Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90223
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)
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, internals@lists.php.net
References: <BE0EB5B804BC488AAD1344BF9D3B9277@gmail.com>
 <66E04ACF-7363-4E47-BFFD-E380E5B1EA23@gmail.com>
 <CAL=_i_kspY_v0Z-WvPdUAc3-_YfNC_a=59nUrLuW65G97+qZTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6D.39.21755.3576D865@pb1.pair.com>
Message-ID: <568D6E25.8010108@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:42:29 -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: <6D.39.21755.3576D865@pb1.pair.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> Also, I think it's worth bearing in mind that unintentional offence
> which is not persistent is unlikely to fall under this rule. Consider
> that this is roughly the standard that actual law follows, e.g. Section
> 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 in the UK:
> 
>> (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a
>> person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
>>   (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
>>       disorderly behaviour, or
>>   (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which
>>       is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or
>>       another person harassment, alarm or distress.

I love it how The Law spends so much text and yet leaves so much
unspecified and open to interpretation. Basically it says "offense is
being threatening, abusive or insulting". But what is "abusive"? What is
"insulting"? Even "threatening" is unclear - is "if you do this, you'll
regret it very soon" a threat or mere prediction of the unintended
consequences?
"Causing another person distress" is unbelievably open to abuse - I can
say STH RFC caused me much distress, so would somebody publishing it be
harasser now? It's basically "if I disagree with you a lot, you are
guilty" kind of clause.

> The key part of that is "intent". I do note that it doesn't include the

The problem with "intent" that knowing it for sure is requires telepathy
and time travel to work, and both are still very much TBD ;)

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com