Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90136 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 76601 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2016 19:39:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Jan 2016 19:39:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=peter.e.lind@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=peter.e.lind@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: peter.e.lind@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.82.53 mail-wm0-f53.google.com Received: from [74.125.82.53] ([74.125.82.53:35594] helo=mail-wm0-f53.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B9/62-12097-3DB1C865 for ; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 14:38:59 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id f206so35479400wmf.0 for ; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:38:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=xMvvbPN/jbf0gyiZ1UsONEZ3tt2Xuzplf4iqrh9gXrY=; b=bBqqgBh7hlAM9q8OLtEgGEJ2pLPwilO7h+KFcsdElcOaxEvN6/2hpUKnPgtqkoz4Qx U6oH57LmIBp34IasdN2LY9T2638or+4hFn/mKSvbQj3BVVBVbKT1EvWH6rdNl1ZzERF9 KKattHZkz5VFtoftMaJMXmED1vsHxXWTD/OkTiiInVvolSRDFzKPXrO6/8/Y5y85oJQq Dfi+FQRvsoHUlLzHlhoLGqTrUqMvvIEtm86etDg4Ty6+P0FRuoPOHe2MK1uT+a2XRku+ MjvB5z+4VNuYG+D7ygSQrD8qF4So4fSNwGLbQkmcK8QiekzYm2x7ept/ocaxKV/I5zT2 zAKg== X-Received: by 10.194.114.1 with SMTP id jc1mr102860758wjb.78.1452022736169; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:38:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.21.78 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 11:38:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <568C18CA.1080600@gmail.com> References: <568AE803.1080209@gmail.com> <568B0C8E.3080206@eliw.com> <568B1041.1060601@gmail.com> <568B1DA8.3060908@gmail.com> <568C0EA9.4080800@gmail.com> <568C18CA.1080600@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 20:38:36 +0100 Message-ID: To: Stanislav Malyshev Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1130cd586530f505289b6379 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct From: peter.e.lind@gmail.com (Peter Lind) --001a1130cd586530f505289b6379 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 5 January 2016 at 20:26, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > 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 makes very good sense. I think the process could be optimized, but I think aiming for maximum disclosure is as problematic as maximum confidentiality - it ignores the perspective of one party. > > 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. > > I wholeheartedly agree. -- WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk CV: careers.stackoverflow.com/peterlind LinkedIn: plind Twitter: kafe15 --001a1130cd586530f505289b6379--