Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90128
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.215.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: php@golemon.com
In-Reply-To: <7995F3E4-D9BC-499C-9D62-EE804D3292EF@gohearsay.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>
	<568BE845.2090102@php.net>
	<alpine.DEB.2.20.1601051607280.4541@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
	<CAEZPtU5T6HnbmNYu0qHBax0SoS+OxnutZZ=fWTquRJt5=pom0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<568BFF63.3080403@garfieldtech.com>
	<CAH-PCH5qUNJiAvB0V1_NpKsf7CLJ7satvHEs_HsNGnmNVj1U5w@mail.gmail.com>
	<7995F3E4-D9BC-499C-9D62-EE804D3292EF@gohearsay.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 11:03:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAESVnVpiz16wYvXy=nZ6kCYJea2PH3MSVMZMuPN3orFNe_1eSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kevin Smith <kevin@gohearsay.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Smith <kevin@gohearsay.com> wrote:
> Much of the argument in favor of a code of conduct seems to be centered a=
round the desire to send a message to the wider developer world that we=E2=
=80=99re a welcoming community that doesn=E2=80=99t look kindly on poor tre=
atment of others. If that=E2=80=99s the goal, rather than the goal being to=
 punish or censor people who violate our own values, why do we need a respo=
nse team with the power to ban?
>
> If a person's treatment of others truly warrants banishment, then as Zeev=
 noted the RFC process is already perfectly suited for that. As far as I=E2=
=80=99m concerned, the absolute greatest power the response team should be =
given is the power to issue a censure. If sending a message is the goal, th=
at=E2=80=99ll do it.
>
>
I'll chime in on this, since you and I had a quite pleasant and
productive conversation last night.  I believe we agreed that the
original draft was over-focused on punitive measures and not enough on
low-impact mediation.

I imagine, because I love all you guys (and gals), that the volume of
traffic to a response team would be low to begin with.  I further
imagine, since you're all such a great bunch of lads (and lasses),
that the vast majority of those complaints would be resolvable with
some gentle mediation.  That's a good focus for the CoC, and I would
love to bring us to that point.  (Sorry if you've already addressed
this Anthony, I haven't read your updates yet, it's been a busy
morning).

I said it in a prior email, but I'll repeat it.  I see it like the
security@ list.  A place to send issues that don't necessarily bear
airing in public.  That's good for both the accuser AND the accused.
A tiny layer of discretion to ease what may be a tense issue.

I don't, however, agree that the response team should be entirely
toothless.  As a *last resort*, a (no more than) 7 day ban to act as a
cooling off period isn't "vast sweeping powers", it's a band-aid for a
situation that's gotten out of control.  A situation that demands the
wider community's attention, because it's become unacceptable.  We can
define the limits of these powers (again I've said this in a previous
email).

Worried about abuse of temp-bans?  Don't think a stringent requirement
of justification is enough?  How about the accuser must suffer an
equal ban?  By the time it's come to the point where action must be
taken, the problem has escalated to the point where privacy of the
accused won't be maintainable anyway (due to evidence requirements).
Turn the temp-ban into a cooling off period.  Because honestly, do we
have mustache twirling ne'er-do-wells? Or do we have passionate people
who get worked up into a lather and sometimes cross a line?

As someone who has crossed that line more than once, I hope you'll
trust it's just the latter.

-Sara