> -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Garfield [mailto:la...@garfieldtech.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 9:46 PM > To: internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines -- > "let's proceed to ideas"
> There's an important point we've been glossing over here that I think is > important to make explicit, as it is part of the reticence people have about > CoCs, "culture change", etc. That all presupposes that there are problems, > which means that fixing them implies some people's behavior will need to > change. People don't like needing to change their behavior (regardless of > whether that behavior is subjectively "good" or "bad"). I view this a bit differently. First, I think saying something like "People will have to change" is not a good description of what we're after. If we're going to declare something along the lines of 'New rules here, you're going to have to change' - then yes, I think we're going to have a very hard time - both in getting buy-in, and in terms of the likelihood of this whole thing actually resulting in transforming the atmosphere on internals for the better. I also don't think we need to create unanimous agreement that 'there is a problem'. That's the wrong first step - as it creates controversy from the get go (as it already did). The way I see it, we don't need to acknowledge having a problem in order to want to improve. I'm sure that resonates with most developers on this list - wanting to continuously improve does not mean you're saying that things were problematic to begin with. Instead, it's an assumption which is literally always true - wherever you are, whatever you do, you can always do better. It's true for everything - processes, relationships, code - and mailing list etiquette. The right question, IMHO, is do we want to improve? Do we want to try and be more polite and respectful? Do we want to try and improve the atmosphere? That's a much easier goal to rally around, I think, and for the most part, I can hardly imagine there won't be consensus around it. > Many lists I'm on, particularly those with high churn, send out an email every > month automatically with list rules et al. 98% of people won't bother reading > them 98% of the time, but for the first time you see it it's an indication of > "oh, > yeah, they've code some expectations in place, maybe I'll read them" and for > subsequent times it's a reminder of "oh yeah, that thing, it exists." Similar > idea to the company (I forget > which) that has the company principles printed out in everyone's cube to > read over every morning. Something along the lines of this should be at least a part of the solution, I think. Continuing the point I made above, instead of having a laundry list of what not to do - we should focus on the values and behavior we want to encourage - positive expectations. I wouldn't call them 'rules', either, but guidelines, such as Please Be Respectful, or 'Please don't do to others would you wouldn't want others to do to you'. Humans tend to react negatively when they're forced to do something, and much better when they're encouraged to do it - especially as we don't want to go in the direction of sanctions. If we end up having a mediation team (not the CR team, but a team whose pure job is to mediate) - I think it would be fair for it to jump in in case it sees a discussion going south or a certain person that's going against the spirit of these values - and I believe that in the vast majority of cases, it would be more than enough for them to cool off. Ultimately I think most people want to improve. The other part, IMHO, is minimizing contentious topics, even if it's at the price of doing less. > That email would include either the text of or links to a "list rules" > doc (which is not necessarily easy to find as is), a link to a CoC should one > pass, etc. Keep it reasonably short, but having it in-your-face for even a > few > seconds once a month can be helpful over time. > > > Finally, I remarked yesterday that the current Internals culture > > serves a political purpose: to support the existing power hierarchy. > > That's rather pessimistic but there remains hope if one believes power > > can be exerted effectively through good conduct. > > ^^ This. If we do end up having a laundry list of what not to do, would it include not making vague statements that imply accusations? :) Zeev
