rfc:prevent_disruptions_of_conversations

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
rfc:prevent_disruptions_of_conversations [2019/09/19 18:22] – typo danackrfc:prevent_disruptions_of_conversations [2019/09/23 19:19] (current) – Added Salathe danack
Line 19: Line 19:
 An example; imagine someone wanted to help PHP development but they didn't know C, and so were sending many emails asking for help on understanding how to do stuff. That person would obviously be attempting to help the PHP project, but the result of many 'beginner' questions on the list would be disruptive to other people. The person sending those messages only has good intentions, but the effect can still be negative. An example; imagine someone wanted to help PHP development but they didn't know C, and so were sending many emails asking for help on understanding how to do stuff. That person would obviously be attempting to help the PHP project, but the result of many 'beginner' questions on the list would be disruptive to other people. The person sending those messages only has good intentions, but the effect can still be negative.
  
-This RFC does not propose a comprehensive Code of Conduct, which will take a significant amount of effort to draft carefully. This is a stop-gap measure to allow us to use the internals newsgroup to be able to ship PHP 7.4 successfully.+This RFC does not propose a comprehensive Code of Conduct, which will take a significant amount of effort to draft carefully. This is a stop-gap measure to allow us to use the internals mailing list effectively.
  
  
Line 65: Line 65:
  
   * tell the person who contacted them that although the persons behaviour might not be good, it doesn't meet a level of disruption required to take action.   * tell the person who contacted them that although the persons behaviour might not be good, it doesn't meet a level of disruption required to take action.
-  * contact the person who's behaviour is disruptive and clearly describe what behaviour is a problem, and ask them to moderate their behaviour. Depending on the severity of the disruption, which influences how urgent it is to prevent future disruption, that message can either be sent via the mailing list or in private.+  * contact the person who's behaviour might be seen as disruptive, clearly describe how some behaviour is perceived as a problem by other people, and try to suggest how they could communicate in a way that still gets the persons message across but doesn't disrupt other people's conversations, as well as asking the person to try to moderate their behaviour. 
   * step down as a list moderator, if they feel they are unable to do one of the other two actions.   * step down as a list moderator, if they feel they are unable to do one of the other two actions.
  
-This RFC proposes that the initial 'disruption points of contact' will be the Release Managers since PHP 5.6 and the author of this RFC (Dan Ackroyd). Any of those people may opt out of being in that list. Anyone may step down from this position of responsibility at any time for any reason, even if that may result in no-one being left as a 'disruption point of contact'.+This RFC proposes that the initial 'disruption points of contact' will be the Release Managers since PHP 5.6 and also the author of this RFC (Dan Ackroyd) and Peter Cowburn (aka Salathe). Any of those people may opt out of being in that list. Anyone may step down from this position of responsibility at any time for any reason, even if that may result in no-one being left as a 'disruption point of contact'.
  
 To be clear, the people who are 'disruption points of contact' will not have any power delegated to them that is not available to other people in the PHP project. They are just there to have a point of contact. To be clear, the people who are 'disruption points of contact' will not have any power delegated to them that is not available to other people in the PHP project. They are just there to have a point of contact.
 +
  
 ==== Step 3 ==== ==== Step 3 ====
Line 79: Line 80:
  
 As this vote should only take place when there has already been extreme disruption to PHP internals, then the length of the voting period will be 72 hours. As this vote should only take place when there has already been extreme disruption to PHP internals, then the length of the voting period will be 72 hours.
 +
 +===== Guidance for 'disruption points of contact' =====
 +
 +People who are 'disruption points of contact' should:
 +
 +  * focus on helping people understand how they are communicating could be disrupting conversations and/or making it hard for other people to have their voices heard. They shouldn't focus on suspending people.
 +
 +  * avoid trying to address disruptions for discussions they are taking part in. It's really hard for someone to objectively think about someone's behaviour when you're also taking part in a discussion with them. 
 +
 +  * avoid acting rashly or unilaterally. Where possible the 'disruption points of contact' should talk through the situation and how best to handle it with at least one other 'disruption point of contact', before addressing it.
 +
  
 ===== Time scope ===== ===== Time scope =====
rfc/prevent_disruptions_of_conversations.1568917344.txt.gz · Last modified: 2019/09/19 18:22 by danack

Page Tools