On 06/24/2016 07:07 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Hello,
First up I am not in favor of expulsion because even if you agree that Paul is
“toxic”, I doubt that a standards committee will really remain relevant if it
cannot deal with supposedly “toxic” people, ie. we would need to find other
solutions for this. Also even if he is no longer a member of FIG, would he then
get banned from all list?
A number of people have made similar statements here; I'm going to reply
to them collectively in this reply, as Lukas' line above is a good
poignant example, but it is not aimed at Lukas specifically.
"I doubt that a standards committee will really remain relevant if it
cannot deal with supposedly “toxic” people"
I find this statement, and the sentiment behind it, extremely
disconcerting and rather dangerous. It, along with other comments in
this thread, seem to suggest "FIG should deal with toxic people by just
sucking it up; if you can't stand the heat get out of the fire."
Haven't we learned by now that is the worst possible way to deal with
hostile or toxic individuals? Have we learned nothing in the last few
years, as an Internet community?
"If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen", by its very
nature, rewards those who throw the most flames. It drives off
contributors and community members who, frankly, have better things to
do with their time than deal with flames, disrespect, and negativity.
We have people who have said they have been driven away from FIG because
of the negative atmosphere that Paul creates. (See Michael's initial
email.)
Harm is being done: Is the answer really "well so be it, only the
think-skinned will survive"? Do we really want to say "Well man up and
deal with it, bro"?
That's not an answer. That's a refusal to take responsibility for your
community.
Communities don't just survive on their own. They require maintenance.
They require weeding.
Do people really feel FIG would get more respect in the broader PHP
community if we said, explicitly, "we don't mind if you're a jerk,
people need to grow a thicker skin"? Really? I don't believe that for
a second.
Conversations can get testy, sure. The recent discussion about
middleware styles got strained in a few points, but at no point did I
feel like Woody or Rasmus were talking down to me. (And I certainly
hope they feel the same about my points in that thread, as that was
never my intent.) There's a huge difference between disagreeing
strongly on a point and belittling or demeaning someone.
If someone (a hypothetical someone) came on the list and spent their
time spewing racist epithets at people left and right, declaring
everyone's proposal a sign that they should have been euthanized at
birth, and generally just being abusive, I am reasonably sure we'd all
agree that person needed to be kicked from the list and forbidden from
returning. There is some threshold of behavior past which a person is
actively destructive to a community, no matter how smart or insightful
they may be on any given topic.
To not recognize the existence of that threshold, wherever it is, is to
create a magnet for toxic, hateful people.
See also:
http://anildash.com/2011/07/if-your-websites-full-of-assholes-its-your-fault.html
We could certainly dispute where that threshold is. That's a fine
conversation to have. We could discuss whether Paul's behavior is over
that threshold. That's the conversation we should be having. We could
debate whether an intervention is possible or if removal is necessary.
That's largely dependent on Paul, who has so far been silent in this
discussion.
But to say that it's FIG's responsibility to suck it up, "deal with"
toxic people by letting them continue to be toxic, grow a thicker skin,
and let people leave who can't take the heat (as a number of comments
have suggested) just because someone happens to also have useful things
to say is a actively self-destructive, self-defeating, and will drive
off far more people with useful things to say than it attracts, by an
order of magnitude or more.
A healthy and constructive debate atmosphere is our responsibility. All
of us. That includes the reformation or removal (as appropriate) of
those who cannot contribute toward that healthy atmosphere.
--Larry Garfield
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP
Framework Interoperability Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/57704AEF.8030309%40garfieldtech.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
