Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90156
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPKYkKxmQr=MujbTPhT48xou-Dvf4KUFXNX4sKxHEgGvqA-4XQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nFbngZ42qzbSFyveH+vsyir9QNtMJq8H=u9VqTBVBv5Og@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nGzsuhDSgenmLUjWPYiNfamcqCgvXpM4Sb30VECpTrHpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<d7690738316de3a648ef9cfd176bf85e@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nG++4k9quNtLE9RkjuiYmfa0mABdx80cBVxsyuboMzitg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAESVnVoLougLBLWwimGcq4iFAY6WniUgWErGEsiY5dK4-nwc0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPKYkKxmQr=MujbTPhT48xou-Dvf4KUFXNX4sKxHEgGvqA-4XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:05:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nFLtzz48BPz2bE-Z_2Ds=W0CAHMcmU484FcdYuC-Q-WUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

Chase,

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote:
> While overall I tend to agree with Paul on the concept of a CoC, I don't
> think that precludes the ability to offer suggestions. It's to everyone's
> advantage to make sure that if we do adopt a CoC, we adopt the best one
> possible.
>
> Obviously one of the biggest fears is unjust treatment of the accused. The
> thing that is most likely to lead to that would be pre-existing personal
> biases towards the accused (or in favor of the accuser) by a member of the
> committee. Why not require that at least one member come from outside the
> PHP community all together. I don't know how feasible that really is, but
> assuming it is, it's probably the best way to ensure that there is at least
> one person that is more likely to be as unbiased as possible.
>
> That member could be voted on like all the other members, or, due to the
> fact that voters are hopefully less familiar with such candidates, be
> appointed by the elected members of the committee.
>
> Obviously it's not perfect and still allows the possibility of abuse, but
> you reach the point where such abuses almost require a coordinated
> conspiracy.

Thanks for the suggestion!

So that would mean there would be 3 "required seats":

 * PHP-SRC karma
 * PHP-DOCs karma
 * no karma

and then 2 "arbitrary" seats.

I like the idea overall, but would very much like to hear other's
feedback prior to adding that.

Thanks!

Anthony