noting that once you clear the 75% mark, you're very likely to also clear 85% and 90%. Only 3 RFCs cleared 75% and didn't clear 90%.
What I'm getting at is this:
Most passed RFCs are manage to gain something that's very close to consensus, way higher than 2/3, with barely a handful of people opposing.
If the vote is close to 2/3 - there are very high chances that the RFC is controversial, that people who oppose it will be opposing it passionately, and that as civilized as we try to be - bad vibes are likely to ensue.
This is a very interesting analysis, and I find it appealing.
An alternative interpretation might be: "As people feel an RFC is near the pass/fail point, they argue it more vociferously." That's more ... dynamic? ... interpretation, in that it doesn't matter where the pass/fail point is (2/3, 3/4, etc); conversational volume increases around that point wherever it is. When the perceived support is much higher, or much lower, than the pass/fail point, the conversational volume decreases.
That's an untested hypothesis, of course. If it's true, though, it means that raising the bar to 4/5 means conversational volume will increase only for RFCs that already have very high support, which is probably not the intended consequence of raising the bar.
--
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
Stop the nonsense. Get better, grow up, treat each other with respect, and act like the adults you are. I'd like to work with you all, but you make it dammned hard to want to.
Hi John,
Good for you for writing and sending your email! Really.
The nature of the discourse on Internals serves a political purpose that
your opening quote hints at. In the most general terms, it serves to
protect the status quo. Specifically it functions to protect the de
facto leadership of the PHP project.
So while I support the general thrust of your email, I don't think much
will come from asking folk to tone it down. Framing this as marketing of
PHP and Internals to the wider world, while valid, allows us to dance
around the core problem.
Tom
I personally offered at least two emails with constructive feedback and
alternative solutions. I never saw any reply or feedback to either one. I
also had some emails in which I was somewhat argumentative (the ones
related to the definition of harassment). I still stand by those emails as
they were a perfect example of why I feel the CoC, as proposed, is a bad
idea.
My take away from Anthony's last email is basically: "We're going to have a
CoC whether you like it or not. You are welcome to offer feedback to make
the CoC better after we propose it, but any feedback that says a CoC is bad
will be viewed as non-constructive and ignored." Everyone is so afraid that
people are afraid to get involved now because they don't feel "safe." We're
heading for the exact same situation, only for different reasons. I
personally feel, faced with the two alternatives, a community where we put
into "law" a system that discourages participation is much worse than a
system where the lack of such "law" prevents them.
This is exactly the kind of behavior we are afraid of: "disagree with me
too much and I'll label you a trouble maker." The difference is, with a CoC
in place, there is now a tool that can be used to seek formal "charges" in
such cases. With power concentrated in only a few individuals, the
potential for abuse is high - and that's considering that the committee
operates in a way they believe is good. It's even worse if you have an
individual on the committee with their own agenda that isn't operating in
such a way.
Stop the nonsense. Get better, grow up, treat each other with respect,
and act like the adults you are. I'd like to work with you all, but you
make it dammned hard to want to.Hi John,
Good for you for writing and sending your email! Really.
The nature of the discourse on Internals serves a political purpose that
your opening quote hints at. In the most general terms, it serves to
protect the status quo. Specifically it functions to protect the de
facto leadership of the PHP project.So while I support the general thrust of your email, I don't think much
will come from asking folk to tone it down. Framing this as marketing of
PHP and Internals to the wider world, while valid, allows us to dance
around the core problem.Tom
--
--
-- Chase
chasepeeler@gmail.com
My take away from Anthony's last email is basically: "We're going to have a
CoC whether you like it or not. You are welcome to offer feedback to make
the CoC better after we propose it, but any feedback that says a CoC is bad
will be viewed as non-constructive and ignored."
That would be foolish to assume.
Everyone is so afraid that people are afraid to get involved now because they
don't feel "safe."
Are there any reasons for that?
It's even worse if you have an individual on the committee with their own
agenda that isn't operating in such a way.
The current proposed code of conduct looks exactly designed to benefit that
individuum.
Sascha
/oldtimer
I personally offered at least two emails with constructive feedback and
alternative solutions. I never saw any reply or feedback to either one.
It's not possible for every email to be replied to in a conversation.
If they were, then the conversation would last forever.
My take away from Anthony's last email is basically: "We're going to have a
CoC whether you like it or not.
Then I believe you got the wrong point.
Anthony was saying that the conversation wasn't helping him to refine
the RFC to be more acceptable to the community; instead it was just
generating more tension and animosity, and that he would prefer to
suspend taking part in that conversation, until a more complete, and
hopefully acceptable RFC could be written.
At which point he would present the idea as a more polished RFC, which
hopefully would have a productive conversation.
cheers
Dan
So let's say, hypothetically, internals actually, seriously, wants
newcomers.
Back in the days when I was more active when teaching newcomers
internals in articles and conferences I typically pointed them to
pecl-dev for the first discussions and contributions. There one can work
on extensions in a more relaxed environment on less controversial topics
and newcomers get to know some others and some technical constraints.
Mind that discussions on internals have a huge impact - changes to the
language lead to a long tail over other changes, practices change, tools
have to change, code might break. Also people have different emotional
attachment to the language and the way it works. A change might be a
break on what sees as the foundation (most notably to see in the type
hints discussions) And then there is the case that there are topics
which come up again and again ...
And then I think most of the topics are on a technical and productive
level. Attention however goes to the heated debates on "hot" topics. If
an external observer sees only those the view certainly is different
than when reading each topic.
johannes