Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90028
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.180 as permitted sender)
To: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nFbngZ42qzbSFyveH+vsyir9QNtMJq8H=u9VqTBVBv5Og@mail.gmail.com>
 <568AE803.1080209@gmail.com> <568B0C8E.3080206@eliw.com>
 <CAEZPtU6oKG1aHWCb2YUFXPv5bU1E16w__QDZ2HmV-q_KRSceqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <568B1041.1060601@gmail.com>
 <CAH-PCH6pgQNRXW+PL6VwuPz_LQsoSW7hW6L8FEY_=wvw7SvOQg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, Eli <eli@eliw.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <568B149C.50902@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:55:56 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH6pgQNRXW+PL6VwuPz_LQsoSW7hW6L8FEY_=wvw7SvOQg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> currently I (and a bunch of other people) could revoke anybody's karma,
> how is this any different(ofc. it would be reverted and I would get a
> scolding)?

The difference is that those 5(3) people get a special stand, while
right now everybody is equal (well, there are RMs but that is more
functional role). What these people are doing is assumed to be "fighting
harassment", and their target is assumed to be an offender, and thus in
the wrong. Moreover, they are empowered to silence that person just by
their own decision, without seeking consensus about it upfront. If you
or I did that - even in case where it is justified - it would raise some
eyebrows and get some scolding, as you correctly noted. So that's my
problem with it - that by this RFC, 3 people can do it with no consensus
at all.

> we just have to make the process transparent and as mentioned in the RFC
> any permanent action would require an RFC and consensus from the project:
> "f the CoC team determines that a longer temporary ban or a permanent
> ban is necessary, they shall institute a temporary ban and raise an RFC
> to the general project to effect the desired ban. Once the RFC is
> issued, the temporary ban's lifetime will be tied to the RFC's lifetime
> (will expire when the vote is finished)."

Which means while this RFC is discussed, the accused person remains
banned (thus unable to participate in any discussion). And, CoC is not
required to disclose much:

The CoC shall report a redacted summary of the incident
/.../
All incidents are to be kept in the strictest form of confidentiality.
The CoC team shall be the only group to know about the reporter and the
precise details of any incident.

I.e. if 3 persons in CoC hate N and want to chase her our of the
project, they vote internally that she is guilty of "Other unethical or
unprofessional conduct", ban her from all community spaces and then tell
the rest of the community anything they like about what happened and
demand permanent ban. I don't think it is a good idea.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com