Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90045
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: bishop@php.net
Sender: bishop.bettini@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <A3C2C7EF-66C9-4FD4-B4E7-086C8C362DDF@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>
	<CAEZPtU7dpgh65Nzs61wPmckvPx4sfT4y+8P3fAfJoLyQfb5mxw@mail.gmail.com>
	<568B1DA8.3060908@gmail.com>
	<CADajX4Aur47K4_TnkhScUw6RfA+1LMoDi3JKT9zc0oGJ0EiaAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<568B210A.9050103@gmail.com>
	<CAAqcDMgJdt-dSg8xzpPz7sObrosCFh49nMOX+4AgqYbzsCDVSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C2C7EF-66C9-4FD4-B4E7-086C8C362DDF@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 22:22:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEYWF=7NjuuVRzkxa0bZGeKc4heYWbFCNR59PFVLH96hTyRdUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Cullum <m@michaelcullum.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b4504962f47db05288dbed2
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: bishop@php.net (Bishop Bettini)

--047d7b4504962f47db05288dbed2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Jan 4, 2016 10:00 PM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 2016, at 20:31, Michael Cullum <m@michaelcullum.com> wrote:
> >
> > Huge +1 to this for the reasons stated both by Eli about why it should
> > exist, and the reasons mentioned by Ferenc in that it's not giving out
new
> > powers, but adding accountability to the use of those powers. I do think
> > however there is some fine tuning that could be done.
> >
> > 1) When a summary report is posted, the offender should be given the
>
> The "offender"?  Not "the accused", not "the alleged offender", not "the
presumed innocent until proven guilty", but "the offender".  *This* is why
the RFC is awful, horrible, anti-free-speech, etc.  It abides no concept of
liberty to speak.
>
> The RFC is virtue-signaling for a particular political persuasion, and
nothing more.
>
> It does serve one useful purpose: to help identify who wants to be an
authoritarian and shut down speech from others.

Not really. I also chafe at the egregious "offender" language, but I do not
share your contempt for this RFC. I am in fact +1. Every long standing
collaborative system adopts, uses, and sheds rules of conduct to suit its
real and perceived challenges. We're in the adoption stage, after shedding
Rasmus' quick rules that Ferenc referenced.  I feel there are good things
in this RFC, and certainly some details that need refinement.
Constructive, desenting input is neccesary to sharpen the instrument from
its blunt, rough form. Bring it on.

--047d7b4504962f47db05288dbed2--