I'd really planned on sitting this thread out, but this last email... On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Joshua Drake <linuxhi...@gmail.com> wrote: > A lot of people who make complaints are the very same people that are actually > the ones disrupting the collaborative space. They do this passively, likely > without realizing it. They do it by: > > 1. Having thin skin > 2. Taking umbrage because somebody doesn't agree with them > 3. Having a chip on their shoulder about $X > 4. Allowing #1-#3 influence their ability to be productive. > > We do have is a list of people who are upset, perhaps rightfully so. However, > doesn't it strike you as odd that those people weren't willing to stand up for > themselves and instead asking a steering committee to deal with the problem? > My > experienced guess is that *most* (but not all) of this brouhaha is because of > #4 > above.
Your outline above is a classic example of victim blaming. You and others have indicated that folks on the list should "grow a thicker skin". This makes the assumption that the only people valued in the group are: - those with strong, often intractable, opinions - those willing and capable of defending their opinions vocally when met with opposition Additionally, those two points lead to another mentality: that every discussion is an either/or situation, without compromise. So, instead of drawing attention to behavior and attitudes that makes others uncomfortable... you write these other contributors off as "just not being tough enough"? Considering the prevalence of both the Dunning-Kruger effect and Imposter Syndrome in tech workers, that seems like a recipe for an echo chamber that many newcomers and skilled professionals will find unwelcoming. You go on to say: > Anyone can call Paul out, publicly and respectfully for behavior they don't > think is appropriate This makes the assumption that all people on the list are equally comfortable with conflict. Calling out behavior is difficult, because it's subjective and personal. At the same time, it often opens up the person pointing out the problem behaviors to attack by the other person, particularly if that person's behavior is combative. I've seen many examples of these conflicts resulting in the stalking and harrasing of the person reporting the behavior. If it were me, I'd walk away rather than call it out - which does nobody any good, as silence is often interpreted as tacit approval. This sort of situation is incredibly unwelcoming to some people, myself included (I shy away from conflict), and I think that's the point to realize about this discussion: what should the group do if one or more members make contribution unpalatable to others by being strong-willed, intractable of opinion, and legalistic in every thread they participate in? I absolutely agree that not everyone on the list will agree with one another on every detail. The question is if disagreement can be done with respect, vs: - passive-aggression, snark, ad hominem attacks, etc. - legalistic interpretations of rules in attempts to reframe them to suit one's own purposes - questioning of motives as a basis for invalidation - ridiculing designs one finds "inferior" or "flawed" These are all behaviors I've observed on this list repeatedly, and, personally, I left the group for more than a year because of them. What this thread started off with is a list of many individuals who have made complaints, or flat out left the community ... over one specific individual's behavior. Let that sink in. You can make all sorts of aspersions about "fluffy bunnies," but the fact that so many reports have occurred belies the fact that there's a serious issue to consider here. I've known Paul for 11 years now, and consider him a friend. But when I look at this thread, I have to ask: is his continued participation worth the loss of participation of *many*? I'd like to see this resolved amicably. But I also think this is a good time for all parties to reflect on what the group values, and who it wants to have involved. I personally value a group that is welcoming of a diverse set of backgrounds (both professionally and personally), and that is capable of healthy, respectful debate that can lead to reasonable compromises. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney mweierophin...@gmail.com https://mwop.net -- 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 php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to php-fig@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CAJp_myWsNRmb%2BXi7mLtirufCLQyq0ovgvVhSNTVLUNCUHGkwLQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
