Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90139
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <568C1C62.3060808@garfieldtech.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>
	<CAESVnVpiz16wYvXy=nZ6kCYJea2PH3MSVMZMuPN3orFNe_1eSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<568C1C62.3060808@garfieldtech.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 14:43:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nEgd3UrLu_+-TdvKkx50NNc0mXoxwkTTgogaknEtpLftg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

Larry

>> 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
>
>
> I agree with Stas (previous email) that a bad CoC can backfire.  I'd go as
> far as saying that a bad CoC (either one that is so toothless as to be a lie
> or one that is so draconian that everyone lives in fear of it) is worse than
> no CoC at all.  That is, I think, the point of this discussion: Make sure
> that a CoC is adopted that is good and has a positive impact, not bad with a
> negative impact.
>
> Which is where I agree with Sara: A good CoC should be positive and focused
> on conflict-resolution, not on punitive measures.  So let's build a good
> conflict-resolution-oriented CoC and process rather than a
> ban-hammer-mechanism.  Also, recall that this is not a for-all-time
> definition.  CoCs can and should evolve over time, as should the process
> around them.
>
> Disclosure: I've been through Drupal's Community CoC, the DrupalCon CoC, and
> multiple rounds of CoC-esque discussion in a 20-year old online RPG club I
> used to help run.  I've been around this block more than once.
>
> Reference material:
>
> Drupal's Community CoC:
>
> https://www.drupal.org/dcoc
>
> was derived originally from the Ubuntu Community CoC:
>
> http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/conduct
>
> The DrupalCon CoC was more contentious until it was rewritten to be more
> positive-oriented (less "we don't" and more "we do"):
>
> https://austin2014.drupal.org/code-of-conduct.html
>
> The main author of the DrupalCon CoC, George DeMet, pointed me at the Django
> CoC as another good model:
>
> https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/
>
> Sara, Stas, Anthony, are you open to talking with George? (Disclosure:
> Besides being on the Drupal CWG, George is also my boss. <g>)


Definitely! I overall like Drupals CoC (I looked at it in response to
this thread). Thanks for offering to set something up!

Anthony