Hi! > You've watered down the text about bad behaviour in general and in > particular the bits explicitly listing bad behaviour surrounding > discussion of RFCs; I do not like that direction.
I purposefully removed some examples of bad behavior, restricting it to minimal list showing in broad lines what we won't accept. This is not random - that's the whole point, telling what we *want* to see, and spending only as much time on what we *do not* want to see as necessary to give reasonable person an idea what they are not supposed to do, without turning the thing into a penal code. As for discussion of RFCs specifically, I think it should be guided by the same rules as any other discussion on the project, and thus needs no specific treatment, at least within the bounds of CoC. If we want specific RFC-targeted advice, we can have it in the docs where we describe how to make an RFC. > A significant number of technical RFC discussions have been less > productive than they should be, due to people repeatedly sending > emails against an RFC, that repeat what they have already said, which And if you think CoC can or should prevent this, then we have radically different views on what CoC is supposed to be. To me, CoC has two tasks: 1. Nudge people in the direction of better cooperation by showing them how we expect them to behave (this is much more powerful thing than one may think) and by establishing environment which would attract people willing to cooperate nicely. 2. Provide tools to deal with rare exceptional events which may seriously disrupt or destroy cooperation in the project. For me, if people would use CoC to count how many times they sent a message on the list and then start arguing about *that* instead of the actual matter, then we made things worse, not better. The thought that somebody can be banned from discussion solely because they sent extra email per hour, or repeated an argument, makes me cringe. We certainly do not need anything like that here. It looks like you want CoC to make discussions somehow more structured or closed to how your ideal of the discussion looks like. If that is the case, then indeed we have very different ideas of what CoC is for, and I think most CoCs we have seen so far are nothing like that and never intended to do that - i.e. regulate the content of non-abusive non-conflict discussions. > Also, you probably ought to put your own name as the author names on a > document when making large changes, instead of leaving other people's > at the top. As I said, I did not touch almost anything beyond CoC part. This is nowhere near finished document, it's just a draft, so whatever name is there does not matter now. When (if) we get to something finalized, then we'd put names as appropriate. -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
