Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90109
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nFbngZ42qzbSFyveH+vsyir9QNtMJq8H=u9VqTBVBv5Og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nFbngZ42qzbSFyveH+vsyir9QNtMJq8H=u9VqTBVBv5Og@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 11:15:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nGzsuhDSgenmLUjWPYiNfamcqCgvXpM4Sb30VECpTrHpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

All,

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I have created a new RFC for the PHP Project to adopt the Contributor
> Covenant as the official Code of Conduct for the project
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/adopt-code-of-conduct
>
> Let me know what you think or if there are any concerns
>
> Thanks
>
> Anthony

In response to significant feedback here and elsewhere, I have
expanded the text of the RFC significantly. It now includes the text
of the Contributor Covenant 1.3.0 as well as including verbage about
updating it requiring an RFC.

I included a vote requirement for course of actions of 4/5 of the CoC team.

I also included content about the "Reasonable Person Test", explicitly
stating that it shall be assumed that both parties are acting as
reasonable people until proven otherwise by significant evidence. It
also stipulates that reporting an incident does not excuse someone
from the CoC (meaning victims are still bound to follow it, and are
not excused from proper behavior because of a violation).

I also made it explicit that potential actions should be a last
resort, and that the CoC team should make every reasonable attempt to
defuse the situation without having to resort to "punishment".

I also removed the ability to remove commit karma from the team,
instead including that in the "ban" category (meaning that the CoC
team is no longer allowed to remove commit karma long-term without the
action of internals@)

Additionally, I added a line specifying that bans (temporary or
permanent) should only be used in egregious cases.

I added a section on transparency, Conflict of Interest (though this
needs expanding) and accountability (giving internals@ the ability to
"overturn" any action by the CoC team with a vote of 50%+1). I also
made it explicit that accused people have a right to confidentiality
as long as no action is taken by the team.

I also added a section on appeals.

Those are the changes to the RFC as it stands. Please review them.



As to the comments in this thread, I won't reply to every one, but
here are a few points I'd like to make.

It's been mentioned that we may want to adopt a CoC, but it shouldn't
"have teeth". I disagree here, as without an enforcement mechanism it
basically is no different from where we are at today. Saying we should
act reasonable is fine, but we need a method for what we are to do
when one of us acts unreasonably. Additionally, as has been stated,
requiring people to report publicly creates a barrier to entry. Many
people will simply chose to leave quietly rather than report publicly.
Simply look at the way people who speak out about harassment are
treated in public to understand why. The point of the CoC is to create
a safe place for everyone to contribute, not just those with thick
skin.

As to why the Contributor Covenant as opposed to another CoC or our
own custom one, there are two reasons for this. First, it's a standard
that's been adopted by a number of significant scale projects. Second,
it saves us from having to bikeshed over every single word of a CoC.
If there's another standard CoC that we should entertain, I'm happy to
look at it. But I do not believe that we should create our own.

As far as the conflict resolution process, that I am open to expanding
or retracting as much as practical. I do think it's important to have,
but would be happy to take advice from groups like Drupal who have
done this before.

To those that say this is a solution in search of a problem, it very
well may be. But that doesn't mean it isn't important to do. You could
say the same thing about smoke detectors. Even if you've never had a
fire, that doesn't mean it isn't good practice to install protection
from one. In this case, we simply do not know if or how many
contributors we may have lost due to incidents covered by a CoC. Even
if that number is 0, does that mean it's not worth installing one to
prevent it in the future?

Thanks,

Anthony