Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90157
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.45 as permitted sender)
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>
To: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <568C400E.6090404@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 14:13:34 -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: <CAESVnVoLougLBLWwimGcq4iFAY6WniUgWErGEsiY5dK4-nwc0w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

>> True, but as Larry said, either side is problematic. Too loose of a
>> CoC with no enforcement and nothing really was changed from today
>> considering we already have the post that Rasmus made 6-7 years ago.

That implies we do *need* change from situation today. But so far I
didn't see anybody claiming situation today is problematic (not in terms
"not having CoC makes us look uncool and we want to be cool" but in
terms of "something bad is happening right now and we need to take
action to stop it".). Now, I have nothing against looking cool, and if
we can make the community look cooler/safer/warmer/welcomer/more
unicorns and hellokitties with no downsides - sure, why not? The part
that is worrysome for me is the one with downsides, namely "enforcement".

> Perhaps there's a path to compromise here though.  A CoC plus a
> Response Team *without* authority for any punitive action would be a
> step forward.  We don't have to solve every problem right up front, we
> can start with:

I think if we would talk about moderation/mediation team that would try
to resolve a conflict and in a complicated cases - like irresolvable
conflict which makes collaboration impossible - prepare an impartial
summary of the issue and let the community take an action, and maybe be
able to alert necessary people (or even have such people as members) in
case urgent action - like emergency block to stop publishing sensitive
information, etc. - is needed, I would have no problem with that.
I had numerous instances in the past where skillful third-party
mediation allowed resolving differences and pave way for cooperation. So
having people that can do that and are publicly known address for doing
this is a good thing to me. If we lose the punitive focus and have more
"what we want to do and what should happen" and less "what should not
happen and how badly we'll punish you", it would be much better.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com