On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:49 AM Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kevin, > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Kevin Smith <ke...@gohearsay.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Jan 8, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Simply look at the level of attacks that me and a few other committers > >> have received by making this proposal. I don't feel comfortable making > >> any of those attacks public (drawing more attention to them). > > > > Disclaimer: While I’ve followed this entire email thread, I’m sure I’ve > missed stuff that’s going on outside it. I was genuinely going to ask which > attacks you’re referring to until I got to that last sentence. It’s fair if > you don’t want to share, but your argument was for us to simply look at the > attacks you’ve received. > > The vast majority of them were in public arenas. And a non-trivial > number of people on this list have witnessed it. So it's not like I'm > saying "blindly trust me"... > > > If you’re referring to anything in this email thread (which again, > that’s all I can draw from), I’d worry about creating a body with powers to > punish attackers since we clearly don’t agree on what constitutes an > attack. This discussion has been contentious, sure, but it’s concerning a > very serious topic that would have far-reaching effects. I wouldn’t argue > that anything we’ve seen coming from any perspective rises to the level of > an attack though. > > I don't think anything in this thread warrants the term "attack" or > "harassment". While I strongly don't agree with the tone being used > nor the tactics being used, I don't think they warrant any sort of CoC > violation. > > > Again, I’m happy to claim ignorance here because you may be referring to > things that have gone on outside this thread. But since you don’t feel > comfortable pointing to those attacks specifically, we’ve sort of reached > an impasse. > > > >> If you look at this 225+ reply thread, the vast > >> majority of karma holding people have not responded (even many who > >> frequent this list). A few (5+) of them have reached out to me > >> personally to say that they are explicitly staying out of this > >> discussion because of the level of aggression and tone, but would be > >> willing to support a reasonable proposal (some provided meaningful > >> feedback on it, some support the current revision). > >> > >> Think about that. People who are long standing members of this > >> community and project do not feel that they can safely respond to this > >> very thread. Think of the irony there. > > > > For what it’s worth, I’ve had 2 people reach out to me privately to say > they’re really uncomfortable with this proposal but don’t want to get > involved because they're worried about being labeled “toxic”, and I’m a > brand-new contributor. A real nobody. > > Sure. I'm sure there are a lot more that aren't talking that are > against it. But I think you proved my point here which is that people > are afraid to share their opinion here. That is a strong indicator > that something isn't healthy *today*. It says nothing about the > potential solution, but it should act as a pretty strong heuristic > that "status quo" isn't really good either. > > So, if people are afraid to contribute when there isn't an official mechanism in place that could punish them, what makes you think things will be better if there is one in place? That just shifts the fear from "being labeled toxic" to "<insert punitive measures here>" I'd also like to add, based on the various reactions people have had to this thread alone, that we can see how something one person views as a heated debate can be seen by someone else as being too aggressive to participate in. Is it really that much of a stretch to imagine someone else viewing it as reaching the level of harassment or being offensive? You and I might not see it as reaching the level of violating the CoC, but who is to say someone else doesn't think it does? Who is to say that future committee members wouldn't think it does? I'd suggest looking back at the email I sent yesterday that related to the discussion of splitting this into two objectives. I think it's very much in line with what Zeev has been proposing as well. > Thanks for the thoughts > > Anthony > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- -- Chase chasepee...@gmail.com
