Hi Zeev,
Zeev Suraski wrote:
I want to point three key concerns that are unrelated to the contents of the
updated RFC before addressing the RFC itself (in short). Note that I'm not
blaming or otherwise holding you in any negative light in any way, but rather,
stating my opinion on the context of the RFC.
First, on process.
I continue to hold that this proposal does not belong under the umbrella of the
RFC process, given that the RFC process was never meant to deal with such
cases. It was meant to deal with technical and administrative items. I have
no idea whether or not this can win 2/3 of the votes, but regardless, it should
pass a much higher bar for acceptance as an essential from-scratch
'constitution' for the PHP project. Having a controversial constitution from
the get go is unacceptable IMHO.
I wouldn't say the idea of a code of conduct is really a constitution
per se (it's not setting down the foundation and goals of the PHP
project, merely rules for misconduct), it's more like an administrative
document. That being said, you may have a point with it not being what
RFCs were really intended for. But we don't really have an alternative
process for this currently established, so an RFC is the best we can do.
Second, on drama.
I think that the situation where someone withdraws an RFC and another person
all-too-expectedly takes over needs to stop. It's one thing to turn to someone
else and have them lead from now. It's an entirely different thing to withdraw
and have someone else take over. I think that if someone withdraws an RFC (as
opposed to amending it or adding additional co-authors) - it should have the
same ramifications as a failed vote. Withdrawing an RFC should not be a
dramatic instrument. Yes, I realize the Voting RFC doesn't state that. I'm
stating my opinion.
We work in the open and follow the spirit of open-source. Anyone can
copy and modify any other RFC if they so please. If we don't allow
people to resurrect other RFCs, then it gives the original author more
control than perhaps they should have. Consider that during the Scalar
Type Declarations dicussions, you revived an earlier version of my RFC,
because you wanted to keep that approach alive. Likewise, when I left
due to personal issues, Anthony revived my RFC in a new form. Sara was
also going to revive my RFC if I remember rightly. Were we all wrong?
RFC revival is essentially like forking, and that's always allowed in
open-source.
Third, on undue pressure.
Certain people have either implied or outright said that not having a CoC will
make them reconsider actively contributing to PHP. This is undue pressure
IMHO, avoiding the use of bigger words.
It might leave others feeling pressured, but it's not their fault if
those contributors feel unsafe without a code of conduct. Nor is the
flip-side true: a certain person said they fear getting in trouble for
their political views if the CoC passes, and if they wanted to leave as
a result, so be it. Nobody is under any obligation to contribute to PHP,
they can freely choose not to contribute if they wish, and that is their
right.
I think it would be worse if you were not allowed to make such
statements. It's better that people be aware of consequences than be
surprised later.
I also want to quickly address the essence of the updated RFC in short, and in
particular, it's stated goal:
I strongly believe that a Code of Conduct is required. The amount of toxic
behaviour on this list is in my opinion unacceptable. It drives people away, it
certainly did. It is also one of the reasons I am not nearly as active as I
used to
be.
Much of what I wrote in my message to Anthony, that can be titled "What could
possibly go wrong?", still holds with the updated draft (the message is available
here: www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg82913.html).
There's one very notable exception - there is no ambiguity in any way about
what you're trying to address - which is fix 'toxic internals'. Notably, this
is a substantial shift (and arguably a 180 degrees turn) from what Anthony said
this RFC is supposed to address:
"There are two prime reasons people may avoid internals (at least related to
this discussion).
1. Don't want to deal with the aggressive tone of the list 2. Don't want to
expose themselves to targeted aggression/negativity
The first is not in scope of this RFC. We may or we may not want to take steps in the future
to "fix" that, but that's not in scope here."
For me, it validates that my worries about the widespread confusion were indeed
completely justified. But much worse, it means that with the author's stated
goal of this RFC addressing the 'Toxic Internals' issue, the risks associated
with this RFC are no longer theoretical. They're real, and we'd be slipping
down that slippery slope sooner rather than later.
Personally, I don't see how expanding from covering serious misbehaviour
(harassment etc.) to covering more generally
non-conducive-to-civil-discussion actions would make things more or less
open to potential abuse. Generally, opinions are not the problem, but
rather the way people go about expressing them.
I'm not going to repeat arguments I've made half a dozen times as to why having
a judicial system must be avoided, and why we must deal exclusively with
desired behaviors and not the 'exception handling' of bad behaviors. I made my
case in the best possible way I can and people who are interested in it can
read it in my previous replies on the topic. Equally important - many others
expressed similar views. Thus far, the only response is a laconic 'without
penalties it's useless', even though we've brought numerous supporting
arguments as why this is simply not true.
Even if you believe that it's not a problem, that doesn't change the
opinion of people who do think that an unenforced code of conduct is
problematic.
I will repeat that I'm very much in favor of a CoC that includes our positive
core values, and that includes a mediation team in case people are feeling
offended and that can intervene also w/o complaint - but that does not have any
sort of special powers - but is instead exclusively based on good will of all
parties. Even if certain people don't think that's good enough, I don't
believe that anybody would argue that it's BAD - the way many think the current
CoC proposal is. This is precisely why this is the right place to start.
A set of positive values is all well and good, but that won't fix
anything when people nonetheless act outside the rules, which is what a
code of conduct sets out to deal with. Or, basically, I think it's sort
of derailing, though I realise that is not what you intend. A set of
positive values doesn't constitute a "code".
That said, laying down what our values are might be a worthwhile
project, it should just be in a separate discussion. Having a slightly
more definitive idea of what PHP and its community is and it stands for
would be nice.
Thanks.
--
Andrea Faulds
https://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
