For the record, you make some good points in this message. I just want
to make that clear, since I've been critical of your tone elsewhere, and
don't want to be seen as being negative for negativity's sake.
However, I wanted to reply to one rhetorical question:
Paul M. Jones wrote on 06/01/2016 15:52:
And that's just me. I know for a fact that several other people have
>had incidents. I know that several people avoid internals and the
>project because of fear of incidents. I won't speak for them, that's
>their prerogative.
If their fear of words on a screen overrides their desire to contribute, what
does that say?
Your implication seems to be "well, that's their problem, they should be
less timid". That's great if you happen to be someone with a strong base
of confidence etc to draw from, but the reality is not everyone feels
that way.
It is as much an act of control for you to say that everyone must accept
all behaviour towards them, as for someone else to say that you must
moderate your behaviour for the good of the project.
The reality is that those people will be put off contributing no matter
how much you tell them that it is "just words", and the community will
be the poorer for their loss.
That said, your actual conclusion seems to be that a policy should focus
on conflict resolution rather than enforcement of conduct, and should
avoid as much as possible introducing power structures; neither of those
points actually relies on the "people should just get over it" idea, so
there is common ground to be found.
Regards,
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
