Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90230
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender)
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@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>
 <CAESVnVob7SweHuHed3yx8uh4hBKtW9+=p9_eX6cgsbGBEAKYfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>,
 Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>,
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <568D776B.9090701@php.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 21:22:03 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVob7SweHuHed3yx8uh4hBKtW9+=p9_eX6cgsbGBEAKYfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Laupretre?=)

Le 06/01/2016 19:56, Sara Golemon a écrit :
>
> 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.

That's just an example and the way it *could* have evolved. I'm just 
exploring past cases to detect negative side effects.

>
> 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.

Well, you may be right. I'm not sure about this, especially in the 
course of a heated debate. It all depends of the people we choose. 
That's why I think they should have a role of mediators only.

Regards

François