On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Rouven Weßling <m...@rouvenwessling.de>
wrote:
>
> > On 13 Jan 2016, at 14:57, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't see it that way. I think I provided very relevant feedback -
> that yes, called for a very substantial revision of the proposal and a
> removal of a substantial part of it - but I still marked the concept of
> having a CoC as a good idea from the get go. Separately, I think that if
> people think that a given proposal is a bad idea and cannot be improved -
> it's perfectly fine that they would voice their opinion. Some ideas are
> just bad, and RFCs are often withdrawn or fail to pass. Personally I don't
> think the CoC proposal is inherently bad - quite the opposite - but I think
> its implementation the way it's currently phrased is quite negative. To be
> perfectly honest, I'm offended that despite spending literally hours on
> providing feedback and making my case for why even the latest draft is
> problematic (and how I think it can be improved to reach consensus) -
> feedback that were completely respectful - I received no response from any
> proponent of the RFC. The same holds true for several other people - who
> provided relevant feedback which went ignored. In fact, the response came
> as saying 'No more feedback please. My next email will be presenting a
> final draft, after which I'll go to a vote after the minimum allotted time'.
>
> As someone who is only occasionally participating on internals, maybe my
> 2ct are worthwhile here. Note that I’ve only read the first ~150 emails
> (out of currently 323 mails) on the CoC thread - at some point it just took
> up too much time - so my opinion is based on that sample.
>
> What happened in that thread (in other bigger discussions before) is that
> people feel the urge to reply to every point individually as soon as they
> see the mail. In my experience it’s much better to make a point, stand back
> while feedback comes in (also helps calm you if a topic agitates someone -
> it’s ok to have strong feeling, but getting angry isn’t helpful) and then
> respond to accumulated feedback in one email. Yes that’s more work than
> just firing off a quick reply, but quick replies aren’t what’s needed in a
> discussion of (hopefully) well considered arguments.
>
> Instead what we have is people writing 6 emails in 15 minutes (admittedly
> an extreme example), someone writing a reply to the first message before
> the last message is even written, which then also gets an email and so.
> Also people seem to repeat themselves quite a bit. This makes it
> *incredibly* time consuming to follow just one issue, let alone the entire
> mailing lists.
>
> TL;DR: If you find yourself replying more than once an hour to a thread,
> something is wrong.
>
>
>
Yup, this is explicitly part of "mailing list rules"
Do not post when you are angry. Any post can wait a few hours. Review
your post after a good breather or a good nights sleep.
Try to wait a bit longer before
sending your replies to give other people more time to digest your answers
and more importantly give you the opportunity to make sure that you
aggregate your current position into a single mail instead of multiple
ones. [1]
Of course, it also says things like "Do not top post" and we see how often
that happens...
[1]
http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=blob_plain;f=README.MAILINGLIST_RULES;hb=HEAD
