On Jan 10, 2016 10:19 AM, "David Zuelke" <d...@heroku.com> wrote: > > +1 to all the points below; pretty much my concerns and thoughts exactly.
I am bit confused by your last replies. On one side you said you don't feel comfortable and on the other you agree to say that it is not a toxic environment. I am on the same line than Zeev on this point. I do not see most of the discussions here as non toxic, at worst passionate and sometimes stubborn. There is only one problem with that. We are not alone. Most of the oldest (no offense meant ;) get used to this. And we know each other since years and get around one or another comment well, filtering the message to get the actual information. This is not the case for anyone new, or someone who recently joined us. And this is what it is all about. To create a better context. And if we have to give up our little habits to achieve it, then let do it. I think it would be much easier if we start to accept how we are seen and how people feel about what we do. Whether we agree or not with it is not relevant for such things. These are clear signs that we do things in a not so optimal way, preventing new people or not regular contributors to actively participate to the development of php. > > On 08.01.2016, at 08:30, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: >> 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.
