Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90042
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.215.65 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: php@golemon.com
In-Reply-To: <568B1041.1060601@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>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 18:34:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAESVnVrXFuXxxkK+EK2Np-3nZkEZNvAoWf-hPnGwYJi=P_z6JQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, 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: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
> It also provides a way for 5 (or, since CoC mechanisms are not specified
> at all, even 3 assuming CoC decides by majority) people to accuse any
> member of the community of some pretty dark things (without even having
> to provide any substantial proof) and immediately ban them from all the
> community spaces with no ability to explain or counter. I don't think
> this is a good idea, especially when nobody actually thinks we need such
> draconian measures for anything at all that actually happened.
>
Although the RFC specifies a "redacted" summary, it's important to
note that the spirit of the redactions are for privacy reasons only.
(And perhaps it should be more formally spelled out.)

If the CoC council is issuing tempbans without substantial cause,
that's a reason to vote against the permban RFCs and a reason to oust
those bad council members. (Again, something to add to this RFC -
removal process).

I see this council acting in a similar capacity to the security@ list.
Not everyone is a member of that because vulnerabilities get disclosed
there, and having that info be public can be unacceptably damaging.
When it comes to conduct violations, complete openness also offers the
danger of being too public and causing additional harm.

Perhaps a larger council (seven? nine?) would allieviate some of these
concerns of power concentration, but that's a matter of balance
against privacy concerns.

-Sara