Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90192
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gohearsay.com designates 50.116.30.253 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_723DEDAF-11E7-47DF-9252-704812AFC716"
Message-ID: <D434DE09-F843-4FCE-BC5B-AD0FEB159EC7@gohearsay.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 05:58:14 -0600
References: <BE0EB5B804BC488AAD1344BF9D3B9277@gmail.com> <66E04ACF-7363-4E47-BFFD-E380E5B1EA23@gmail.com> <568C53D6.3060800@garfieldtech.com> <407B6C6C-033F-476B-A049-BE248211755B@gmail.com> <094E9F3C-B8B6-424B-BCF6-D0021A910266@gmail.com>
To: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <094E9F3C-B8B6-424B-BCF6-D0021A910266@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: kevin@gohearsay.com (Kevin Smith)

--Apple-Mail=_723DEDAF-11E7-47DF-9252-704812AFC716
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

> On Jan 6, 2016, at 3:28 AM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On 6 January 2016 02:13:53 GMT, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>> When speech-policing is proposed without irony, and welcomed with
>> applause, I respond correctly: with scorn and contempt, as is =
deserved.
>=20
> You state this like some kind of self-evident truth. Understand that =
not everybody agrees with you, and scorn is not generally something that =
wins people round to your argument.


If a code of conduct so broad and invasive that it seeks deal with such =
crimes as the =E2=80=9Cthoughtless use of pronouns=E2=80=9D and =
=E2=80=9Cculturally insensitive names=E2=80=9D isn=E2=80=99t =
speech-policing, what is?

>>=20
>> The "real and legitimate issues" can be addressed without
>> one, perhaps with the "conflict resolution" document you referenced. =
It
>> is orders of magnitude more reasonable
>=20
> Ah, some constructive suggestions. More of this please.

You may not see much of Paul=E2=80=99s engagement in this discussion as =
constructive, but I would disagree, and it doesn=E2=80=99t look like =
I=E2=80=99m alone. Many codes of conduct are written by well-intentioned =
people unskilled in legislation and enforced by tribunals unskilled in =
investigation and adjudication. Pair that up with the sort of person who =
earnestly believes they are making the world a better place by =
controlling what others say and how they say it, who deems any opinion =
they don=E2=80=99t like =E2=80=9Cdangerous" and any pushback they =
receive =E2=80=9Charassment"=E2=80=94those sorts of people do exist, and =
they readily abuse extrajudicial systems=E2=80=94and you=E2=80=99ve got =
the recipe for gross injustice levied against people with an unpopular =
opinion. This does not require knowingly bad actors. Everyone involved =
would be not just cleared but congratulated by their own consciouses for =
doing what is Right and Good.

When the creation of such a machine for injustice is formally =
recommended and begins to receive rubber-stamp approval, I=E2=80=99d =
hope someone would stand up and speak against it. Leaders in the civil =
rights movement in the United States could have been accused of using =
extreme or hyperbolic language too, but that is no argument against the =
rightness of their position.

And on a related note, let=E2=80=99s not forget that complete opposition =
to a proposal is still meaningful feedback.

>=20
>> and observably less fascist
>=20
> And, we're immediately back to the unnecessarily combative language. =
Calling the proposal "fascist" and "horrific" is really unnecessary, and =
just undermines your position by making you seem like an extremist =
rather than a concerned party with a contribution to make.

Who gets to determine that the manner of expressing an opinion is =
unnecessary? While =E2=80=9Cfascism=E2=80=9D has certainly become a =
general pejorative, it does have an actual meaning. According to the =
founder, Benito Mussolini[1]:

"The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no =
human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus =
understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State=E2=80=94a =
synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values=E2=80=94interprets, =
develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.=E2=80=9D

And later:

=E2=80=9CThe state is the guarantor of security both internal and =
external, but it is also the custodian and transmitter of the spirit of =
the people.=E2=80=9D

Knowing Paul to some degree, I doubt he=E2=80=99s merely using =
=E2=80=9Cfascism=E2=80=9D as a general, inflammatory descriptor. Make no =
mistake, a project is not the same thing as a political nation-state. =
Still, the Contributor Covenant that was put forward as the original CoC =
does have some fascistic tendencies, including the fact that it reaches =
outside the scope of the project and into the way a person speaks or =
behaves on their own time, and it uses the project maintainer=E2=80=99s =
own understanding of the project=E2=80=99s ethical values as a basis for =
determining bad behavior. Everything in the project, nothing outside the =
project=E2=80=A6

[1] =
http://www.pauladaunt.com/books/Banned%20books%20and%20conspiracy%20theori=
es/The%20Doctrine%20of%20Fascism%20-%20by%20Benito%20Mussolini%20%28Printe=
d%201933%29.pdf


Kevin Smith
http://gohearsay.com=

--Apple-Mail=_723DEDAF-11E7-47DF-9252-704812AFC716--