Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90110
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain benramsey.com from 209.85.160.175 cause and error)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CEC1D4B4-FBD6-46F8-B407-24926C88277A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
In-Reply-To: <1B9C4242-D4F4-4892-B4AF-90E3C073C09A@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:41:06 -0600
Cc: Michael Cullum <m@michaelcullum.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <BE7968BF-9E7B-4D1E-8096-EEB0F8717201@benramsey.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> <CAAqcDMg8BRBu91cz=PzamYeMMJS8fQ2y+4i5EiCfmCYLrZv6Dg@mail.gmail.com> <63D5D55E-76A0-4550-97E8-98CC7DE9DDD3@gmail.com> <B5264AB1-7E87-4779-B4B7-65A818E65EDF@benramsey.com> <1B9C4242-D4F4-4892-B4AF-90E3C073C09A@gmail.com>
To: Paul Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: ben@benramsey.com (Ben Ramsey)

--Apple-Mail=_CEC1D4B4-FBD6-46F8-B407-24926C88277A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


> On Jan 5, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>=20
>> On Jan 5, 2016, at 09:55, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On Jan 4, 2016, at 10:29 PM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>=20
>>> If there's an accusation, then *due process* needs to be applied. If =
it rises to the level of needing *due process* then the police should be =
involved. There's no need, *none at all*, for a star chamber *or* a mob =
to be an amenable authority to salve someone's hurt feelings and ban =
someone else, not even in a temporary capacity.
>>=20
>> Isn=E2=80=99t this RFC setting up the due process?
>=20
> (/me shakes head)
>=20
> No rights of the accused, for one. Opaque star chamber for another. =
Vague and indefinable terms for a third. It's a *political* action =
designed with a *political* intent, to enforce *political* in-group at =
the expense of a *political* out-group.

I think =E2=80=9Cno rights of the accused=E2=80=9D is a fair criticism. =
I think Larry brought up a valid criticism when he said:

> I am a firm believer in the right to face one's accusers.

Let=E2=80=99s assume for a moment we need a code of conduct and/or =
diversity statement; we want to set up rules to govern ourselves in the =
event that a situation arises when someone is legitimately facing =
harassment in our community. Let=E2=80=99s assume the harassment is not =
life-threatening, nor is it threatening bodily harm, so law enforcement =
isn=E2=80=99t a viable course of action.

What should those governance rules look like for our community?

Anthony has already proposed one form of rules. There is some good =
criticism of these rules: they are too vague, they do not provide =
protections for the accused, too much power is given to a small body, =
the =E2=80=9Cpublic spaces=E2=80=9D clause is too far-reaching, the =
rules can be used to silence speech that is unfavorable even if it =
isn=E2=80=99t harassment.

There are groups of excellent programmers who would benefit our =
community with their ideas and contributions, but they feel marginalized =
and are not comfortable taking part in our community without an =
indication that they are welcome to participate and that we are a safe =
community for them. Should we have any form of statement or guidelines =
to show we are welcoming to all people? If we are welcoming to all =
people, how do we resolve conflicts within our community, and how do we =
enforce resolutions?

Nate pointed to Paul=E2=80=99s =E2=80=9CBe Nice=E2=80=9D statement for =
the Solar Framework. I think that=E2=80=99s a good start for such a =
welcoming statement, but what happens when someone is not being nice? =
What is an appropriate course of action?

-Ben


--Apple-Mail=_CEC1D4B4-FBD6-46F8-B407-24926C88277A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF4EAREIAAYFAlaL8iYACgkQsC2XmJyMBxt8aAD+JKOTsUf1SVmr8dDqUuHDcWaq
vJV+u5XvRL6QbGqPp1EA/2vdmEoGWfdhWSTvv7H6rH4xBusLRezLtiyOKGzEkvaU
=h/r5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_CEC1D4B4-FBD6-46F8-B407-24926C88277A--