Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90159
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.180 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
In-Reply-To: <CAPKYkKxmQr=MujbTPhT48xou-Dvf4KUFXNX4sKxHEgGvqA-4XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:14:49 -0600
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <68CBB853-461A-49FD-A178-4DB31ADF4623@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>
To: Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: pmjones88@gmail.com ("Paul M. Jones")


> On Jan 5, 2016, at 15:51, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.

If you're dead set on this, why have "appointed" members at all?  Pick =
randomly from the pool of voters, one set of members assigned on a =
per-accusation basis, disallow further service until everyone has been =
chosen once, then reset the counter.

Having said that, a Code of Conduct in *any* form is going to be abused, =
*especially* this one, which I continue to maintain is primarily =
political in nature, fascist in practice, and utterly contemptible.  =
Larry's "conflict resolution" document, while still not that great, is =
orders of magnitude better than this RFC. It at least leads in the =
direction of people solving their own problems, rather than appealing to =
amenable authority and thus remaining dependents on it for all time.



--=20
Paul M. Jones
pmjones88@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php