Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90077
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.213.41 as permitted sender)
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>
In-Reply-To: <CADajX4Aur47K4_TnkhScUw6RfA+1LMoDi3JKT9zc0oGJ0EiaAQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQL0YDuyoRIgr+1z934JDGCphyFvsgLl3b+wAkBaD+YChepDggGfVS/fAX2X5tkCaJK48ADOldQxnDZwGCA=
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 11:32:48 +0200
Message-ID: <a94b087e3efebf4e8948b79d19d1f565@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net>, smalyshev@gmail.com
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: adam@adamharvey.name [mailto:adam@adamharvey.name] On
> Behalf Of Adam Harvey
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 3:46 AM
> To: Stanislav Malyshev
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
>
> On 4 January 2016 at 17:34, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > If we're talking about having a declaration of principles, I am not
> > sure we need elaborate text to say "don't be an ass" but I don't mind
> > having one in case somebody ever need explicit instructions on how
> > exactly not to do that :)
>
> One thing I really like about the covenant Anthony is proposing (besides
> it
> being the same as the one a bunch of other projects are
> using) is that it actually is pretty short, considering what it is.
> The English version fits on one screen on my laptop.

I actually find that a bad thing.  As I think the Voting RFC proved (IMHO
beyond a reasonable doubt) - what's not clearly defined in the text, may
evolve in unpredictable directions in the future.

Specifically, the Contributor Covenant has text which in my opinion, is
either too open for interpretation or needs to be narrowed down - e.g.
'Personal Attacks' and even more so 'Other unethical or unprofessional
conduct'.  What one may find a legitimate part of a heated discussion -
another may find as a personal attack.  What one may consider perfectly
fine - another may find completely unethical.  These are subjective matters
and giving a group of five (or seven, or nine) people judicial power over
them is very problematic.

While I understand the position that even though it's "a solution waiting
for a problem" - proactively providing such a CoC makes sense - I think the
open-endedness and the risk of bad things happening as a result of it are
far greater than any positives.

I would focus on creating as-clear-cut-as-possible CoC (probably a trimmed
down version of the Contributor Covenant), but would leave the 'teeth' part
(i.e. the council part and any sanctions) out.

In the very extreme situations where someone truly needs to be banned or
otherwise sanctioned, any one of us can propose an RFC to do it.  I would
require a 2/3 majority and probably no less than X voters voting in favor of
the ban, given the far-reaching implications (X being at least several dozen
people IMHO).  Personally, I would advise to never issue permanent bans -
people do sometimes change.  People get second chances for doing much worse
things;  I'd go for a 1yr or at most 2yr bans (again, in exceptional cases
only).

My 2c.

Zeev