| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |
| rfc:counterargument:prevent_disruptions_of_conversations [2019/09/26 06:05] – WIP zeev | rfc:counterargument:prevent_disruptions_of_conversations [2019/09/26 10:47] (current) – WIP zeev |
|---|
| ====== Analysis of 'Preventing Disruptions of Conversations' proposal ====== | ====== Analysis of 'Preventing Disruptions of Conversations' proposal ====== |
| * Date: 2019-08-06 | * Date: 2019-09-26 |
| * Author: Zeev Suraski, zeev@php.net | * Author: Zeev Suraski, zeev@php.net |
| |
| 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, and as such, has no legitimacy and cannot be binding. | 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. |
| |
| Its fundamentally flawed use of the Voting RFC aside, the proposal contains countless holes and risks. The purpose of this analysis is to shed some light on them, independently of claiming that it is entirely illegitimate. | 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. |
| |
| |
| PHP is an Open Source project that exists since the mid 1990's. Towards the early 2000's, it has grown to become one of the most popular programming languages in the world. Historically and to this date - decisions about the project's direction have been discussed and made on internals@ - a mailing list that is open to everyone for both passive and active participation. | PHP is an Open Source project that exists since the mid 1990's. Towards the early 2000's, it has grown to become one of the most popular programming languages in the world. Historically and to this date - decisions about the project's direction have been discussed and made on internals@ - a mailing list that is open to everyone for both passive and active participation. |
| |
| Intentionally, no limits were ever placed on what's allowed on internals@. Honest mistakes - such as end users asking off-topic non-internals-related questions - were typically handled by simply pointing people at the right direction. Foul language - while not very common - was typically handled by pointing it out to the offender - which a lot more often than not solved the problem. However - on topic discussions were never, ever limited - forming opinions and taking decisions through discussion and debate was always the DNA of the internals@ mailing list, with the goal being providing the best possible service for our end users. Over the past 20+ years, we've banned less than a handful of people - and these extreme cases were exclusively in case of repeated, off-topic, foul-language behavior - with universal support and no objections from virtually any other member of internals@. | Intentionally, no limits were ever placed on what's allowed on internals@. Honest mistakes - such as end users asking off-topic non-internals-related questions - were typically handled by simply pointing people at the right direction. Foul language - while not very common - was typically handled by pointing it out to the offender - which a lot more often than not solved the problem. However - on topic discussions were never, ever limited. Forming opinions and taking decisions through discussion and debate was always the DNA of the internals@ mailing list, with the goal being providing the best possible service for our end users. Over the past 20+ years, we've banned less than a handful of people - and these extreme cases were exclusively in case of repeated, off-topic, foul-language behavior - with no objections from virtually any other member of internals@. |
| | |
| | The proposal at hand aims to radically change that - by placing both known as well as unknown limits on the conversation dynamics - thereby stifling debate, alongside proposing draconian, poorly regulated and poorly defined punishment processes using the electronic equivalent of summary trials. |
| |
| |
| |
| 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 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. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | ===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]] |
| |
| |