Mailing list moderation

  101479
January 2, 2018 10:49 nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)
Hi,

This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list.

I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users
tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been
aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to
moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of
previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users
have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest.

If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific
instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the
internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve this.

Regards,
Nikita
  101481
January 2, 2018 11:06 tpunt@hotmail.co.uk (Thomas Punt)
Hi!

> Hi, > > This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list. > > I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users > tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been > aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to > moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of > previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users > have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest.
+1 They've generated so much unnecessary noise on this mailing list that I've had to set up rules in Outlook to automatically mark their emails as read in order to skip past them. Let's keep discussions on the mailing list on topic and fruitful. -Tom
  101497
January 3, 2018 08:22 TonyMarston@hotmail.com ("Tony Marston")
"Thomas Punt"  wrote in message 
news:AM4PR0901MB1265E675E7965065989892E5F9190@AM4PR0901MB1265.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com...
> >Hi! > >> Hi, >> >> This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list. >> >> I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users >> tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been >> aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests >> to >> moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of >> previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two >> users >> have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest. > >+1 > >They've generated so much unnecessary noise on this mailing list that >I've had to set up rules in Outlook to automatically mark their emails as >read in order to skip past them. > >Let's keep discussions on the mailing list on topic and fruitful. > >-Tom
You may not like what I have to say, but that is no reason to ban me from saying it. I believe in democracy and free speech, and by banning or suspending me you are effectively banning the right to free speech. As a long time user of PHP I earn a living by selling my software all over the world, so I have a vested interested in seeing that the language is not changed in a detrimental way. I have seen too many RFCs which do not provide genuine benefits for the greater PHP community, instead they pander to the personal whims of a vociferous minority who want to change the language to suit their personal coding style, or to fit their idea of purity. As for all this so-called "dick measuring" if you bothered to read the posts you should see that I try to keep my comments as civil as possible, but when some prat attacks me personally on this list then I have the right to defend myself. You should focus your attention of those who make personal attacks and not those who are defending themselves. -- Tony Marston
  101498
January 3, 2018 08:45 smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)
Hi!

> You may not like what I have to say, but that is no reason to ban me > from saying it. I believe in democracy and free speech, and by banning > or suspending me you are effectively banning the right to free speech.
This has nothing to do with free speech. You are welcome to exercise your rights to free speech any way you like. But you don't have the rights to be in the list if the community does not want it and if your behavior is unhelpful and un-conductive to the discussion. In that case, you'd have to exercise your rights to free speech somewhere else. I am sure the world of democracy will survive this. This, of course, is not specific to anybody personally - anybody who does not think they can abide by the rules of civilized discussion on the list could exercise their free speech rights in other venues, of which there's always an abundance. Polite, substantial, productive discussion is welcome - we do not have any barriers or prerequisites for participation. Noise is not welcome. Nobody wants to see the noise on the list, and nobody wants to see yet more noise by discussing who started it and who kicked or spat first and who broke whose sand castle. Everybody must behave, or take a time out and relax and think about more pleasant matters until they are able to be polite again. Again, not about anybody personally, applies to all. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com
  101501
January 3, 2018 09:26 TonyMarston@hotmail.com ("Tony Marston")
"Stanislav Malyshev"  wrote in message 
news:cc1f4670-d201-5a06-7309-a2386f8194ee@gmail.com...
> >Hi! > >> You may not like what I have to say, but that is no reason to ban me >> from saying it. I believe in democracy and free speech, and by banning >> or suspending me you are effectively banning the right to free speech. > >This has nothing to do with free speech. You are welcome to exercise >your rights to free speech any way you like. But you don't have the >rights to be in the list if the community does not want it and if your >behavior is unhelpful and un-conductive to the discussion.
I can understand you banning or suspending someone because of personal abuse or offensive/foul language, but banning someone simply because you don't like what they say is a step too far. If this is allowed to happen then soon you will get to stage where someone says "Anyone who disagrees with my point of view is an idiot and should be banned from this list".
> In that case, >you'd have to exercise your rights to free speech somewhere else. I am >sure the world of democracy will survive this. This, of course, is not >specific to anybody personally - anybody who does not think they can >abide by the rules of civilized discussion
Define "civilised". Anything which does not use foul or abusive language should be regarded as civilised. Expressing an unpopular opinion is still civilised. Anyone who tries to ban unpopular opinions should not be welcome on any list as this prevents proper discussion.
> on the list could exercise >their free speech rights in other venues, of which there's always an >abundance. Polite, substantial, productive discussion is welcome - we do >not have any barriers or prerequisites for participation. Noise is not >welcome.
There are too many delicate people on this list who regard any opinion which differs from theirs as "noise".
>Nobody wants to see the noise on the list, and nobody wants to see yet >more noise by discussing who started it and who kicked or spat first and >who broke whose sand castle.
I suggest you start by aiming your wrath at those who move off-topic and start making personal attacks instead of those who defend themselves from such attacks.
> Everybody must behave, or take a time out >and relax and think about more pleasant matters until they are able to >be polite again. Again, not about anybody personally, applies to all. >
-- Tony Marston
  101502
January 3, 2018 09:55 figureonecpr@gmail.com (Sanford Whiteman)
Tony, you have a point in the sense that a proposed Code of Conduct --
which would have been binding on posts to lists @php.net -- provoked a
fiery   debate  (to  put  it  mildly)  and  was  eventually  withdrawn
(http://news.php.net/php.internals/90726).

The  dominant  objections  to  the  CoC  did  not  focus on relatively
apolitical  cases  like  calling  someone  a habitual liar or implying
non-augmented  humans  can  write bug-free code. Yet the point remains
that there is no doc whose letter or spirit can be debated, AFAIK.

As  Stas  points  out,  having  a CoC for the list would not be a free
speech  issue  in  the  wider  sense.  But  in the *absence* of such a
yardstick,  I  do  agree  with  you  that  there's  nothing to justify
ejecting you from the list.

You  obviously  love using PHP and do not come here simply to bash the
language  (to me, that would be grounds for ejection because one would
not  legitimately be joining the community, in essence a spam signup).
While  I don't agree with your technical viewpoint in the recent flame
war,  perhaps  you  do still have the right to express it here without
fear of suspension/ejection.

But  consider this takeaway: while you may not realize it since you're
in  too  deep  at present, the (scalar-pseudo-type-related) war you're
currently  in  with  the  other  fellow  has  devolved into silliness.
Neither of you are in my killfile; more the reverse, as it's become so
over-the-top that it's funny.

I  know,  though,  that  you  take this topic seriously -- but the way
things are going are entirely comedic, with accusations of fabulism (I
don't  know  where  that's  from) met by accusations of lack of coding
skill  (just  as  unlikely  for  a  longtime  Internals  participant).
Assuming  you'd  rather  we  take  the technical aspects of the debate
seriously, for that reason alone it's worth a reset and a rethink.

—— S.
  101505
January 3, 2018 16:13 Andreas Heigl <andreas@heigl.org>
--VQpbsZj6tEjRmxiNsFRGxPrDIVYt16FV7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Am 03.01.18 um 10:55 schrieb Sanford Whiteman:
> Tony, you have a point in the sense that a proposed Code of Conduct -- > which would have been binding on posts to lists @php.net -- provoked a > fiery debate (to put it mildly) and was eventually withdrawn > (http://news.php.net/php.internals/90726). >=20 > The dominant objections to the CoC did not focus on relatively > apolitical cases like calling someone a habitual liar or implying > non-augmented humans can write bug-free code. Yet the point remains > that there is no doc whose letter or spirit can be debated, AFAIK.
May I point to the headline "Mailing List Posting Guideline" at the Mailing-List page[0]? Especially the references to the README.MAILINGLIST_RULES[1] right at the end? Which in turn references RFC 1855[2]? So I'd say there actually *is* even more than one doc whose letter or spirit can be debated. But debating is one thing, taking action is another one. Just my 0.02=E2=82=AC Cheers Andreas [0] http://php.net/mailing-lists.php [1] http://git.php.net/?p=3Dphp-src.git;a=3Dblob_plain;f=3DREADME.MAILINGLIST= _RULES;hb=3DHEAD [2] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html --=20 ,,, (o o) +---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+ | Andreas Heigl | | mailto:andreas@heigl.org N 50=C2=B022'59.5" E 08=C2=B0= 23'58" | | http://andreas.heigl.org http://hei.gl/wiFKy7 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | http://hei.gl/root-ca | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ --VQpbsZj6tEjRmxiNsFRGxPrDIVYt16FV7--
  101482
January 2, 2018 11:09 sebastian@php.net (Sebastian Bergmann)
Am 02.01.2018 um 11:49 schrieb Nikita Popov:
> I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users > tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been > aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to > moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of > previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users > have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest.
+1
  101483
January 2, 2018 11:47 derick@php.net (Derick Rethans)
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018, Nikita Popov wrote:

> This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing > list. > > I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users > tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been > aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite > requests to moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a > number of previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time > these two users have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring > contest.
+1
> If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific > instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the > internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve > this.
I tried to write these down as part of the community health project, but as you know that didn't get anywhere...: https://github.com/derickr/php-community-health/blob/master/RFC.rst cheers, Derick
  101485
January 2, 2018 12:19 tendoaki@gmail.com (Michael Morris)
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018, Nikita Popov wrote: > > > This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing > > list. > > > > I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users > > tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been > > aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite > > requests to moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a > > number of previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time > > these two users have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring > > contest. > > +1 > > > If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific > > instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the > > internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve > > this. > > I tried to write these down as part of the community health project, but > as you know that didn't get anywhere...: > https://github.com/derickr/php-community-health/blob/master/RFC.rst > > cheers, > Derick > > > +1
For What It's Worth, these two are the only two I've put on killfile here. I'm probably not the only one to do so either.
  101492
January 2, 2018 17:12 kalle@php.net (Kalle Sommer Nielsen)
Hi Nikita

2018-01-02 11:49 GMT+01:00 Nikita Popov ppv@gmail.com>:
> Hi, > > This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list. > > I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users > tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been > aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to > moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of > previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users > have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest. > > If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific > instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the > internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve this.
Huge +1, it was a rather annoying thing to begin the new year with, that these just can't stop even after a few mails by other readers. I'm cc'ing Rasmus as I can't think of anyone besides Derick that has karma to make it happen. -- regards, Kalle Sommer Nielsen kalle@php.net
  101493
January 2, 2018 17:19 levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Nikita Popov ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list. > > I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users > tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been > aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to > moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of > previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users > have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest. > > If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific > instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the > internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve this. > > Regards, > Nikita
I doubt we have any official procedures. I agree with the proposed suspension as long as the suspension for a set amount of time; I believe in giving people a chance to reform. If they can't reform... well then I'm fine with an indefinite suspension. Levi Morrison
  101494
January 2, 2018 18:29 mdwheele@ncsu.edu (Dustin Wheeler)
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote:
> > I doubt we have any official procedures. I agree with the proposed > suspension as long as the suspension for a set amount of time; I > believe in giving people a chance to reform. If they can't reform... > well then I'm fine with an indefinite suspension. >
I, too, would be in favor of suspension over outright ban, simply because I have never seen such a ban happen on this list. It saddens me that, rather than focusing on rigorous discussion, many RFC discussions are completely sidetracked the moment a topic comes up that might encroach on either of these individual's "ego" (I temper language, but agree with Nikita's characterization). There are, indeed, nuggets of truth in contributions both lists@rhsoft.net and tonymarston@hotmail.com have made. Both have legitimate concerns and points of view. Unfortunately, it is on the reader to decipher that from the "ego" measuring that happens every time they start one of their back-and-forths. I hope we can do something about this sooner rather than later. I, myself, refuse to explicitly censor communication from the list based on who's talking and I *DO* value both of their opinions and concerns, but this behaviour has been observed many times with several folks on-list asking for some professionalism in communication. There must be some form of consequence, I feel. Thanks. -- Dustin Wheeler | Software Developer NC State University mdwheele@ncsu.edu "If you don't know where you're going, it's easy to iteratively not get there."
  101503
January 3, 2018 15:49 pmjones88@gmail.com (Paul Jones)
> On Jan 2, 2018, at 12:29, Dustin Wheeler <mdwheele@ncsu.edu> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote: >> >> I doubt we have any official procedures. I agree with the proposed >> suspension as long as the suspension for a set amount of time; I >> believe in giving people a chance to reform. If they can't reform... >> well then I'm fine with an indefinite suspension.
I am not in favor of anyone else deciding for me that I am not allowed to see Tony's (or anyone else's) messages on this list. I can make that decision myself, and revisit that decision myself should I choose. If someone dislikes Tony's commentary for any reason (or no reason!) they are free to filter his messages themselves -- and then unfilter his messages when they see fit. -- Paul M. Jones pmjones88@gmail.com http://paul-m-jones.com Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP https://leanpub.com/mlaphp Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP https://leanpub.com/sn1php
  101504
January 3, 2018 16:05 chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:49 AM Paul Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Jan 2, 2018, at 12:29, Dustin Wheeler <mdwheele@ncsu.edu> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote: > >> > >> I doubt we have any official procedures. I agree with the proposed > >> suspension as long as the suspension for a set amount of time; I > >> believe in giving people a chance to reform. If they can't reform... > >> well then I'm fine with an indefinite suspension. > > I am not in favor of anyone else deciding for me that I am not allowed to > see Tony's (or anyone else's) messages on this list. I can make that > decision myself, and revisit that decision myself should I choose. > > If someone dislikes Tony's commentary for any reason (or no reason!) they > are free to filter his messages themselves -- and then unfilter his > messages when they see fit. > > > -- > Paul M. Jones > pmjones88@gmail.com > http://paul-m-jones.com > > Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP > https://leanpub.com/mlaphp > > Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP > https://leanpub.com/sn1php > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/ <http://www.php.net/unsub.php>
<http://www.php.net/unsub.php> I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty much every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced filtering as well. Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may be, let individual users filter them out as they see fit. -- Chase Peeler chasepeeler@gmail.com
  101506
January 3, 2018 16:16 narf@devilix.net (Andrey Andreev)
Hi,

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed > filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty much > every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced filtering > as well. > > Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may be, > let individual users filter them out as they see fit. >
You have a point, but also have it in mind that we're talking about individuals participating in a discussion thread, and that's not the same as filtering out spam email or a news category that you're not interested in. Cheers, Andrey.
  101510
January 3, 2018 17:13 chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:16 AM Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net> wrote:

> Hi, > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed > > filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty > much > > every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced > filtering > > as well. > > > > Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may > be, > > let individual users filter them out as they see fit. > > > > You have a point, but also have it in mind that we're talking about > individuals participating in a discussion thread, and that's not the > same as filtering out spam email or a news category that you're not > interested in. > > Cheers, > Andrey. >
Are you saying you can't configure your client to delete/move to another folder any emails with a subject beginning with [PHP-DEV] that are sent from tonymarston@hotmail.com or lists@rhsoft.net? -- -- Chase chasepeeler@gmail.com
  101511
January 3, 2018 17:16 peter.e.lind@gmail.com (Peter Lind)
On 3 Jan 2018 18:13, "Chase Peeler" <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:16 AM Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net> wrote:

> Hi, > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed > > filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty > much > > every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced > filtering > > as well. > > > > Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may > be, > > let individual users filter them out as they see fit. > > > > You have a point, but also have it in mind that we're talking about > individuals participating in a discussion thread, and that's not the > same as filtering out spam email or a news category that you're not > interested in. > > Cheers, > Andrey. >
Are you saying you can't configure your client to delete/move to another folder any emails with a subject beginning with [PHP-DEV] that are sent from tonymarston@hotmail.com or lists@rhsoft.net? -- -- Chase chasepeeler@gmail.com Missing the point and going for personal attacks instead. You make the point of the OP rather than your own.
  101513
January 3, 2018 17:20 chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)
What personal attack did I make? I asked a serious question. The fact that
you could even take a serious question and interpret it as a personal
attack is exactly why I am very wary of any attempts to suspend users. It's
too easy to misunderstand what someone says.

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:16 PM Peter Lind lind@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On 3 Jan 2018 18:13, "Chase Peeler" <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:16 AM Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed > > > filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though.. Pretty > > much > > > every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced > > filtering > > > as well. > > > > > > Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may > > be, > > > let individual users filter them out as they see fit. > > > > > > > You have a point, but also have it in mind that we're talking about > > individuals participating in a discussion thread, and that's not the > > same as filtering out spam email or a news category that you're not > > interested in. > > > > Cheers, > > Andrey. > > > > Are you saying you can't configure your client to delete/move to another > folder any emails with a subject beginning with [PHP-DEV] that are sent > from tonymarston@hotmail.com or lists@rhsoft.net? > -- > -- Chase > chasepeeler@gmail.com > > > Missing the point and going for personal attacks instead. You make the > point of the OP rather than your own. > --
-- Chase chasepeeler@gmail.com
  101523
January 3, 2018 19:14 narf@devilix.net (Andrey Andreev)
Hi,

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:16 AM Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed >> > filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty >> > much >> > every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced >> > filtering >> > as well. >> > >> > Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may >> > be, >> > let individual users filter them out as they see fit. >> > >> >> You have a point, but also have it in mind that we're talking about >> individuals participating in a discussion thread, and that's not the >> same as filtering out spam email or a news category that you're not >> interested in. >> >> Cheers, >> Andrey. > > > Are you saying you can't configure your client to delete/move to another > folder any emails with a subject beginning with [PHP-DEV] that are sent from > tonymarston@hotmail.com or lists@rhsoft.net?
No, what I am saying is that it results in parts missing from a conversation, making it hard to follow. And I would still receive all replies and quoted text, thus rendering the filter ineffective. Cheers, Andrey.
  101512
January 3, 2018 17:17 tendoaki@gmail.com (Michael Morris)
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:49 AM Paul Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 2, 2018, at 12:29, Dustin Wheeler <mdwheele@ncsu.edu> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote: > > > > If someone dislikes Tony's commentary for any reason (or no reason!) they > > are free to filter his messages themselves -- and then unfilter his > > messages when they see fit. > > > > I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed > filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty much > every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced filtering > as well. >
All fine and well, but it doesn't work when people start quoting the offender. Also, filters don't stop the poison from affecting the mood of the posters who interact with him. In my experience loud and obnoxious voices drive off thoughtful and introspective ones every time. That is the consequence of giving a platform to them. As the saying goes, It's pointless to wrestle a pig - you'll just get muddy and the pig enjoys it. From a moderators standpoint, if you refuse to block jerks eventually all you'll be left with are jerks.
> > Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may be, > let individual users filter them out as they see fit. > > Again, in my experience people usually elect to simply leave altogether
rather than set a long block list. And frankly Tony isn't worth even one contributing coder. Tony has been asked multiple times by multiple people to behave. He's been banned from other PHP related forums I know of. He's not here to contribute in any meaningful way, only complain and make passive agressive swipes at other users. I could go on, but I think that alone makes the case that he needs to be gone.
  101515
January 3, 2018 17:28 chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:18 PM Michael Morris <tendoaki@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:49 AM Paul Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 2, 2018, at 12:29, Dustin Wheeler <mdwheele@ncsu.edu> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> > wrote: > > > > > > If someone dislikes Tony's commentary for any reason (or no reason!) > they > > > are free to filter his messages themselves -- and then unfilter his > > > messages when they see fit. > > > > > > > I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed > > filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty > much > > every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced > filtering > > as well. > > > > All fine and well, but it doesn't work when people start quoting the > offender. Also, filters don't stop the poison from affecting the mood of > the posters who interact with him. > > In my experience loud and obnoxious voices drive off thoughtful and > introspective ones every time. That is the consequence of giving a platform > to them. As the saying goes, It's pointless to wrestle a pig - you'll just > get muddy and the pig enjoys it. From a moderators standpoint, if you > refuse to block jerks eventually all you'll be left with are jerks. > > I think self moderation still solves this. If the person is disruptive enough, eventually enough people will block them and there won't be many
instances of them getting quoted or poisoning the thread. If certain people decide to engage them, then others will start to block them as well. In the end, they'll have to choose whether they want to contribute in a positive way to the list, or, "wrestle with pigs." The two options will be mutually exclusive, since you can't continue to pull content others are trying to ignore back into the conversation without getting ignored yourself.
> > > > Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may > be, > > let individual users filter them out as they see fit. > > > > > Again, in my experience people usually elect to simply leave altogether > rather than set a long block list. And frankly Tony isn't worth even one > contributing coder. > > Tony has been asked multiple times by multiple people to behave. He's been > banned from other PHP related forums I know of. He's not here to contribute > in any meaningful way, only complain and make passive agressive swipes at > other users. I could go on, but I think that alone makes the case that he > needs to be gone. >
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, I don't want you making that decision for me. I should be allowed to determine at which point someone's negative contributions outweigh their positive ones to a point that I no longer feel they are productive. -- -- Chase chasepeeler@gmail.com
  101517
January 3, 2018 17:52 rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)
On 3 January 2018 at 17:28, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think self moderation still solves this. If the person is disruptive > enough, eventually enough people will block them and there won't be many > instances of them getting quoted or poisoning the thread. > > If certain people decide to engage them, then others will start to block > them as well.
That all sounds like a lot of wasted effort. If we're not careful, endorsing that behaviour would end up with people sharing mail filter definitions, proxying the list through a shared filter, or just setting up a rival discussion forum. All of which just distract us further from making PHP better.
> Maybe, maybe not. Either way, I don't want you making that decision for > me. I should be allowed to determine at which point someone's negative > contributions outweigh their positive ones to a point that I no longer feel > they are productive. >
I think maybe we have a different view of what a list like this is. To me, it's a forum where we're collaborating to a common aim; it has an existence in its own right, and we collectively shape that existence. I may be misunderstanding, but it sounds like you view it more as a public space where you can find individuals to communicate with, and you retain the right to shape those communications. Does that sound a reasonable characterisation? I'm not seeking to criticise, only to understand where this idea of "making the decision for me" comes from, because to me, moderation doesn't seem like a personal decision which is being taken away. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]
  101519
January 3, 2018 18:35 pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins)
+1

It's true that everyone can setup their own filters, but why should they
have too.

You don't get to conduct yourself however you want without consequence.

Cheers
Joe

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Rowan Collins collins@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 3 January 2018 at 17:28, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think self moderation still solves this. If the person is disruptive > > enough, eventually enough people will block them and there won't be many > > instances of them getting quoted or poisoning the thread. > > > > If certain people decide to engage them, then others will start to block > > them as well. > > > > That all sounds like a lot of wasted effort. If we're not careful, > endorsing that behaviour would end up with people sharing mail filter > definitions, proxying the list through a shared filter, or just setting up > a rival discussion forum. All of which just distract us further from making > PHP better. > > > > > Maybe, maybe not. Either way, I don't want you making that decision for > > me. I should be allowed to determine at which point someone's negative > > contributions outweigh their positive ones to a point that I no longer > feel > > they are productive. > > > > > I think maybe we have a different view of what a list like this is. To me, > it's a forum where we're collaborating to a common aim; it has an existence > in its own right, and we collectively shape that existence. I may be > misunderstanding, but it sounds like you view it more as a public space > where you can find individuals to communicate with, and you retain the > right to shape those communications. Does that sound a reasonable > characterisation? I'm not seeking to criticise, only to understand where > this idea of "making the decision for me" comes from, because to me, > moderation doesn't seem like a personal decision which is being taken away. > > Regards, > -- > Rowan Collins > [IMSoP] >
  101520
January 3, 2018 18:45 pmjones88@gmail.com (Paul Jones)
> On Jan 3, 2018, at 12:35, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote: > > You don't get to conduct yourself however you want without consequence.
Sure. The question then, is, what is the proper consequence? I hold that it is not "banning" or "suspension" (which may or may not actually be within the delegated powers of anyone on this list). Instead, it is "to be ignored, by those who choose to ignore you." -- Paul M. Jones pmjones88@gmail.com http://paul-m-jones.com Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP https://leanpub.com/mlaphp Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP https://leanpub.com/sn1php
  101521
January 3, 2018 18:59 pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins)
The precedent has been set already: One of these users was already kicked
off the list and decided to resubscribe and continue to conduct themselves
in an unacceptable manner.

This is a forum for technical discussion regarding the development of PHP:
We must be able to keep conversation focused and one of the tools we have
to do that is restricting who is able to post. It seems perfectly
reasonable to exercise that power in order to improve the quality of
conversation and keep it focused.

Banning or suspending these users, and anyone else incapable of conducting
themselves reasonably, will serve that purpose.

Let's remember that there are a large number of people on the sidelines
that are not subscribed to the list directly, but choose to use news
readers, or the excellent externals.io; They may not able to filter
messages from any individuals, so they are in effect forced to navigate
through these "contributions" from problematic posters. That's not fair to
them, at all. All of the conversations here are a matter of public record,
not only existing in your mail client, or inbox, or whatever ... We can and
should be eliminating noise from that public record.

Cheers
Joe



On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Paul Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Jan 3, 2018, at 12:35, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote: > > > > You don't get to conduct yourself however you want without consequence. > > Sure. The question then, is, what is the proper consequence? I hold that > it is not "banning" or "suspension" (which may or may not actually be > within the delegated powers of anyone on this list). Instead, it is "to be > ignored, by those who choose to ignore you." > > > -- > Paul M. Jones > pmjones88@gmail.com > http://paul-m-jones.com > > Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP > https://leanpub.com/mlaphp > > Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP > https://leanpub.com/sn1php > >
  101522
January 3, 2018 19:04 pmjones88@gmail.com (Paul Jones)
> On Jan 3, 2018, at 12:59, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote: > > Let's remember that there are a large number of people on the sidelines that are not subscribed to the list directly, but choose to use news readers, or the excellent externals.io; They may not able to filter messages from any individuals, so they are in effect forced to navigate through these "contributions" from problematic posters. That's not fair to them, at all. All of the conversations here are a matter of public record, not only existing in your mail client, or inbox, or whatever ... We can and should be eliminating noise from that public record.
It is indeed excellent. Perhaps this is an opportunity to create "expurgated.externals.io" that is under the control of whoever creates & manages it, to filter "noise" there so that others may peruse it in what they consider to be peace. That's three postings for me on this topic today, which is probably a bit much; I'll leave it at that for now. -- Paul M. Jones pmjones88@gmail.com http://paul-m-jones.com Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP https://leanpub.com/mlaphp Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP https://leanpub.com/sn1php
  101524
January 3, 2018 19:46 aaron@trowski.com (Aaron Piotrowski)
> On Jan 3, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote: > > The precedent has been set already: One of these users was already kicked > off the list and decided to resubscribe and continue to conduct themselves > in an unacceptable manner. > > This is a forum for technical discussion regarding the development of PHP: > We must be able to keep conversation focused and one of the tools we have > to do that is restricting who is able to post. It seems perfectly > reasonable to exercise that power in order to improve the quality of > conversation and keep it focused. > > Banning or suspending these users, and anyone else incapable of conducting > themselves reasonably, will serve that purpose. > > Let's remember that there are a large number of people on the sidelines > that are not subscribed to the list directly, but choose to use news > readers, or the excellent externals.io; They may not able to filter > messages from any individuals, so they are in effect forced to navigate > through these "contributions" from problematic posters. That's not fair to > them, at all. All of the conversations here are a matter of public record, > not only existing in your mail client, or inbox, or whatever ... We can and > should be eliminating noise from that public record. > > Cheers > Joe
Exactly. There needs to be consequences when someone cannot conduct themselves in a manner that's fitting to a technical discussion. It's infuriating when people on this list make personal attacks and then act as though nothing wrong has been done. Clearly either they don't understand or do not care. Either way they need to know there are consequences for such actions. This is not at all about silencing those whose opinions differ from the majority. Those viewpoints are important and must be heard. However relentlessly pushing a particular viewpoint and resorting to personal attacks becomes a problem. At some point it is no longer constructive and is just spam. I and many others avoid participating on the list unless absolutely necessary. There is no time or energy to wade through the noise to find the actual discussion of the topic at hand.
> > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Paul Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> On Jan 3, 2018, at 12:35, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote: >>> >>> You don't get to conduct yourself however you want without consequence. >> >> Sure. The question then, is, what is the proper consequence? I hold that >> it is not "banning" or "suspension" (which may or may not actually be >> within the delegated powers of anyone on this list). Instead, it is "to be >> ignored, by those who choose to ignore you." >>
Trying to filter out all messages from certain users is untenable. Either too much is filtered because a banned person is CC'ed on a constructive comment, or too little is filtered and there's still noise from those replying to the filtered user. Banning or suspension should not be used lightly, but I think we've reached a point where it is warranted. I think a simple PHP CoC similar to the JS Foundation [1] would be helpful by providing a basis for what is deemed acceptable. Aaron Piotrowski [1] https://js.foundation/community/code-of-conduct
  101527
January 3, 2018 20:42 larry@garfieldtech.com (Larry Garfield)
On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 11:17:53 AM CST Michael Morris wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:49 AM Paul Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 2, 2018, at 12:29, Dustin Wheeler <mdwheele@ncsu.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote: > > > If someone dislikes Tony's commentary for any reason (or no reason!) > > > they > > > are free to filter his messages themselves -- and then unfilter his > > > messages when they see fit. > > > > I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed > > filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty much > > every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced > > filtering > > as well. > > All fine and well, but it doesn't work when people start quoting the > offender. Also, filters don't stop the poison from affecting the mood of > the posters who interact with him. > > In my experience loud and obnoxious voices drive off thoughtful and > introspective ones every time. That is the consequence of giving a platform > to them. As the saying goes, It's pointless to wrestle a pig - you'll just > get muddy and the pig enjoys it. From a moderators standpoint, if you > refuse to block jerks eventually all you'll be left with are jerks.
^^ That. Exactly that. Active refusal to police a community results in a race to the bottom. Every time. Every single time. Add up the amount of time we're even discussing it, multiply by hour hourly rate... That's how much it's costing us to even have this discussion about whether or not we should expel a long time troll.
> > Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may > > be, > > let individual users filter them out as they see fit. > > Again, in my experience people usually elect to simply leave altogether > rather than set a long block list. And frankly Tony isn't worth even one > contributing coder.
Precisely. "Instead of banning abusive users on Twitter, no matter how egregious their offenses may be, let individual users do the work of blocking them as they see fit." Because putting all of the penalty on the people being attacked, belittled, and distracted is a great idea. Or they'll just self-filter and leave.
> Tony has been asked multiple times by multiple people to behave. He's been > banned from other PHP related forums I know of. He's not here to contribute > in any meaningful way, only complain and make passive agressive swipes at > other users. I could go on, but I think that alone makes the case that he > needs to be gone.
+1 for outright removal of both, but Tony in particular. In my 10 years on this list I haven't seen Tony post constructively once. I've seen him insult, gaslight, and whataboutism a hundred times. Please, whoever runs this list, put him out of our misery. --Larry Garfield
  101508
January 3, 2018 17:09 rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)
On 3 January 2018 at 15:49, Paul Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I am not in favor of anyone else deciding for me that I am not allowed to > see Tony's (or anyone else's) messages on this list. I can make that > decision myself, and revisit that decision myself should I choose. > > If someone dislikes Tony's commentary for any reason (or no reason!) they > are free to filter his messages themselves -- and then unfilter his > messages when they see fit. >
The problem is that off-topic and insensitive messages tend to draw in other people, and distract energy away from what we're all here for. If enough people ignore someone, it's basically a "shadowban", which are generally highly controversial, because they give the illusion of allowing someone to participate without any of the actual value. On the other hand, if enough people engage with someone who's ignored, the flamewars show up anyway - filtering systems are rarely sophisticated enough to block replies to a blocked message. I'm sure everyone would agree that the best course of action would be for everyone to take a deep breath, step away from any arguments they're in (something I've had to do myself), and concentrate on positive proposals and listening respectfully to people with differing opinions. But sometimes an enforced timeout is the best way to get someone to take that deep breath. Moderation is always tricky, but pretty much every forum I've ever used has had it in some form. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]
  101507
January 3, 2018 16:16 johannes@php.net (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=)
On Di, 2018-01-02 at 11:49 +0100, Nikita Popov wrote:
> lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been > aggressively derailing 
He was blocked in 2012 already: https://externals.io/message/59395#59421 johannes
  101525
January 3, 2018 20:01 danbrown@php.net (Daniel Brown)
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Johannes Schlüter <johannes@php.net> wrote:
> On Di, 2018-01-02 at 11:49 +0100, Nikita Popov wrote: >> lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been >> aggressively derailing > > He was blocked in 2012 already: > > https://externals.io/message/59395#59421
I hadn't even noticed this thread until the flurry of activity kept throwing it to the top of my inbox, but if you remember, that 2012 ban by Rasmus was far from the only time he caused issues. And it's not just with PHP either. Reindl Harald has an established pattern of foul language and harassment of community members in a number of open source projects. In the notes I keep on people who abuse our services, I have his first entry coming up on eight years ago, in July, 2010, where he devolved into profanity and personal attacks because he didn't like something that was being discussed. He's had a number of opportunities to correct his abusive behavior. I, too, agree in second - and even third - chances, but when this pattern of behavior spans the better part of a decade, and racks-up enough entries in my notes that I can remember who he is right off the top of my head, I think enough is enough. I, for one, say permanently ban him and move on.
  101528
January 3, 2018 21:24 rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf)
Ok, both have been added to the ezmlm deny list for internals

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:49 AM, Nikita Popov ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, > > This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list. > > I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users > tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been > aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to > moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of > previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users > have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest. > > If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific > instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the > internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve this. > > Regards, > Nikita >
  102017
April 4, 2018 18:42 derick@php.net (Derick Rethans)
Hi,

"rhsoft" continues their aggressive behaviour on the bug tracker still 
too. One recent illustration is 
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76184&edit=1

Do we have any methods to ban people from there too?

cheers,
Derick

On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

> Ok, both have been added to the ezmlm deny list for internals > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:49 AM, Nikita Popov ppv@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list. > > > > I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users > > tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been > > aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to > > moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of > > previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users > > have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest. > > > > If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific > > instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the > > internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve this. > > > > Regards, > > Nikita > > >
-- https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: https://xdebug.org/donate.php, or become my Patron: https://www.patreon.com/derickr twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
  102018
April 4, 2018 18:47 info@pieterhordijk.com (Pieter Hordijk)
> Hi, > > "rhsoft" continues their aggressive behaviour on the bug tracker still > too. One recent illustration is > https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76184&edit=1 > > Do we have any methods to ban people from there too? > > cheers, > Derick > > On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > >> Ok, both have been added to the ezmlm deny list for internals >> >> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:49 AM, Nikita Popov ppv@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list. >> > >> > I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users >> > tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been >> > aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to >> > moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of >> > previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users >> > have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest. >> > >> > If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific >> > instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the >> > internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve this. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Nikita >> > >>
Yes please. I have seen only crap behavior on the bug tracker by rhsoft. Pieter
  102021
April 4, 2018 21:44 cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker")
On 04.04.2018 at 20:47, Pieter Hordijk wrote:

>> "rhsoft" continues their aggressive behaviour on the bug tracker still >> too. One recent illustration is >> https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76184&edit=1 >> >> Do we have any methods to ban people from there too?
> Yes please. > > I have seen only crap behavior on the bug tracker by rhsoft.
Well, then have a look at <https://bugs.php.net/76172>, for instance. :) While I most certainly don't like the sometimes explicit and/or aggressive language used by Harald, I consider him a valuable bug reporter nonetheless[1]. [1] <https://bugs.php.net/search.php?search_for=&boolean=0&limit=30&order_by=&direction=DESC&cmd=display&status=All&bug_type=All&project=All&php_os=&phpver=&cve_id=&assign=&author_email=spam2%40rhsoft.net&bug_age=0&bug_updated=0&commented_by=> -- Christoph M. Becker
  102022
April 4, 2018 21:59 rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)
On 4 April 2018 22:44:56 BST, "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@gmx.de> wrote:
>On 04.04.2018 at 20:47, Pieter Hordijk wrote: > >>> "rhsoft" continues their aggressive behaviour on the bug tracker >still >>> too. One recent illustration is >>> https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76184&edit=1 >>> >>> Do we have any methods to ban people from there too? > >> Yes please. >> >> I have seen only crap behavior on the bug tracker by rhsoft. > >Well, then have a look at <https://bugs.php.net/76172>, for instance. >:) > >While I most certainly don't like the sometimes explicit and/or >aggressive language used by Harald, I consider him a valuable bug >reporter nonetheless.
At some point, you have to weigh the harm to the community of letting him represent us to others against the benefit he brings. On the bug above he has just described himself as "preferring the Torvalds style"; accepting his contributions means accepting that as a legitimate approach to discussion, and I don't think that's a road we want to go down. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]
  102023
April 4, 2018 22:12 rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)
On 4 April 2018 22:44:56 BST, "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@gmx.de> wrote:
>While I most certainly don't like the sometimes explicit and/or >aggressive language used by Harald, I consider him a valuable bug >reporter nonetheless[1]. > >[1] ><https://bugs.php.net/search.php?search_for=&boolean=0&limit=30&order_by=&direction=DESC&cmd=display&status=All&bug_type=All&project=All&php_os=&phpver=&cve_id=&assign=&author_email=spam2%40rhsoft.net&bug_age=0&bug_updated=0&commented_by=>
I just sorted that list by status, and of 111 bugs, 27 are closed as "not a bug", 6 "won't fix", and 2 were detected as spam, including one with the intriguing title " PHP >= 5.6.0 is broken by definition". There may be some genuinely useful reports in there, and even some of the not-a-bugs might not be awful, but is it really a list we can't do without, for the sake of not scaring everyone else away? Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]
  102024
April 4, 2018 23:56 cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker")
On 05.04.2018 at 00:12, Rowan Collins wrote:

> On 4 April 2018 22:44:56 BST, "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@gmx.de> wrote: > >> While I most certainly don't like the sometimes explicit and/or >> aggressive language used by Harald, I consider him a valuable bug >> reporter nonetheless[1]. >> >> [1] >> <https://bugs.php.net/search.php?search_for=&boolean=0&limit=30&order_by=&direction=DESC&cmd=display&status=All&bug_type=All&project=All&php_os=&phpver=&cve_id=&assign=&author_email=spam2%40rhsoft.net&bug_age=0&bug_updated=0&commented_by=> > > I just sorted that list by status, and of 111 bugs, 27 are closed as "not a bug", 6 "won't fix", and 2 were detected as spam, including one with the intriguing title " PHP >= 5.6.0 is broken by definition".
However, 27 reports have been closed (I'm assuming they have been valid and have been resolved), a few are analyzed or assigned, and there are a lot of still open tickets, which may be valid or not.
> There may be some genuinely useful reports in there, and even some of the not-a-bugs might not be awful, but is it really a list we can't do without, for the sake of not scaring everyone else away?
Indeed, that is the question! (A follow-up question might be how to block somebody from the bugtracker, since to my knowledge one could state basically arbitrary email addresses). Quoting spam2 at rhsoft dot net from <https://bugs.php.net/76184>: | […] but i prefer the Torvalds style Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. :) -- Christoph M. Becker
  102019
April 4, 2018 19:14 kalle@php.net (Kalle Sommer Nielsen)
Hi Derick

2018-04-04 20:42 GMT+02:00 Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>:
> Hi, > > "rhsoft" continues their aggressive behaviour on the bug tracker still > too. One recent illustration is > https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76184&edit=1 > > Do we have any methods to ban people from there too?
Sadly we do not as far as I'm aware of, the best thing we could do is to add rhsoft or similar to the spam keywords, but even that is easily bypassable. -- regards, Kalle Sommer Nielsen kalle@php.net
  102020
April 4, 2018 19:37 mtkocak@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Midori_Ko=C3=A7ak?=)
+1

This kind of language shouldn't be allowed here.

On 4 April 2018 at 20:42, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:

> Hi, > > "rhsoft" continues their aggressive behaviour on the bug tracker still > too. One recent illustration is > https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=76184&edit=1 > > Do we have any methods to ban people from there too? > > cheers, > Derick > > On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > Ok, both have been added to the ezmlm deny list for internals > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:49 AM, Nikita Popov ppv@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing > list. > > > > > > I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users > > > tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been > > > aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite > requests to > > > moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of > > > previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two > users > > > have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest. > > > > > > If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific > > > instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the > > > internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve > this. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Nikita > > > > > > > -- > https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io > Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: https://xdebug.org/donate.php, > or become my Patron: https://www.patreon.com/derickr > twitter: @derickr and @xdebug > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
  101564
January 7, 2018 14:01 yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki)
Hi Nikita,

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:49 PM, Nikita Popov ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, > > This mail is going to both the systems group and internals mailing list. > > I would like to request a mailing list suspension for the users > tonymarston@hotmail.com and lists@rhsoft.net, who have recently been > aggressively derailing the "Scalar Pseudo-type" thread, despite requests to > moderate their participation both in that thread, and on a number of > previous instances -- this is certainly not the first time these two users > have converted an RFC discussion into a dick measuring contest. > > If these users cannot be suspended, I would like to request specific > instructions under what circumstances users can be suspended from the > internals list, and what procedures need to be followed to achieve this. > > Regards, > Nikita >
At first, I don't understand at all what the issue here at all. However, I'm -1 on this in general. Who are going to decide what kind of discussion is correct or wrong? The last discussion with you about HKDF was total nonsense. I think you are great programmer, but you were ignorant regarding secure key derivations. You don't even know what FS (Forward Secrecy), nor PFS (Perfect Forward Secrecy) that are very basic idea for secure key derivations. Without FS, it is considered very vulnerable today. PFS is mandatory for many applications. i.e. Slat parameter must be the 1st tional parameter at least, or better, it should be a required parameter. I might be +1 depending on the behavior, but -1 as long as their attitude is acceptable. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net