Hi! > Let me reiterate that the question that was posed, and which I am > answering is, “Why do people avoid internals?” and “Does internals > want to attract newcomers?”
Sure, but you talked about specific behavior in specific discussion. Except of an incident of some unfortunate name-calling, my opinion was that it was pretty common discussion which did not feature any disruptive behavior, but you called it "reprehensive" - so I wanted to know why, if you can explain. > * I am not indicting any one person or event or thing said in > particular. I am indicting the *whole of internals as a group* on its > conduct. (And so my comments in general should be taken in that > light, and not as finger pointing at any one person/event/thing said > in particular.) But we can not change the conduct of "whole of internals as a group". It is just a metaphor describing set of behaviors of its members. So if we can not move past "guys, you suck!" then it is understandable but we can't do anything about it. > Toxic internals is not just bad words. It’s *all of the above*. OK, I could nitpick on specific but it's not important. What is important is - what to do about it? > them”, or silent acceptance. And I mean caustic in both the > corrosive/corroding/abrasive *and* sarcastic/cutting/biting meanings. > It goes way beyond cute or funny. The level of vitrol is astounding. > > And it is *not* acceptable. What would you do instead? I mean, telling people is not enough - what else, bans? > here is smart, and hard working, and talented. But everyone put > together in this pot called php-internals has produced something > pretty foul. At least, it certainly smells that way. I must disagree with that. Put together we have produced something that million people use and create amazing things based on it. Yes, sometimes seeing how the sausage is made is not a pretty sight. But presenting it as it's just that I think is wrong. > Another part of the problem is the constant gaslighting and > Sea-Lioning (as Anthony puts it). I’ve watched many conversations run > around in circles, with everyone making the same points over and over > again, the tone deteriorating over time (or starting out > deteriorated). There’s always someone who seems intent on > intentionally misunderstanding the situation. A lot of talk and > nothing really said. I would caution you not to confuse "somebody is not agreeing with me" with "somebody is maliciously misunderstanding me". There's a lot being said, and most of what is being said was important to say (not all of it). > Again, a reminder: perception is more important than reality. Whether I must say I completely disagree with that statement. I think reality does matter. > community. But internals? I should not feel like I have to don an > asbestos suit just to get into a trivial conversation. Just a note - CoC is way apart from a "trivial conversation", it is a big thing. So is STH and so on. "Trivial conversation" would be asking for status of a pull request or committing a typo fix. Not much chance for 1000-message discussion. > Internal’s current code of conduct (and again: *perception* is more > important than reality), *strictly from an observation of it’s > actions*, is that the sort of vitrol and hate and gaslighting and > sea-lioning and personal attacks and hyperbole and whatnot that were > present in the prior thread is allowed. Because it keeps happening. I'm sorry but I must notice I think you observations is quite wrong (I mean I don't doubt you feel that way, I just doubt it indeed happened that way). There was a bit of hyperbole, I admit - but no personal attacks, and no hate. Unless you are confusing disagreement with hate? That's my personal perception. > Oh, yes, people get yelled at and they shut up for awhile eventually. OK, so telling people they are in the wrong not enough. What would be? I mean, I got it, you think things are really bad. I am not sure I agree, but never mind that, I got your point and I appreciate it. So, what's your proposal? Bans? Special troika on enforcement of politeness? That wouldn't work. Any better proposals? > I want to look forward to all the awesome technical discussion about > the next cool feature in PHP. I want to *be a part* of the next cool > feature in PHP. I want to see a thread of 100 emails and go “this is > such an amazing discussion on the merits and drawbacks of the new > Frobinator feature, I disagree with some of the ideas, but I never > thought about it quite that way before, but gosh, I learned something > here and it’s going to be amazing when it’s done”. That would be amazing, but real humans very rarely behave this way when they think Frobinator feature is the best way to ensure PHP dies a slow horrible death. And whatever you propose, however you think brilliant it is, there might be be people that think exactly that. So, what we do then? It's easy to be warm and supporting when everybody agrees, except for some small unimportant details, but how would you be warm and supporting while telling a person that you think the feature they worked on for the whole last year is a horrible idea and they should not mention it ever again? That's the real problem. > Here’s how: *STOP BEING TOXIC*. How? I dunno. I’m open to ideas. I’m So, let's proceed to ideas? -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
