Hi, On 21 January 2016 at 07:50, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > I think the fact that this RFC was (and still is) perceived to be a solution > for the toxic internals problem - actually served the proponents of this RFC > very well. On one hand, this is what people at large care about. On the > other - the proponents can tell the those who oppose that it's not at all > what the RFC is about, and that their worries about this becoming a tool for > a behavioral/thought police are completely baseless. > > Note that despite the fact that Derick - who's now the RFC author - clearly > said that the reason he's reviving the RFC is because internals is toxic - > you're still assuming that the RFC isn't intended to 'fix mailing list > toxicity'. > > Can we get any more confused than that?
We can but try to be more confused ;). I was indeed though – my bad. The revised RFC has two parts combined and I glossed completely over the second: 1. The Code of Conduct (i.e. Contributor Covenant 1.3) 2. Constructive Collaboration Guidelines (i.e. somewhat “toxicity” related) >> At a basic level, what exactly is a code of conduct where the only >> consequence is mediation, where both parties are assumed to have good >> will, and where the outcome is ??????????. > > My take? A successful one. One that we can all rally behind, as opposed to > a controversial one that is creating much angst. Please see my response to > Andrea. > >> That's the a problem from my >> perspective. What is the outcome? Does mediation continue indefinitely >> without results? > > No, in the vast majority - and I do mean VAST majority, mediation works and > results would be quick. When people are told that they should cool off, they > typically do. I know I would. Even more so if that mediation team could > point me to a certain desired behavior I'm not quite following at that time, > and do so respectfully and not judgmentally. Agreed. >> While the mediation is ongoing for the long haul, will be >> there be any remediation set to protect a theoretical victim? What is Plan B? > > I don't think we can go on discussing two completely different issues - > safety and 'toxicity', while jumping in between them as if they're the same > thing. The way the current RFC author sets of the scope is much wider than > safety issues, and the use of the word 'victim' and 'remediation' are not > really relevant to it - at least in the vast majority of incidents we're > likely to experience Apologies, that wasn’t my intent – I wasn’t referring to the “toxicity” issue. Solely referring there to anything under the Contributor Covenant section of the RFC. The words “victim”, etc do apply there in the context of harassment and such. >> Part of the COC is to explicitly limit ad-hoc reactions should things go >> completely down the gutter by defining something upfront. By extension, >> any uncertainty of what would happen should Person A complain may act as >> a deterrent to making such a complaint. It could be anticipated that long >> drawn out procedures with an unknown ending are in and of themselves >> stressful (and to both parties to boot). > > There's just no way to undo the damage that the threat of penalties does when > the goal is trying to foster positive behavior. Any education person - and > hopefully most parents - will tell you that. Our brains respond completely > differently to demands and threats versus encouragement and guidance. > > There's no absolute winning formula, and there's no one size fits all. Yes, > in an extreme, uncommon case - the fact we're focusing on desired behavior > and not on 'deterrence' - might cause a certain individual to feel they can > do a certain something and get away with it (something, that if safety issues > was what we're dealing with, may very well be illegal and carry criminal > penalties). Is it worth to design our whole system around that extremely > infrequent situation *AT THE EXPENSE* of how we deal with the normal day to > day situations? I know my answer. It doesn’t need to revolve entirely around it, but it should somewhere acknowledge it. Honestly, I don’t care if it’s one line in a footnote in pt2 font size, so long as it’s there. Also, loosely connected and off on a tangent perhaps, it’s important that we don’t just expect legal consequences to solve everything at the extreme end of the spectrum. While that avenue can certainly exist, depending on local laws, I imagine the cost would be prohibitive (for not outright criminal behaviour) and I really don’t see that working well across international borders. I can only speak to local practice and solicitor costs here on one small island, of course. Paddy -- Pádraic Brady http://blog.astrumfutura.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
