Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90132 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 67828 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2016 19:26:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Jan 2016 19:26:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.53 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.220.53 mail-pa0-f53.google.com Received: from [209.85.220.53] ([209.85.220.53:33950] helo=mail-pa0-f53.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 12/80-12097-EC81C865 for ; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 14:26:07 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id uo6so200524312pac.1 for ; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:26:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DOXa6wlLzNVMLl0QI+IjtubgQ5mHIje85sJ1ZYUTje8=; b=PkAEi99bm7wltd95DrW/lm+ddVIiEsUdjxGMZW3WFTO2RWrwn3ccvb3stMfcp8SkMW VslAwfmWVjhdM52yMidB73eIX8TEuwJ4CuUNSoRB8SRyz6afFoA3Qh5hGTIGTdav0fnc 1SiKlv35ISt4zpJYkLjoTtponXCRgnzlu/V1fWQIeyY9OfHoNwGgKzN/OF8ge1oykSwZ hDu8z8iMXpVmp3xFjajR2DMEFnP0ZcjAJH2jUPBREZHr7hGxBpKfT0Re1PrSt1h+ceKo kl5+mc4JQoph4c0xPS/c4zUd19+FRWl0FiU9XqreaAwUUjbNkQShIjPn+TNS6d5mnVwf I1Rw== X-Received: by 10.66.102.106 with SMTP id fn10mr69888780pab.60.1452021963491; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:26:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from Stas-Air.local ([205.154.255.139]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u26sm79249468pfa.86.2016.01.05.11.26.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:26:02 -0800 (PST) To: Peter Lind References: <568AE803.1080209@gmail.com> <568B0C8E.3080206@eliw.com> <568B1041.1060601@gmail.com> <568B1DA8.3060908@gmail.com> <568C0EA9.4080800@gmail.com> Cc: PHP internals X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <568C18CA.1080600@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 11:26:02 -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: 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! > That is the problem: you cannot discuss how to protect the accused > without having the context of the abused. As you have yourself pointed > out with examples, it is a tradeoff. But that is exactly what I want - to have full(er) context! The secret procedure makes that harder. Of course, there are tradeoffs and some details must be withheld - but the first version of RFC (did not read the new one yet) was "maximum confidentiality", and that's not good IMO. I think the default should be "maximum disclosure, unless it's obviously damaging (personal data, etc.) or no-content (insults, slurs, etc.)". I.e. I recognize there's no absolute, I just want the balance be different. > That is a truism: doing more damage is not fixing anything. However, > unless I am mistaken, you yourself put forward the lack of explicit > problems as an argument in favour of not doing anything. Right. So that's one point of discussion - should we do anything at all or not. But if we *are* doing something - that's the second point of discussion - namely, institute new structure with broad powers in the community - we should do it in a way that is least likely to cause damage. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com