Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90021
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <568AE803.1080209@gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nFbngZ42qzbSFyveH+vsyir9QNtMJq8H=u9VqTBVBv5Og@mail.gmail.com>
	<568AE803.1080209@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 01:33:27 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH40onBv7LrEm9PzkbqzVbeQAV1yJ9CHPo1rVb7jmf=OoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb03d4edda1b805288b62d5
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--047d7bb03d4edda1b805288b62d5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> > I have created a new RFC for the PHP Project to adopt the Contributor
> > Covenant as the official Code of Conduct for the project
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/adopt-code-of-conduct
> >
> > Let me know what you think or if there are any concerns
>
> Looks to me like solution in search of a problem. I'm with PHP project
> since 90s, and maybe it is my biased view, but with all heated and
> sometimes very controversial discussions, people rage-quitting and
> swearing oaths to never have anything to do with PHP again, etc., that
> we have had over these years I can remember maybe a handful of instances
> where there were - at least in public spaces of the mailing lists -
> comments that may be suspicious within the framework described in
> http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/3/0/code_of_conduct.md. Even
> in those instances, I'd be hard pressed to remember any instances that
> would constitute actual intentional harassment. Maybe I'm biased, but as
> it looks to me, we may have a lot of issues with discussions on the list
> and in general about how we conduct things, and there was a lot of
> critique about that over the years, but this does not seem to be the
> problem we have.
>
> Going into the specifics of the RFC, we can already do all things the
> CoC committee is proposed to do, and I don't remember any case where it
> was needed - i.e., where a commit had to be reverted or commit karma had
> to be revoked for harassment, over 20 years history. Was there such a cas=
e?
> If it happens that this is needed, we have mechanism to police commits &
> pulls. We do not have any mechanism for instituting bans (again, I don't
> remember us ever needing one - maybe my memory is faulty?) but I think
> such thing should not be done by 5 people. It should be an exceptionally
> broad consensus. That consensus would be especially hard to reach when,
> as RFC states, nobody but those 5 people (and, I assume, the author of
> the complaint) would not even know the details of the issue, and as the
> accused would be banned from wikis and mailing lists, thus unable to
> provide explanations or defend themselves, no semblance of due process
> can be preserved.
>
> If we ever need the procedure for such measures - which I highly doubt -
> it should be only performed with very broad consensus (minimum 2/3 with
> high quorum requirement so 4 people voting on holiday week-end couldn't
> pass such decision) and allow for the accused the chance to explain and
> provide their point of view.
>
> --
> Stas Malyshev
> smalyshev@gmail.com
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
hi,

personally I'm +1 on this, while I think there are some details which needs
to be worked out(mostly about the transparency vs privacy parts).
I agree with Stas that based on the past history the Response Team would be
rarely needed, I could only remember/find two instances when we had to ban
somebody from the list:
http://marc.info/?l=3Dphp-general&m=3D102852881828032&w=3D2 (which was a
controversial action as it turned out later)
and
https://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg57482.html (which I
think was long overdue at that time and reported by multiple people)
there was also one time when Rasmus had to personally remind someone about
their inappropriate behavior:
https://lwn.net/Articles/452278/
and I also think that the lack of action in some cases were also
controversial (I don't really wanna drop names here but Jani leaving the
project comes to mind).

those kind of situations can be resolved better if there is a clear
definition of
1, what behavior is not acceptable
2, who is responsible for handling such issues
3, what is the standard process for handling such issues
4, what action was taken on which ground by whom

and this doesn't just for taking disciplinary actions, but also to make
sure that everybody is on the same page on what is acceptable and what's
not.
if we don't have a CoC then some people will just self-censure because they
are afraid that they can't say something, while others will abuse the lack
of rules, and on the other side, many people (based on my past experience
as an RM) who has the power to take action is afraid to use those without
the proper policy backing him/her while some other person could misuse it
as there is no policy to hold him/her back.

just my 2 cents, and you know that I'm a bit process maniac.

--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--047d7bb03d4edda1b805288b62d5--