Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90226
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.223.171 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: <CAObuZdtKyJXVEAtJzvZENf+Da6S+BFCnXaErvmiHJXen9DCDmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:45:57 -0600
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>,
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <5B9B954F-EB6C-41B2-B41F-41FB68DB641B@gmail.com>
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> <1AD1B991-A3E5-4D6C-A532-5F0FCCC2ED61@gmail.com> <CAObuZdtKyJXVEAtJzvZENf+Da6S+BFCnXaErvmiHJXen9DCDmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ryan Pallas <derokorian@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: pmjones88@gmail.com ("Paul M. Jones")


> On Jan 6, 2016, at 13:38, Ryan Pallas <derokorian@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> > On Jan 6, 2016, at 13:13, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
> >
> > Furthermore, if people think the CoC enforcement team have been too =
heavy-handed with their application of the code, the team can be =
replaced.
>=20
> Easiest way to avoid that is not to have a continuing team. Instead, =
randomly select of a response group on a per-incident basis should be =
sufficient. Nobody gets selected for a second incident until everyone =
has been selected once.
>=20
> How would I bring to attention of someone a situation, if there is no =
one picked to take those requests until after its been made?

An excellent point. My first thought is to appoint or elect a continuing =
"secretary" (probably a better name for that) to receive requests, and =
then run the random-selection tool on each incoming notice. The =
secretary position itself is not responsible for reviewing or resolving, =
only receiving and assigning. This introduces some possibility of =
picking favored assignees to particular responses, but even that might =
be automated by having a bot respond to emails to a particular address.

Again, not in favor of a COC at all in the first place, as noted in the =
next quote:


>> Of course, even better than that is not to have a COC in the first =
place. The conflict-resolution document is an infinitely better starting =
place.
>=20
> I agree, a conflict resolution document and team seems infinitely =
better. This team's job is to resolve things quietly and without further =
incident, however if action may be required - its an open vote (as =
previously suggested).=20

Right on.


--=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