Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90127
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.179 as permitted sender)
To: Peter Lind <peter.e.lind@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>
 <CAEU6NAdBB=9BnaWtDCp-vujcvzaVxx_smrKneO+3Us5CaOi7SA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <568C1130.2030406@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:53:36 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEU6NAdBB=9BnaWtDCp-vujcvzaVxx_smrKneO+3Us5CaOi7SA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> 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.

I hope you realize how weak is an argument along the lines of "I am
right, if you don't see it, learn how to google".

> 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.

As you see, I have assumed exactly the opposite: that you are *not*
against due process. That's what "going too far" means. You are merely
using an argument that proves too much
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_too_much) - following that
argument, we could conclude that due process is bad. Which is an absurd
conclusion - that's how reductio ad absurdum works.

> 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.

I can not stop it since I never started. But what is like, however bad
it is, is not an argument for what we are discussing, since we do not
argue what happened there is good. We argue whether adopting the RFC is
a good way to prevent something like that from happening or reduce its
incidence. Saying "introducing safe mode is not a good way to improve
security" is not the same as saying "we need no security" :)

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com