Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107345
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:10:20 +0100
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuSkkhtvaBk_89j+PM_TmHDhtOiJ=RxsoV-q5wLtwE_ZHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+kxMuSkkhtvaBk_89j+PM_TmHDhtOiJ=RxsoV-q5wLtwE_ZHA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----JMWXPXJQNFEN4B09QOV78KB1MR3M4V"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <06D1DC34-D60D-4480-B557-5CC85DD4C6BF@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Prevent disruptions of conversations
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)

------JMWXPXJQNFEN4B09QOV78KB1MR3M4V
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 19 September 2019 18:18:40 BST, Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality=2Ecom> w=
rote:
>Here is an RFC to "Prevent disruptions of conversations"
>https://wiki=2Ephp=2Enet/rfc/prevent_disruptions_of_conversations


Looking at this RFC purely from the stated motivation, I think that there =
are two key things that need improving before it is considered for a vote=
=2E


Firstly, it doesn't define things clearly enough=2E It is certainly easier=
 to define general principles than it is to codify every possible scenario =
in advance; however, the looser those definitions, the more trust needs to =
be placed in whoever has the task of interpreting them=2E As it stands, thi=
s proposal carefully avoids appointing anyone to have that authority, meani=
ng that every application of the process would be subject to open-ended deb=
ate=2E

If the intention is to put a short-term rule in place without opening too =
many additional questions, it would perhaps be clearer to propose a small s=
et of specific rules, which don't cover everything, but can be applied clea=
rly and immediately=2E


Secondly, it only handles the most extreme cases; there is no halfway betw=
een asking nicely and an indefinite ban=2E Not only does that leave a lot o=
f grey areas that are not addressed at all, but it reduces the deterrence p=
ower - all that's needed to avoid punishment is to be not quite bad enough =
for the harshest penalty=2E=20

A simple approach that I've seen work well is to have a short ban - say a =
week, or a month - for a first offence, scaling to a year (or indefinite) a=
fter three or more=2E That gives warnings more "teeth", and punishments mor=
e flexibility=2E


I would be interested to hear your thoughts on these suggestions=2E


Regards,
Hi Dan,
--=20
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]
------JMWXPXJQNFEN4B09QOV78KB1MR3M4V--