Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90091 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 82942 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2016 14:19:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Jan 2016 14:19:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:31040] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B8/C0-12097-9D0DB865 for ; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 09:19:05 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.240.16.115]) (Authenticated sender: flaupretre@free.fr) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 755584B0045; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 15:18:04 +0100 (CET) To: Zeev Suraski , Adam Harvey , smalyshev@gmail.com References: <568AE803.1080209@gmail.com> <568B0C8E.3080206@eliw.com> <568B1041.1060601@gmail.com> <568B1DA8.3060908@gmail.com> Cc: PHP internals Message-ID: <568BD0CA.7040909@php.net> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 15:18:50 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160105-0, 05/01/2016), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Laupretre?=) Hi, Le 05/01/2016 10:32, Zeev Suraski a écrit : >> 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 +1. The proposed CoC is too vague for a multi-cultural environment like ours. Reference to ethics, for example, is subjective by nature. But I'm OK for a more precise text that everybody must explicitely approve before getting any karma. But I am opposed to any form of law enforcement board. I understand it ensures privacy but my feeling is that we don't need privacy here, and we never needed such a mechanism during 20 years. Most questionable messages are published on the mailing list. If someone receives an offending private mail or is victim of harassment in any other way, he can just publish it on the list and everyone will judge if it is offending or not. Then, if we need to consider banning someone, anybody can create a specific RFC for this, but it is an extreme case that, fortunately, has a very low probability.. Regards François