Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90105
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <568BE848.2080405@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>
 <a94b087e3efebf4e8948b79d19d1f565@mail.gmail.com> <568BD0CA.7040909@php.net>
 <CAEU6NAeX+PXGOYVc-EE0P5y-LmfG8OsmLzhSNLqHDhSvkTcQmg@mail.gmail.com> <568BE848.2080405@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:06:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEU6NAdBB=9BnaWtDCp-vujcvzaVxx_smrKneO+3Us5CaOi7SA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86db00f10f600528986caf
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: peter.e.lind@gmail.com (Peter Lind)

--047d7b86db00f10f600528986caf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 5 January 2016 at 16:59, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> > How exactly would you feel about having all of this made explicit to all
> > the other PHP devs? Presumably you look up to some of these people -
>
> I presume you would feel bad. However your example is purely theoretical
> and hand-crafted to exactly fit your argument.


Yes, I thought it up, hence it's theoretical. If you think that means it
hasn't happened countless times along those lines, you need to learn how to
google.



> It is easy to imagine
> theoretical example that found fit practically any argument - including
> one that nobody should have any due process at all, since proving any
> allegations just hurts the victim again (and you can imagine
> unbelievably hurtful circumstances for your theoretical case, since the
> only limit is your imagination), so any allegation should be considered
> true by mere fact of alleging.


Is there any particular reason you feel the need for arguing strawmen? At
which point has *anyone* argued for against due process? If you cannot
point to any such point, would you mind not assuming them?



> I hope that would be going too far for you?
>

See above.


> In practice, there's rarely an allegation that can not be published to
> the measure that makes it clear what happened.


Unless you've been through abuse and harassment along the lines of
http://blog.randi.io/2015/12/31/the-developer-formerly-known-as-freebsdgirl/
I would suggest you stop assuming what it is like.



> That does not mean
> "verbatim" - in some cases, like publishing private information,
> reproducing it verbatim as a proof would be obviously counterproductive,
> but there are also obvious way to describe it without reproducing
> verbatim, such as "publishing private information".
>
>
See above.



> > If you happen to belong to a minority group that often is at the
> > receiving end of abuse, what would you think if this was the message
> > being sent? Would you expect to be understood by your peers, or would
>
> I think the message that is being sent is that everybody will be treated
> equally and fairly. If somebody has done something bad, it would be
> known and the solution would be found, if nothing bad happened, people
> can be reasonably assured that they are safe from false accusations.
> That applies to majorities, minorities, mediocrities and any other
> groups, however one would like to label oneself that particular day.
>

And you would be wrong - that is not the message being sent.

-- 
<hype>
WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk
CV: careers.stackoverflow.com/peterlind
LinkedIn: plind
Twitter: kafe15
</hype>

--047d7b86db00f10f600528986caf--