Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90242
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pthreads.org from 209.85.160.179 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6D.39.21755.3576D865@pb1.pair.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>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 06:38:50 +0000
Message-ID: <CAL=_i_mnPOCYJs+-mw+dVd8VMqyZ5GL3kaNPfZXpdMRAhb0fVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114929704541c20528b8b990
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins)

--001a114929704541c20528b8b990
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Andrea,

> The key part of that is "intent". I do note that it doesn't include the
word "offensive", but I'm not sure that's important, since anything covered
by "offensive" is would also be covered by at least one of "threatening",
"abusive" or "insulting".

That it is omitted from the letter of the law is more important than you
think, it is omitted precisely because it is a blanket term.

Those things that the law prohibits have definitions either in law, or in
morality, it is those things that we should be trying to protect
contributors from.

I accept that there has to be a level of trust in the council enforcing the
code, I have to trust them to determine if something is intentional, or
malicious. The definition of intent and malice should not vary much between
individuals, however the definition of offence does. I cannot trust someone
else's sensibilities.

The aim of the thing is laudable, but the word offence doesn't belong.

Cheers
Joe


On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

> Hi Joe,
>
> Joe Watkins wrote:
>
>> Morning internalz,
>>
>>      I'm going to keep it simple, because I'm sure everybody is getting =
a
>> bit bored ...
>>
>>      I object to the idea that we should try to limit "offence" ... it's
>> not
>> quantifiable, and it doesn't matter whatever, I'm offended by all sorts =
of
>> things ... so what ...
>>
>
> "Offensive" can be problematic in that it's a blanket term that can cover
> many things. Someone insinuating that someone else is wrong might be foun=
d
> offensive, yet on the other hand "offensive" also covers the use of more
> serious things like racial slurs, or making demeaning or hateful comments
> about people from less privileged groups.
>
> I'm not sure this ambiguity is avoidable, though. Any code of conduct is
> inherently somewhat vague, and requires a degree of trust in whoever
> enforces it to act reasonably. If you don't trust the enforcers to have
> reasonable interpretations, this is a rather pointless exercise.
>
> 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=E2=80=94
> >   (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.
>
> The key part of that is "intent". I do note that it doesn't include the
> word "offensive", but I'm not sure that's important, since anything cover=
ed
> by "offensive" is would also be covered by at least one of "threatening",
> "abusive" or "insulting".
>
> Plus, we're not dealing with setting up a legal system here, just
> guidelines for conduct. We are never going to have, nor need, the precisi=
on
> and complexities of a legal system. If you break the code of conduct, you
> aren't going to be fined and spend a few weeks in jail. At worst you migh=
t
> get a one-week ban from the mailing list, or have someone petitioning to
> ban you from the project. And that's at *worst*.
>
> Furthermore, if people think the CoC enforcement team have been too
> heavy-handed with their application of the code, the team can be replaced=
.
>
>
>>      I can see nothing that is disagreeable in the idea other than this.
>>
>>      If this sentence were changed:
>>
>>      >  Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove,
>> edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other
>> contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct,
>>      >  or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other
>> behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or
>> harmful.
>>
>>     To
>>
>>      > Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove,
>> edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues and other
>> contributions, as well as imposing temporary or permanent bans on any
>> contributor that
>>      > persistently violates our code of conduct.
>>
>
> Your suggested new wording appears to remove the requirement for
> removed/edited/rejected contributions to have not aligned to the code of
> conduct. I assume that's not intentional, but the "on any contributor tha=
t
> persistently violates [...]" part appears to only apply to "imposing
> temporary or permanent bans", and not the preceding part.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> https://ajf.me/
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--001a114929704541c20528b8b990--