Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90049
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain michaelcullum.com from 67.23.224.222 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEYWF=7NjuuVRzkxa0bZGeKc4heYWbFCNR59PFVLH96hTyRdUg@mail.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> <CAEYWF=7NjuuVRzkxa0bZGeKc4heYWbFCNR59PFVLH96hTyRdUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 03:48:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAqcDMg8BRBu91cz=PzamYeMMJS8fQ2y+4i5EiCfmCYLrZv6Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c259b8db7cbe05288e1e7f
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: m@michaelcullum.com (Michael Cullum)

--001a11c259b8db7cbe05288e1e7f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I do apologise for saying offender, it was the wrong word to use there, but
I think the context of the rest of my post made it clear the meaning was
not meant to say that they were automatically guilty (although at the point
in proceedings I was referring to was where their name had been released to
the public and you'd hope that guilt would be established by that point
beyond reasonable doubt, at which point, the legal terminology does change
from accused to offender).

The exact context there of using the term I was actually saying it was
imperative that the accused has a voice to refute those allegations if you
read on (I'm not sure if you did as you snipped off my email straight
afterwards?).

--
Michael C

On 5 January 2016 at 03:22, Bishop Bettini <bishop@php.net> wrote:

> 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.
>

--001a11c259b8db7cbe05288e1e7f--