Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90029
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.193 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7D025C75-0FDA-412B-9E13-7FE0F6F1DD62@gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nFbngZ42qzbSFyveH+vsyir9QNtMJq8H=u9VqTBVBv5Og@mail.gmail.com>
	<568AE803.1080209@gmail.com>
	<568B0C8E.3080206@eliw.com>
	<7D025C75-0FDA-412B-9E13-7FE0F6F1DD62@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 08:11:56 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU5RMNfQL1ZoMMQprnPqdTuNMe3-Y4chmfO8x20SDFXxpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com>
Cc: Eli <eli@eliw.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 4, 2016, at 18:21, Eli <eli@eliw.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/4/16 4:45 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>>> Looks to me like solution in search of a problem. I'm with PHP project
>>> since 90s, and maybe it is my biased view
>>
>> As someone who originally was hesitant to do something similar with his
>> conferences.  I can speak that the reason for such a proposal is not
>> "because we have a problem".
>>
>> It's a pro-active step, which makes it clear to people who are not a
>> part of our community at the moment, when they happen to approach our
>> community, and perhaps, are interested/intrigued about joining it.  That
>> yes, it will be a safe environment for them to do so.
>
> Of course it's safe. It's the internet. They can't actually be harmed.


> If they feel unsafe they should contact the police.  They don't need to "search" anything other than their precious, fragile little hearts.

Please update your definition of safe. Physical harms are indeed
harder in this case but a CoC goes beyond that.

> The end-result of this RFC is fascist censorious speech-policing. The rights of the accused are entirely ignored. The process is entirely opaque, on purpose, and not subject to external review. There is no need for it, pro-actvely or otherwise.

I agree it is not perfect and needs work and deeper thought. There are
proven to work well CoC out there, we can get inspiration from them.
That being said, saying that this RFC is a facist censorship is wrong
in so many ways.

> My contempt for this terrible, horrible, very bad, no-good RFC is unlimited.

Now please propose.

-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org