Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90197 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 34066 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2016 15:38:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Jan 2016 15:38:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:35865] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 1E/41-21755-BF43D865 for ; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 10:38:38 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 713A4E20F0; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 15:38:32 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 15:38:32 +0000 (GMT) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Anthony Ferrara cc: Stanislav Malyshev , "internals@lists.php.net" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <568C9ED7.30504@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="8323329-292955607-1452094645=:4541" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) --8323329-292955607-1452094645=:4541 Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Hi, I'll only comment on some specific points, so hence the trimmed email. On Wed, 6 Jan 2016, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Stanislav Malyshev = wrote: > > > > On Tue, 5 Jan 2016, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > > > >> I added a section on transparency, Conflict of Interest (though=20 > >> this needs expanding) and accountability (giving internals@ the=20 > >> ability to "overturn" any action by the CoC team with a vote of=20 > >> 50%+1). I also made it explicit that accused people have a right to=20 > >> confidentiality as long as no action is taken by the team. > > > > I am a big fan of transparency, but here in particular I'm not sure=20 > > that every mediation attempt should be indeed reported. Maybe if no=20 > > further escalation was required, less publicity is better. We need=20 > > to be careful here, as many things could be resolved in private more=20 > > efficiently if public displays and egos are less involved :) This is=20 > > another thing where over-legislation is bad, as there's a lot of=20 > > common sense needed and you can't legislate that. >=20 > Yeah, perhaps just require transparency when action is required=20 > (reverting commits, edits, etc or temp bans) I think there is a good argument for something like a quarterly report=20 though. It does not have to be large, but something along the lines of=20 "we had to mediate x time in the last 3 months" =E2=80=94 and if something= =20 significant happened, that of course should be mentioned too. Such a summary report indicates towards the community that 1. the CoC is=20 not just some fancy bit of text on a web server, 2. things (sadly) do=20 happen, and hence nobody can make the argument any more of "the PHP is=20 safe, we don't need a CoC, because nothing ever happens". Sadly, things happen=E2=80=94just like Antony illustrated. And I can say the same from personal experience.=20 cheers, Derick --=20 http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine --8323329-292955607-1452094645=:4541--