Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90212
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.217.195 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: php@golemon.com
In-Reply-To: <568D4220.3050309@php.net>
References: <CAAyV7nFbngZ42qzbSFyveH+vsyir9QNtMJq8H=u9VqTBVBv5Og@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nGzsuhDSgenmLUjWPYiNfamcqCgvXpM4Sb30VECpTrHpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<568C9ED7.30504@gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nEnovW3YqmTjBnhtmAGhKiwYo1tYq_QHDYBgRNKNG61zQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<568D4220.3050309@php.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 10:56:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAESVnVob7SweHuHed3yx8uh4hBKtW9+=p9_eX6cgsbGBEAKYfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?= <francois@php.net>
Cc: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Fran=C3=A7ois Laupretre <francois@php.net> =
wrote:
> So, let's analyze what happened when I was accused of 'sabotage' and
> 'strong-arming'  because I had sent a supposedly offending mail to Sara. =
In
> my reply, I published the mail in question so that everyone could judge b=
y
> itself whether it was offending or not. I'm glad we didn't have a PHP
> official SJW team because it would have probably denied me the right to
> publish the message, for confidentiality reasons. So, instead of putting =
the
> case in the public space where everyone could see that the accusation was
> highly exagerated, I would have been judged by 5 people who could have
> banned me on subjective matters (let's not underestimate cultural
> differences here).
>
I'm glad you brought this back up, but you seem to have remembered a
few things incorrectly.

First, I didn't accuse you of anything.   My response to your private
email, was a private email back saying "hey, I don't know why you're
so angry and name-cally, but go ahead and move forward with your
version.  I just didn't want it to get left on the floor as someone
else's problem".  So your claim that, had a response team been in
place, you'd have been summarily sanctioned by a cadre of social
justice warriors is false from the first word, because no complaint
would have been filed.

Second, you seem very confident that having posted your email
publicly, you've been exonerated by the list (as well you should be,
because it was a non-issue to begin with).  Why are you so convinced
that the four out of five people who managed to get a 2/3rd majority
vote of confidence to be on this response team would not be as
reasonable as the public at large?  Nobody is suggesting that they be
hand-picked for their shoot first, shoot second, shoot some more, and
maybe if anyone is still alive ask a question or two, guilty until
proven innocent bias.  So that claim is false as well.

Third, purely for the sake of argument, let's say I *had* made some
formal complaint.  That accusation would have been confined to the
response team, you, and I.  Ask yourself if you prefer a small
audience for an easily defensible accusation, or a large one.  I would
prefer a small audience.

> So, I'm all for a mediation team, but no sanction, even temporary, withou=
t a
> public vote.
>
I'm glad you and I agree on this.

-Sara