RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
| From: | Zeev Suraski | Date: | Sat, 09 Jan 2016 17:57:01 +0000 |
| Subject: | RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-90421@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bishop.bettini@gmail.com [mailto:bishop.bettini@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Bishop Bettini
> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 7:38 PM
> To: Paul M. Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com>
> Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>; PHP internals
> <internals@lists.php.net>; Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > On Jan 9, 2016, at 09:43, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jan 9, 2016 10:16 PM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 23:25, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul's early reply in this thread were over aggressive
> > > >
> > > > You are wrong. At best, it is "your opinion" only.
> > >
> > > I am not wrong nor right. You were aggressive. And it is not only me
> > saying. that if you check this thread.
> >
> > I've checked it and I don't see the "aggressive" you are talking
> > about.
> > Can you be more precise? Quoting my actual sentences would be good.
>
>
> Within the framework of the alternative PHP Contributor Etiquette
> <http://cerebriform.blogspot.com/2016/01/php-contributor-
> etiquette.html>, a moderator would jump in about now. The email would go
> something like this:
>
> --- BEGIN ---
>
> Hey Pierre and Paul,
>
> I hear what both you guys are saying. You're both making good points. I
> think, though, how the words are presented is causing some
> miscommunication.
>
> Pierre, when you say "Paul's reply [was] over aggressive", you're
> presenting
> an opinion word as a logical truth. Instead, consider phrasing like "I felt Paul's
> reply was over aggressive". That phrasing signals you're expressing a valid,
> true feeling you have rather than labeling the reply.
>
> Paul, when you say "You are wrong", you signal you've heard Pierre, but
> reject his statement. As the statement is a valid and true feeling Pierre
> presents, that is tantamount to rejecting Pierre as a person rather than
> refuting his argument. Instead, consider phrasing like. "I'm hearing you say
> my tone was aggressive. I mean to convey my passion, not attack anyone
> personally."
>
> Pierre, consider that the word "aggressive" connotes unprovoked or militant
> attacks: maybe "fiery" or "impassioned" might also fit.
>
> Paul, consider that "fascist" might be interpreted personally by those whose
> families lived under fascist rule. Perhaps "authoritarian" or "imperious"
> might
> also fit.
>
> What do you think? Feel free to write back, or chat further on Skype or IRC
>
> --- END ---
>
> The idea is direct, straightforward mediation: listen, validate, guide, and
> remain open.
You have my vote for the mediation team!
Zeev