On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 09:26:28 UTC-7, Chris Johnson wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:14:35 AM UTC-5, Angie Byron / webchick > wrote: > > [snip] > > >> However, the fact that this accusation has this many other signatories >> from leaders in the PHP community who are *not* generally known for causing >> drama for no reason, saying that this person is being disruptive to their >> work, demonstrates to me that this person must actually be pretty >> (actually, majorly) disruptive to other peoples’ work. >> > > Angie, I have to respectfully disagree on this point. Later in your post, > you criticize the counting of supporters versus non-supporters. Yet you > just counted signatories and "leaders" (a very subjective category). >
Well, again from my outsider POV, I know most of these people as the "leaders" of their respective projects (Symfony, Composer, etc.). I'm really sorry if I'm missing some nuance there, I definitely don't mean any offense. But my point was, *despite* how conflict-averse most humans are, these folks nonetheless put their respective necks on the line to make a stand against this person; meaning, it seems like there has to be something truly serious going on, not just some kind of silly personal grudge or whatever. > > [snip] > > It is absolutely, unequivocally, 500% on the person *doing the >> communicating* to do said communicating in a way that doesn’t alienate and >> frustrate others, *particularly* in an “official” standards body like this, >> It is NOT on the person *reading* the communication to take on the extra >> mental headache to “read between the lines” and try and find the nugget of >> truth buried somewhere in aggressive/patronizing/whatever words. Those >> who’ve said that the conduct of members of this group reflect on the group >> as a whole are absolutely bang on about this. >> > > > Again I disagree. There is no way for a writer/speaker to know and avoid > every single thing which may or may not alienate or frustrate one of her > many readers/listeners. That's an impossible ideal. > I truly do not understand this. Why is it then that only Paul is being singled out here for his disruptive behaviour, and not the dozens or hundreds of other people who use this mailing list? It seems like everyone else has figured out how to hold a conversation, even about sometimes heated topics, in a way that does not involve roughly half of their readers getting pissed off enough to escalate it to a conflict resolution mediator. Also, it's *really* not rocket science. :) Simply talk the way you would want the douchiest person you know to talk to you. ;) > Sadly, I've lost a lot of respect for a few people whom I've admired for > many years as a result of this -- and all among those trying to oust Paul > Jones. I was shocked to see their names on the list of people who > complained. I wondered how it got to this point and yet those people > haven't spoken privately with Paul Jones in a constructive fashion? > > Imagine you are employed with 10 co-workers all working for the same boss. > Imagine you make a perceived mistake. Do you want your boss to angrily > chew you out in front of the 10 co-workers, or do you want to have a > private, calm, conversation with that boss about the situation? This whole > thing appears to me to be the former. > > Yes, people like to avoid conflict, as Angie suggested. > > That does not however mean they necessarily try to solve the problem in a > productive manner in quiet, off-channel ways. Instead, they often stew in > their complaints and then begin to share bitter thoughts with others who > have them -- which only magnifies the problem, instead of solving it. It's > human nature, because it's easier. It's less time consuming. It even has > it's own personal emotional rewards. Doing the right thing often takes > courage and effort. > Given that said private, quiet, off-channel conversations would've happened in private, quiet, and off-channel, and thus been outside the purview of this mailing list, I'm inclined to believe that they probably happened at least 3-4 "last straws" before this... perhaps not from everyone in the list of "accusers," but certainly with at least some of them, or a designated, neutral third-party. (If I'm wrong about this, that certainly should be step 2 or 3. But Lukas seems to have confirmed that less combative channels were tried first up above, which would only be logical.) > > I would advocate that everyone involved needs to cool off for a while, and > then make a real courageous attempt to find their best selves, take the > long view and see if a better solution can't be found. > A "time out" ban could indeed be a good middle-ground that communicates the seriousness of the offence, without permanently kicking someone well-respected from the community, which I think is making people uncomfortable. But again, I think only if Paul recognizes his own contribution to the situation, and takes genuine, honest steps to prevent future recurrences. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to php-fig@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/791bbc17-2673-4662-9cad-65291da23922%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
