| Next revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision |
| rfc:analysis:prevent_disruptions_of_conversations [2019/09/26 10:47] – created zeev | rfc:analysis:prevent_disruptions_of_conversations [2019/09/27 05:30] – zeev |
|---|
| It is a potent combination of laconic text, vague definitions and draconian consequences. It's hard to overstate the potential risk associated with enacting such rules hastily - both in the short term, and even more so down the road. | It is a potent combination of laconic text, vague definitions and draconian consequences. It's hard to overstate the potential risk associated with enacting such rules hastily - both in the short term, and even more so down the road. |
| |
| In addition - this proposal radically misuses the RFC process, which was never designed to regulate the most fundamental communications channels (which created it in the first place as a means to an end, and predates it by almost 15 years) and silence dissenting voices. | In addition, this proposal also radically misuses the RFC process, which was never designed to regulate the most fundamental communications channel (that created it). While this analysis briefly touches that subject towards the end, its main focus is the countless number of bad ideas, holes and risks that this proposal poses if it became binding. |
| | |
| Its fundamentally flawed use of the Voting RFC aside, the proposal contains countless bad ideas, holes and risks. The purpose of this analysis is to shed some light on them. | |
| |
| |
| ===It's purposely leaves out clear definitions of what constitutes 'disruptive behavior'=== | ===It's purposely leaves out clear definitions of what constitutes 'disruptive behavior'=== |
| |
| Quoting the text: "However other behaviours that people find disruptive, that someone refused to stop doing when asked to using the process listed below, would also be covered by this RFC." | Quoting the text: |
| | |
| | <blockquote>"However other behaviours that people find disruptive, that someone refused to stop doing when asked to using the process listed below, would also be covered by this RFC."</blockquote> |
| |
| This is a purposely open-ended definition, that is a perfect gateway for a future slippery slope towards misusing the mechanism. | This is a purposely open-ended definition, that is a perfect gateway for a future slippery slope towards misusing the mechanism. |
| Discussions on internals@ have remarkably far reaching effects, influencing millions of people and countless ecosystems. While keeping things calm and relaxed is definitely a worthy goal - it is hardly the primary goal of internals@, and certainly not an exclusive one. In situations where keeping things calm may adversely affect countless users - it's not only OK to debate every aspect of it at length - it's our obligation to do so. The recently discussed topics - most of which would have had tremendous impact on a very large subset of the PHP codebase and userbase worldwide - definitely fall in that category. | Discussions on internals@ have remarkably far reaching effects, influencing millions of people and countless ecosystems. While keeping things calm and relaxed is definitely a worthy goal - it is hardly the primary goal of internals@, and certainly not an exclusive one. In situations where keeping things calm may adversely affect countless users - it's not only OK to debate every aspect of it at length - it's our obligation to do so. The recently discussed topics - most of which would have had tremendous impact on a very large subset of the PHP codebase and userbase worldwide - definitely fall in that category. |
| |
| | |
| | ===Majority Rule is not Democratic without Minority Rights=== |
| | |
| | While majority rule is a key element of Democratic systems, it is hardly the single requirement. The rights of minorities are a key aspect of Democratic systems, and this proposal provides an unrestrained mechanism to hurt them - allowing voices to be silenced and people to be banned in contentious, not nearly unanimous decision processes. A good read on Majority Rule and Minority Rights is [[https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/majority-rule-and-minority-rights/|available here]] |
| | |
| | |
| | ===Forcing contentious emails to be on-list is the very definition of 'disruption'=== |
| | |
| | Almost by definition, personal emails - which are irrelevant for the list subscribers at large - should not be sent on the list. They are, by definition, off topic. This is especially true for ones dealing with negative personal feedback - sending them on list does nothing but increase levels of negative vibes and unnecessary drama. And yet - the proposal seeks to make these grounds for perpetual banning. To be clear - it does not seek to define a recurring instance of sending personal negative emails as abuse, but rather, even a single occurrence of a mail that is deemed negative - suffices. Based on recent experience, it's also very flexible with its definition of the word 'abusive' - which means we don't even have to wait for sliding down the slippery slope - we're already well under way downhill. |
| | |
| | 'Adversarial' off-topic discussions are best off not happening at all, but if they do happen - it's best that they're super short and taken off list. There's no need to bug everyone with the drama. |
| |
| |
| Another, which is just as real, is decision by consensus for critical decisions. | Another, which is just as real, is decision by consensus for critical decisions. |
| |
| As a principal author of the Voting RFC, and as the person who came up with the 2/3 bar - I can say with absolute confidence that it was meant to regulate feature proposals - and not transforming policy changes - which this proposal certainly falls under. You don't only have to take my word for it - there - 'clues' are available all over the various RFC documents, beginning with the Voting RFC itself: | As a principal author of the Voting RFC and as the person who came up with the 2/3 bar - I can say with absolute confidence that it was meant to regulate feature proposals - and not transforming policy changes - which this proposal certainly falls under. You don't only have to take my word for it - there - 'clues' are available all over the various RFC documents, beginning with the Voting RFC itself: |
| |
| <blockquote>Given that changes to languages (...) are for the most part irreversible - the purpose of the vote is to ensure that there's strong support for the **proposed feature**.</blockquote> (emphasis added) | <blockquote>Given that changes to languages (...) are for the most part irreversible - the purpose of the vote is to ensure that there's strong support for the **proposed feature**.</blockquote> (emphasis added) |
| |
| |
| It's true that since the Voting RFC process was enacted, it was used for limited-scope / tactical policy decisions. However - neither of these imply that it suddenly became as our sole form of governance that can be applied to everything - especially as it attempts to make the jump to cover topics like project participation policies and mailing list censorship. It's also worth pointing out that even in the handful of cases where it was used for minor policy changes - all of these policy changes effectively cleared the bar of decision by consensus (our bar for radical and far-reaching-consequence decisions such as this), and not just barely clearing a 2/3 bar - which would have implied an extremely controversial decision. | It's true that since the Voting RFC process was enacted, it was used for limited-scope / tactical policy decisions. However - neither of these imply that it suddenly became as our sole form of governance that can be applied to everything - especially as it attempts to make the giant leap to cover topics like project participation policies, mailing list censorship and full-fledged banning of members. It's also worth pointing out that even in the handful of cases where it was used for minor policy changes - all of these policy changes effectively cleared the bar of decision by consensus, and not just barely clearing a 2/3 bar - which would have implied an extremely controversial decision. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| ===Majority Rule is not Democratic without Minority Rights=== | |
| | |
| While majority rule is a key element of Democratic systems, it is hardly the single requirement. The rights of minorities are a key aspect of Democratic systems, and this proposal provides an unrestrained mechanism to hurt them - allowing voices to be silenced and people to be banned in contentious, not nearly unanimous decision processes. A good read on Majority Rule and Minority Rights is [[https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/majority-rule-and-minority-rights/|available here]] | |
| | |
| | |
| ===Forcing contentious emails to be on-list is the very definition of 'disruption'=== | |
| | |
| Almost by definition, personal emails - which are irrelevant for the list subscribers at large - should not be sent on the list. They are, by definition, off topic. This is especially true for ones dealing with negative personal feedback - sending them on list does nothing but increase levels of negative vibes and unnecessary drama. And yet - the proposal seeks to make these grounds for perpetual banning. To be clear - it does not seek to define a recurring instance of sending personal negative emails as abuse, but rather, even a single occurrence of a mail that is deemed negative - suffices. Based on recent experience, it's also very flexible with its definition of the word 'abusive' - which means we don't even have to wait for sliding down the slippery slope - we're already well under way downhill. | |
| | |
| 'Adversarial' off-topic discussions are best off not happening at all, but if they do happen - it's best that they're super short and taken off list. There's no need to bug everyone with the drama. | |
| |
| |