On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 4:38 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am referring to multiple comments here of actual harassment or bad >> behavior (I described what it is) and agressivity. > > I still do not have any example of "actual harassment" that happened > anywhere on community resources. Even examples of bad behavior that got > people banned weren't really harassment but more uncivil and disruptive > behavior, and those can't really be quoted as something constantly > turning people off as they were rare and dealt with rather soon. Other > things I heard is vague allegations of something that happened in > private, and I respect the unwillingness of people to drag these (I > assume rather disgusting) matters to the public, but CoC would not > prevent somebody from contacting somebody else privately (and under fake > email address, for example). This is exactly what slightly annoys me to be honest. It exactly why we need a private group to deal with such events, even rare, or even if they will never ever happen again. Despite numerous people saying that it happens, including me. You still say, heh, that's some vague allegations and it happens in private anyway. Don't you see what is wrong in your statement? Don't you see that this is the wrong way to deal with that? Nothing can prevent someone to use fake emails, fake names or whatever I know to do such things. But a CoC is about helping the persons involved and avoid situations where public lynching may happen based on wrong information. > As for "aggressivity", I genuinely have no idea what you mean by that. > That is exactly the problem - you think that everybody shares your ideas > about what "aggressivity" means, but everybody has their own completely > different ideas. And if we talking about mediation, that's no big deal - > worst case, somebody would be politely asked to cool down when it wasn't > necessary, no problem. But if somebody would be mistakenly banned or > even threatened with a ban while not doing anything wrong - that could > poison the well and destroy the trust for years. Again, you assume that somebody may be banned straight away without any warning, discussions or moderation. This does not make sense and I cannot remember having read such things in the RFC. However I do things that we should be able to temporary or permanently ban someone at some point. How and why has to be defined and who decide it as well. This is what part of this discussion is about. Not allowing us to do it makes a CoC just an empty gun. >> And it is not what i am referring to. Neither what other were referring >> to. But you keep saying that it did not or does not exist. This is not good. > > Because you keep using vague and changing terms and bringing examples > that either aren't matching your terms or would not be covered by CoC > and prevented by it. No. You simply limit everything to your own view. I did not change my terms or definitions but try to make you understand what it means. But is rather hard. >> Again vigorous discussions are not what I or other have talked about. > > Then please define what is that "aggressivity" that prevents multiple > people from discussing on the list and where can we see examples of it, > and what in your opinion should have been done about those examples, had > CoC and CRT existed. Let me start with what is not aggressiveness. Our exchange here is not aggressive. Paul's early reply in this thread were over aggressive and he got warnings, then he changed to a more soft tone while the content of his reply remains the same (read: less aggressive but no attempt to censor opinions). That's what happens 99.99% of the time (totally random stat, only for the example). Now, in other very rare situations situations escalate in a bad way. Discussions go through other channels (we have seen bird names flying on IRC f.e. based on hot debate on internals some time ago, now irc is dead). Or private emails are sent with bad intents, insults or pressure to ask one to do or not something. Such actions are both aggressive and harassing. And a CoC group should be able to get reports and investigate them, eventually takes actions for temporary bans if something is bad enough. What is bad enough? Insults? "you are wrong" is not an insult, "you are f§%& idiot" is, I do not think we need a list of what is an insult and what is not. But common sense applies to understand what the author of the potential insult meant and I am sure most of the time moderation will solve the issue. And yes, I trust us to have a group with that kind of common sense. I also think that the member of this group could freely send warnings to any of us to say "please go out for a break, you are getting too personal" or other similar things when we see that someone may have cross the line between a hot but friendly debate and getting personal. One may sees it as censorship, I see as a learning curve, together. And only as an attempt to be more clear about my thoughts (sorry, dictionary again :): http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggressivity and 1. applies to what I define as bad. While 2. and 3. are totally fine and can be done nicely and have been done numerous time. 4. is borderline and easy to get into 1. when done. But 4. is still fine. Is it more clear? Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
