On 1/13/16 1:18 PM, Tom Worster wrote:
On 1/12/16 5:58 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
But we can not change the conduct of "whole of internals as a group".
Yes we can!
Let's say *we* would improve our conduct. I mean *we* as literally you
and me: two individuals. As a result the conduct of "whole of
internals as a group" would improve a bit. If improving our own
individual conduct was deliberate then I think we could say that *we*
changed the conduct of "whole of internals as a group" a bit.
Now let's say *several individuals* would improve their conduct. The
change in the conduct of "whole of internals as a group" is larger.
And *they* effected the change.
Since programmers like us are skilled with variables and inference, we
can try this over some more descriptors of sets of individuals such as
'several more individuals', 'many people', 'half the regulars', and so
forth.
So I am sure we *can* change the conduct of "whole of internals as a
group".
More speculative but interesting are descriptors like 'a few key
Internals participants', 'some of the thought leaders on Internals',
'the most prolific contributors of poor conduct in Internals', and so
on, whatever these terms may mean, use your imagination, invent more.
It's really fascinating to ponder this and it gives me hope.
Increasing the speculation a bit more, people typically try to fit in
to their social context (which, incidentally, is part of Internals'
culture problem). How many of the most influential voices here need to
change before we see others following the lead and yet others
introducing themselves?
Even further, what if some of these took it upon themselves to try to
steer others to better conduct from time to time?
There's an important point we've been glossing over here that I think is
important to make explicit, as it is part of the reticence people have
about CoCs, "culture change", etc. That all presupposes that there are
problems, which means that fixing them implies some people's behavior
will need to change. People don't like needing to change their behavior
(regardless of whether that behavior is subjectively "good" or "bad").
If we want to improve the culture on Internals (whether via a CoC or
not), that means a not-small percentage of people in this community will
need to change their behavior. That is by definition what is being
discussed. That process will be much smoother if people feel
incentivized to do so themselves rather than forced to externally, for
the simple reason that we're all humans (aside from the one or two
Andorians who are lurking). But yes, either approach (formal or
informal) means culture change, and therefore behavior change by a lot
of people.
Let's not forget that, but let's also acknowledge that and accept that
we will need to change.
Here’s how: *STOP BEING TOXIC*. How? I dunno. I’m open to ideas. I’m
So, let's proceed to ideas?
Culture is not easy to change but it can be done. Every individual
here has a moral choice (in the philosopher's sense) how they
contribute to that culture. If people want to reduce overall toxicity
and are willing to make some effort, I can see a path forwards based
on the ideas above.
What does it take for any given individual to change their habits of
communication in Internals? Lots of things, I suppose. And it's
probably not easy. But I think only pathological cases are incapable.
One obvious question is: Who goes first? In other words, how do I
benefit if I become civil and others don't.
Another: Is there any need for or value in trying to organize this a
bit? I think so.
I imagine there are good sources of information on effective
communications in various contexts. So perhaps Internals could adopt
something as their style guide, so to speak, that's voluntary but
recommended. It would be useful in a number of ways, one being
something specific to point at when asking a correspondent to modify
her or his style. While it addresses a different problem, Raymond's
"How To Ask Questions The Smart Way," is quite well know. It at least
supports the notion that The Internals Style Guide I imagine could
possibly exist.
Many lists I'm on, particularly those with high churn, send out an email
every month automatically with list rules et al. 98% of people won't
bother reading them 98% of the time, but for the first time you see it
it's an indication of "oh, yeah, they've code some expectations in
place, maybe I'll read them" and for subsequent times it's a reminder of
"oh yeah, that thing, it exists." Similar idea to the company (I forget
which) that has the company principles printed out in everyone's cube to
read over every morning.
That email would include either the text of or links to a "list rules"
doc (which is not necessarily easy to find as is), a link to a CoC
should one pass, etc. Keep it reasonably short, but having it
in-your-face for even a few seconds once a month can be helpful over time.
Finally, I remarked yesterday that the current Internals culture
serves a political purpose: to support the existing power hierarchy.
That's rather pessimistic but there remains hope if one believes power
can be exerted effectively through good conduct.
^^ This.
Tom
--
--Larry Garfield
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
