RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Lind [mailto:peter.e.lind@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 1:47 PM > To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> > Cc: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>; internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct > > On 25 January 2016 at 12:43, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com > <mailto:zeev@zend.com> > wrote: > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dan Ackroyd [mailto:danack@basereality.com > <mailto:danack@basereality.com> ] > > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 12:48 AM > > To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com > <mailto:smalyshev@gmail.com> > > > Cc: internals@lists.php.net > > <mailto:internals@lists.php.net> > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of > Conduct > > > > Arguing against an RFC is at least as legitimate as arguing for it; > Arguably, even more so - given our bias for status quo. > Put another word - the assumption (at least on the technical side) > that the current situation is good, and there needs to be a very robust case > enjoying widspread support in order to change it. > > > > > Not to nitpick, but if you're biased against status quo, what you need is > arguments that remove that bias - not arguments that strengthen it. I'm not talking about any person in particular - but the project as a whole. PHP is a very successful and widely used language, so our starting point with every discussion (at least technical one) should be that the status quo is not only acceptable, it's actually fine. It doesn't mean we can't do better and improve it - but it does mean that the onus of convincing the public that the proposal has merit is on the shoulders of the one making it. An important part of that discussion is that people who think the proposal is lacking, superfluous or outright bad, should argue their case. While I'm very much in favor of encouraging people to think how they can improve on RFCs instead of just 'shooting them down', sometimes that's not possible or practical: 1. Some ideas are just bad. 2. Some ideas maybe generally good, but not good enough to be worth adding. 3. Some people are better at finding what's wrong with a given proposal than they are at improving it. Often times, others (either the original authors or others) are motivated to think harder and come up with solutions to those issues when they're brought up. Regardless, I believe Dan was talking about situations where we had 'stalemate' - cases in which people on both opposite camps of a given proposal couldn't convince the others. Censoring one of the sides - arguably the opposing side in particular (given the inherent assumption above) - is inconceivable. > Your assumption that the status quo is good is a problem if it is a bias. Bias may or may not be the correct term here, but yes, I think the status quo is good. PHP is doing very well. > It is not > a good thing, on the contrary, it actively prohibits you from considering > better alternatives to the status quo. Not at all, it just means that changes to the status quo must be duly scrutinized. An inherent part of that is trying to poke holes at it, or go as much as arguing against it if people think it's bad. Zeev