Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90120
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nGzsuhDSgenmLUjWPYiNfamcqCgvXpM4Sb30VECpTrHpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nFbngZ42qzbSFyveH+vsyir9QNtMJq8H=u9VqTBVBv5Og@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nGzsuhDSgenmLUjWPYiNfamcqCgvXpM4Sb30VECpTrHpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:16:20 +0000
Message-ID: <CABHuAWzev67b2TQ5-aqFt5E+tJia7NYUT0VGRos-WbvyG4+uyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b5d02073b4105289a3c10
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: t.carnage@gmail.com (Chris Riley)

--001a114b5d02073b4105289a3c10
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 5 January 2016 at 16:15, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
I'd suggest we consider using drupals CoC as a model; it has a more
positive tone.

Additionally, given that this CoC has far reaching consequences, I would
suggest opening up voting on it's implementation to a wider segment of the
community eg those currently subscribed to the PHP mailing lists or at
least those who have recently participated on one.

~C

--001a114b5d02073b4105289a3c10--