Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90251
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.174 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1e6a13607a3a1c8b20a4649f8a5ef767@mail.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>
	<568D7C5D.9020405@php.net>
	<CAAyV7nFYYxZELZhgo_wrhr9u2+Lww1jQAw+3O=fGqLJJdg7GkA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1e6a13607a3a1c8b20a4649f8a5ef767@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 22:05:56 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU5BaogkrJ4H9o1x9ENWXOVqnAye8Oh535aTHOefMuJz6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

Hi Zeev,

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

> As someone who's been on the receiving end of countless personal attacks in
> the context of STH, marginalized and harassed

Same here, along personal vendetta along many other similar things.

-  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.

I totally agree on focusing on a problem resolution strategy. This is
a good thing and gives a good signal too.

> In addition, I've been on the receiving end of numerous false accusations -
> including very recently - which, with the wrong people in power - might have
> resulted in extreme outcomes.

The key point about people in power is to make them not in power but
in charge. The power should and must remain in the hands of the core
community, for the extreme measures.

> Last, I'm truly surprised by the four direct threats of violence you've been
> 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 of
> 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.

To me and to my understanding, to many other, violence begins with insults.

At the very least I would put direct actions in response to insults,
soft warning for 1st timer followed by bans, temporary or permanently
for cases of recidivism. I agree to split the RFC in two steps
allowing to learn in the process. However I do think that we should
include a clear action path when it comes to insult on the mailing
list, IRC or other channels. Now we can indeed argue about what is an
insult but common sense may apply here (like to consider direct insult
like "you are a <put your fav bird name here or body part>). This is
something we must consider as unacceptable.

> 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.

I tend to agree on a two steps if we define a clear timeline for the
2nd step. Also a too soft CoC may just as useless as no CoC at all.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org