RE: [PHP-DEV] Specific incident in relationship to the proposed Code of Conduct

> -----Original Message----- > From: Derick Rethans [mailto:derick@php.net] > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 1:01 PM > To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> > Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>; PHP internals > <internals@lists.php.net> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Specific incident in relationship to the proposed Code > of Conduct > > On Sat, 23 Jan 2016, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > > > > I think we should have used temporary bans a bit more to cool down > > > things. Including to myself along other. > > > > Ban is a very dangerous thing, since it excludes people from > > discussion thus preventing it from reaching a conclusion, achieving > > consensus and closure, and it also hurts people and labels them ("ah, > > this guy who was already banned stirs up things again? let's just > > ignore him, he's obviously a troll"). > > But on the flip side, most of us are pretty good sporting trolling anyway I assume you meant 'spotting' trolling and not sporting them, right? :) >, and I > certainly have ignored threads where some people partipated because I > didn't think it would contribute anything to the discussion. And that means > you miss out on reasonable comments and opinions too. I think there's no way around the fact that the amount of traffic on internals is simply high for practically anybody that doesn't have internals as their full time job. I personally think trolling is a very small part of it, a part that can easily be resolved by 'muting' people that you think are trolling. As I said in what seems like ages ago, I don't think that internals is toxic - certainly not as a rule. It can certainly *become* toxic in certain situations, but on average, I think most of our discussions are on topic. My key challenge with them is simply that there's just too many of them, and too much detail in each. So I pick the ones I actively participate in very selectively. I don't expect a Values document or a CoC to change that. While in our current quest for Project Values there's no real need to define a problem, I think that as the discussion evolves, it would be important to bring up specific discussions people think went wrong - but not only point them out, but also discuss what we envision should have been done differently had Values/CoC/mediation been in place. > Tthe balance needs to be found as to what's more important: seeing all good > discussions and comments and inconvieniencing a persistent troll, or drawing > out reasonable comments manually because of an issue being > inconvienienced by a troll. I don't know the answer. A balance is important, > and *perhaps* an option is to do allow for short term (in the order of days) > "timeout periods" — in case the "please cool down" > message is repeatly ignored. I didn't fully understand what you're saying here, but I do think that 'cool down periods' are problematic, unless they would be enforced on a given topic, as opposed to specific individuals. One unexpected side effect of the RFC process is that time has become an important factor. An RFC author can press ahead with a vote very shortly after introducing a topic, and an imposed 'cool down' period can prevent relevant discussion. Agreed we can defer that discussion to a later time. Zeev