Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90227
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <62.8D.21755.D7F6D865@pb1.pair.com>
To: 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> <568D6E25.8010108@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 19:48:09 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:42.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0 SeaMonkey/2.39
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <568D6E25.8010108@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)

Hi Stas,

Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> 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 ;)

Sure. Again, inevitably any code of conduct is somewhat vague and 
requires trust in the maintainers to be reasonable.

Thanks.
-- 
Andrea Faulds
https://ajf.me/