Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> On Jan 6, 2016, at 10:30, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. Noted, and appreciated. > 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. For what it's worth, I don't "accept" so much as "ignore" (or, sometimes with enjoyment, "respond in kind" -- saucing the gander, as it were). Having said that, I recognize that my ability to bear intellectual, emotional, and psychological stressors is perhaps stronger than some, and that of course colors my opinions here. > 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. I assert that you don't know, and cannot measure, if it's poorer for their loss. For example, if a person must consistently be protected from others because of their particular vulnerabilities to words alone, you have to weigh their actual contributions against their actual costs. That ratio will be different for different potential contributors; some will be a net positive, some a net negative, to the project. (Indeed, the new protections themselves may have negative productivity effects for previously productive contributors; while imaginable, that assertion should of course be subject to measurement.) > 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; I think that's a fair assessment. > neither of those points actually relies on the "people should just get over it" idea, > so there is common ground to be found. Also fair. -- Paul M. Jones pmjones88@gmail.com http://paul-m-jones.com Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP https://leanpub.com/mlaphp Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP https://leanpub.com/sn1php