On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! > > > Even without that, though, it's clear we *do* have more serious issues > > than just "rudeness". When a major contributor is getting death-threats > > over an RFC, *there is a problem*. That they're happening off-list > > doesn't change the fact that *that is a problem*. > > OK, so to evaluate solution to a problem we need to see: > 1. There is a problem > 2. Solution is possible to implement > 3. Solution solves the problem. > 4. Solution does not produce the effects worse than the original problem > > Now, do we have the problem that internals is not the nicest place in > the world? Definitely. Does CoC as solution solve it? Possibly, if we > apply it really extensively and ban all people that cause anybody to > feel any discomfort. That would kill any substantial discussion on the > list. > > Do we have a problem with harassment outside internals (taken broadly)? > We do. Can we make CoC that would prevent it? Nope. > > So, we have a situation where we have a mismatch between a problem and a > solution, and that is what the misunderstanding is based on. You and > several other people try to prove something we already agree about - > that certain problems exist - and forget to prove something that needs > to be proven - that what you propose would solve *these* problems in any > acceptable way. Instead, the solution (at least part of it) is designed > to solve *different* problems, which nobody showed we even had. This > mismatch is an issue. > > > with the risk of those tools being abused. It's not just "it's too > > dangerous", but "it's so dangerous that we'd rather have the current > > problem." That is, that current problems are tolerable. > > They are "tolerable" by definition, since we are tolerating them right > now :) That, of course, does not mean improvement can't be made. But for > that, we need to actually see the path to improvement, not just "do > something because something has to be done". > > > The other "contra" position is to make a CoC toothless. The argument > > CoC can not have any tooth per se. It's just a promise, as I said. > Promise does not enforce itself. People can enforce promise, in > different ways. These ways are completely separate from the promise, and > I think there's a lot of value in the promise itself. In fact, I think > it is a much more significant step than figuring out how to punish > people that break the promise. > > > I'll take that a step further: Having a CoC with no teeth has a higher > > risk of abuse than it having teeth, because those who would abuse it can > > use that lack of teeth to their advantage. > > If you talking about insulting people on twitter and reddit, I do not > see how any tooth to CoC would change anything. We can't ban people from > twitter and reddit (thankfully). > > > At the same time, though, if someone is being maliciously hostile what > > great cover! A private email is not a PHP-Group managed resource, so no > > rules! Twitter, ha, no rules! Reddit? LOL like they enforce > > That's not true. The fact that PHP community does not enforce these > rules, does not mean there are no rules at all. It just means we do not > have responsibility to enforce them. We are not Team PHP World Police. > > I could be OK with looking into matters directly related to RFCs and > alike discussions - but phrasing like "PHP business" open to obvious > trolling like "what do you mean heinous acts of $Person to support > position $whatever is not your business? Are you $whatever-ist? > Obviously you are, and I just finished an article for $MajorNewspaper > declaring PHP Group is a nest of $whatever-ists and I'll click "Send" > unless you agree to make it your business right this second". So we need > to be clear we never promised to get into this. > > > infrastructure". It's trivial to circumvent otherwise. Now, how do we > > It is trivial to circumvent anyway. Twitter and reddit as both > pseudonymous. > > > Let's all focus on maximizing the benefit and minimizing the risk. > > Pretending that the status quo is oh-so-wonderful accomplishes neither > > goal. > > I don't think anybody pretends oh-so-wonderful. But, see the four points > above. Having *some* solution is not enough. It needs to be *good* > solution. Going back to the pill analogy, if you're sick, raiding the > medicine cabinet and trying random pills may not be a good idea. And > saying that does not mean denying that somebody feels unwell - it just > means finding the right pill is a good idea before swallowing it. > -- > Stas Malyshev > smalys...@gmail.com > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > I think that you are ignoring a bunch of points from those supporting the CoC. OK, so to evaluate solution to a problem we need to see: 1. There is a problem there are more than one problem, currently we have no official statement about what is the acceptable behavior for our members, nor any official process for handling cases when somebody claims that somebody else stepped over the boundaries of acceptable behavior - this can cause people to overly self-censor (bunch of people already mentioned regarding the CoC discussion that they are afraid of speaking their minds because the fear of backlash) - currently over the top behavior are more likely to be either ignored or acted on late because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect - some people are less thick skinned than others and prefer projects/communities which have clear policies regarding handling such matters over those who don't - and this also means that at the moment any actual action is made by individuals on a case by case basis, which is more likely to go south as it is easier for abuse of power or personal bias to kick in. 2. Solution is possible to implement worst case we should be able to document the current process (based on our past actions) but preferable we should be able to come up with a more consistent and explicit definition on the accepted behavior and the process of resolving reported problems. 3. Solution solves the problem. having a clear set of rules would resolve the self-censoring part, it would make it easy for newcomers to decide if this is the kind of community they want to be part of, and would be clear what is the process of resolving problems. 4. Solution does not produce the effects worse than the original problem I think this is where the devil is in the details and I think that it worth the discussion to iron out the possible problems/concerns and make sure that we don't just vote on the incentive but on the specific "implementation". -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
