> We've seen time and time again that the court of public opinion is a > horrific > judge for these style issues.
This sentence has me worried in several different ways. Would you care to provide some references how the court of public opinion was a horrific judge for these style issues? Secondly, it's the first time (I believe, could be wrong) that the word 'style' makes an entrance to this thread. I thought we were dealing with truly unacceptable behaviors like personal attacks and harassment, not 'style issues'. > I'm 100% open to completely rewriting the RFC, to pulling in a different > CoC, > to rewriting or reusing a different conflict resolution policy. That's all > 100% on > the table. However, I will not support what many are suggesting here that > people will be required (even if just > initially) to report issues publicly. I for one don't feel strongly about having to report in public. I don't mind having a private mediation team, personally I think it makes more sense. The problem isn't public vs. private per se. The problem is with this team having judicial powers, and with the RFC providing 'structure for persecution'. Once systems are in place, people start using them - and since these systems are going to be inherently flawed (I wrote about that in my other emails), that's a recipe for disaster. And I do agree, the combination of a private team AND judicial powers is the worst. Private mediation team whose sole purpose is trying to diffuse conflicts - sure. Private [anything] team with jurisdiction, plus some sort of pseudo ready-to-execute law as a part of the RFC - won't get my support. > 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). In private, to a > team > that is trusted and has even a baseline set of "powers" to at least report > an > incident with identifying details redacted would be far better than just > requiring people to "come forward with any issue". I'm with Kevin here 100%. I just saw your reply to him while writing this. It has me wondering & worried in two additional ways: Worried: You say you don't think they constitute CoC violations. Do you see the problem in that statement? That's exactly the 'open for interpretation' issue we're pointing out. Maybe someone else in your position would feel differently and file a case, and plead it strongly before a non-professional CoC team and sway them his way? While there were certainly some extreme statements made on this thread, I think a more accurate description of them is that none of them came even remotely close to being unacceptable. And here's your difference in interpretation - "Probably not a CoC violation" vs. "Not even close to being unacceptable behavior". Wondering: If you don't think they're CoC violations, how would this CoC help? On one hand you seem to be pointing to them as a reason why the CoC is needed, but on the other, you're saying they probably don't violate it. In other words, how is it relevant to the discussion? > I think many do agree. 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. To be honest, I thought hard before getting involved in this thread, and not for the reasons you think. Opposing this RFC, IMHO, takes a lot more guts than supporting it - as it seemingly a "Let's make the world better, who's in favor?" RFC. Who in his right mind doesn't want to make the world better? Also, most of the positive responses were before a good case against the RFC was established. In fact, what I'm seeing is that some of the early supporters of the RFC changing their mind. > One active community member (though does not have karma here) is > quoted to say "The tone of the 'discussion' is such that I wouldn't dream > of > throwing in 2 cents, let alone attempt to spearhead real and lasting > change". If this RFC was accepted, would we be banning or otherwise taking measures against anybody based on it? If yes, let's discuss it right now because this is very worrisome. If not, how is it relevant? IMHO, it's not the end of the world that people stay of certain discussions because they can't take the 'heat' of the argument. I've certainly done that many times, and it's perfectly fine. I think we're a lot better off having strong, healthy discussions vs. having a safe place with ponies and rainbows where people can't truly say what they think. We must not circumvent healthy discussions, although I think having a vision-like CoC that extends Rasmus' "Be Respectful" mantra is a good idea. Finally, this RFC was initially portrayed as a way to deal with extreme cases that rarely happen. Now, we're hearing about threats and attacks left and right, that - supposedly (it's implied) - the RFC would have dealt with but that are all unavailable for review - so they're not helpful for us to analyze whether the RFC would have dealt with them well or not. In fact, as I said, it has me worried that your definitions for attacks and threats may be different from my definitions, which in turn would be different from the members of the CoC team and everyone else's. Worse - we're hearing - again, implied - that this RFC is actually designed to fix the 'toxic nature' of internals - or in other words, used quite frequently since if we're labeling internals as 'toxic', it's probably not a case here and there but more like a spring cleaning that's in order. I'll state it right here and now - I don't think internals is toxic, and way too often 'toxic' is used to describe to-the-point scrutiny of or opposition to ideas, by people who have vested interest in having said ideas pass. Zeev -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
