Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90244
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender)
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>
	<568D7C5D.9020405@php.net> <CAAyV7nFYYxZELZhgo_wrhr9u2+Lww1jQAw+3O=fGqLJJdg7GkA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nFYYxZELZhgo_wrhr9u2+Lww1jQAw+3O=fGqLJJdg7GkA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQHu5WcmVO8w6FQExoubxXKsnxz4JgJ5R3S2AdkIcAsCkTGD5gD5pagcAL0CJ+cCMHBC+AES8eFTnlWoAaA=
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:17:09 +0200
Message-ID: <1e6a13607a3a1c8b20a4649f8a5ef767@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmaxell@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 10:48 PM
> To: Fran=C3=A7ois Laupretre <francois@php.net>
> Cc: Ryan Pallas <derokorian@gmail.com>; Paul M. Jones
> <pmjones88@gmail.com>; Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>;
> internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
>
> All,
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Fran=C3=A7ois Laupretre <francois@php.net=
>
> wrote:
> > Le 06/01/2016 20:38, Ryan Pallas a =C3=A9crit :
> >>
> >>
> >> 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).
> >
> >
> > Agreed. 'Don't be evil' is sufficient as a CoC. Anything we add to
> > this will be redundant, ambiguous, and subject to interpretations.
> >
> > A small set of conflict resolution rules and a team of
> > community-approved mediators is everything we need, IMHO.
>
> I would like to hear from people who've had incidents before or have been
> marginalized or harassed as to what is sufficient.

Anthony,

As someone who's been on the receiving end of countless personal attacks in
the context of STH, marginalized and harassed -  I still find the operative
part of the RFC quite questionable (even though as I said, a lot less so
than the original draft - mainly because the much reduced power of the
team).  Ultimately, I think that just having guidelines would be a lot
better than trying to model any sort of committee and bylaws regarding what
can or cannot be done.

In addition, I've been on the receiving end of numerous false accusations -
including very recently - which, with the wrong people in power - might hav=
e
resulted in extreme outcomes.

Last, I'm truly surprised by the four direct threats of violence you've bee=
n
exposed to in the context of STH.  I, personally, was presented by many
community members as the equivalent of the Enemy of the State, ridiculed,
crowned as a member of the 'Old Guard' and many other personal attacks, but
I'm still not aware of any threats of violence against me (in the context o=
f
PHP, at least).  Could there be a definition gap here?  I would find a true
threat of violence as something that is *completely* unacceptable;  But I
want to make sure we're all perceiving 'threats of violence' in the same
way, more or less.  If there's a definition gap, we should iron it out now.

I think we're better off dividing this RFC into two separate RFCs:
1. Adopting a CoC
2. Adopting a response team/bylaws/mechanism on that CoC (assuming #1 gets
accepted).

Personally, I will almost definitely vote in favor of #1 (provided it's a
reasonable CoC which I think shouldn't be an issue), but I'll most likely
vote against #2.  #2 is where the controversy is, and I think it would be a
shame not to get the part that's mostly in consensus accepted independently
of it.

Thanks,

Zeev