Hi Stas,
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
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
I don't want to be dismissive, but I do not see anything on the list
that should make anybody feel *unsafe* (unless of course I misunderstand
what you mean by "unsafe", in which case please correct me).
Uncomfortable - sure, exhausted and exasperated - oh yes, but unsafe?
I mean, everybody has the right to *feel* whatever they like, but I
don't see how we can accept any responsibility for those feelings if
they have no base in anything that actually happened? I feel like more
insight into this would definitely be useful - what concerns about
safety we have and CoC would fix?
Safety isn't usually something people have to worry about with the list,
I think. Usually we're civil.
That being said, the CoC discussion seems to have attracted attention
from other parts of the Internet, and at least I, personally, do not
feel entirely safe speaking out about it now because I fear becoming the
newest target of online harassment from right-wing groups. This
discussion is already being watched by them.
I can't really talk about other people's motives for not contributing,
however. Certainly safety isn't the only concern people might have.
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.
That is certainly true, in general. In particular, though, the argument
"do as I tell, or I'll take my toys and leave" is not a very
constructive approach, because it leaves no space for seeking compromise
- either you do exactly as you told to, fully submitting to whatever the
other person says to do, or no collaboration happens ever. While on some
(very small set of) questions it may be the way to go, in most areas I
don't think this is a fair way to do things.
It's not a nice way to conduct negotiations, but I don't think this is a
deliberate attempt at forcing people to accept a code of conduct.
Rather, I think people who have said they might leave do so because they
have gotten sick of the "toxicity" of the list and are the code of
conduct being rejected because of it would be a last straw. I can't
claim to speak for them, though, so I'll stop talking about this.
It comes off as manipulative, but what can be done? Would it be better
to silently disappear after a code of conduct is rejected?
Personally, I don't see how expanding from covering serious misbehavior
(harassment etc.) to covering more generally
non-conducive-to-civil-discussion actions would make things more or less
Very easily. Instead of discussing things on merits, people start
rule-laywering and offense-sniping each other. In fact, we see this
happening from time to time even now, when people who dislike RFC try to
argue against it on technicalities, and I think it does not improve
matters, but if we officially enshrine this as a policy, this would grow
tenfold. It is much easier to say "she is posting too often!" or "he
disagrees with me too much and I feel offended and threatened!" and try
to shut the opponent up than to address the matter of disagreement. So
we are creating motivation for destructive behavior. This needs to be
addressed.
Ah, actually I can see what you're getting at. It does sometimes happen
that people complain about how others are behaving in discussions,
others who disagree with them. But I think often those concerns are
quite valid nonetheless... surely it must be possible to design things
so that dealing with such behaviour doesn't give the opposing side an
unfortunate advantage. Perhaps if you were to temporarily ban someone
from the list, say, it would delay the RFC they were dicussing. It must
be possible to deal with people's behaviour separately from their
technical opinions. I worry if people can be immune from criticism
because they favour a particular side of a technical argument.
That's just a very quick thought though, don't take it as a concrete
proposal, it's more a musing.
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.
Worse than not having any at all?
It could be, it's arguable. If you have a set of rules but nothing is
done if they are violated, then someone who sees the set of rules and is
unaware they are unenforced might be given a false impression.
Thanks.
--
Andrea Faulds
https://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
