+1 to all the points below; pretty much my concerns and thoughts exactly. > On 08.01.2016, at 08:30, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > >> 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 >
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
