Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90261
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3AB5AA82-4F17-40C3-B8B5-33697A8DBEC2@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>
	<CAEZPtU5BaogkrJ4H9o1x9ENWXOVqnAye8Oh535aTHOefMuJz6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<3AB5AA82-4F17-40C3-B8B5-33697A8DBEC2@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 23:17:32 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU6T14yr8UN1F0goY=7sme-iKgXLECSL7yiAqFLf_xPchw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As I have stated previously, I find the Contributor Covenant text objecti=
onable, in that it couples person, project, and politics, so that the perso=
n becomes answerable to the project for their politics.
>
> If there simply must be a code of conduct, they should be decoupled. To t=
hat end, I propose that the entire "Code Of Conduct Text" in the RFC be rem=
oved, and replaced with this single sentence:
>
>     We are committed to evaluating contributions within project
>     channels without regard to the contributor's experience,
>     ability, identity, body, religion, politics, or activity
>     outside of project channels.
>
> Alternatively, if that's not specific enough, use this single sentence in=
stead:
>
>     We are committed to evaluating contributions within project
>     channels (such as reporting issues, posting feature requests,
>     updating documentation, submitting pull requests or patches,
>     and other project activities) without regard to the
>     contributor's level of experience, gender, gender identity
>     and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal
>     appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion,
>     nationality, politics, or activity outside of project
>     channels.
>
> Both of these use language cribbed from the Contributor Covenant, and add=
 explicit protections for politics and other activity outside the project. =
This decouples person, politics, and project from each other, leaving each =
with its own separate sphere of influence. It also removes the scope of res=
ulting actions-to-be-taken from the expectations of conduct, and leaves it =
to the conflict resolution language.
>
> The replacement is restricted to project channels only. I predict, based =
on earlier comments, that some will object to this. I opine that it is beyo=
nd the scope of the project to either reward or punish members for their ac=
tivity outside channels owned by the project. Even so, conflict in non-proj=
ect channels does occur. As such, I suggest adding the following text (or s=
ubstantially similar text) to the conflict resolution language:
>
>     Q: What about conflict outside of project channels?
>
>     A: If you feel conflict via a non-project channel is
>     unbearable, you should handle the incident(s) using the
>     means provided by that channel. For example:
>
>         - If you feel you are being abused via Twitter, you
>         might block or mute the person(s) you feel are abusing
>         you, and/or report the abuse to Twitter.
>
>         - If you feel you are being harassed via email, you
>         could set up a rule to delete or junk emails from the
>         person(s) you feel are harassing you.
>
>         - If you feel you are subject to a credible threat of
>         physical harm, you should report it to law enforcement.
>
> Finally, although the original RFC text does not define "project spaces",=
 I think that "project channels" should be defined; for example, the offici=
al PHP accounts on Github, Twitter, and Facebook, as well as all php.net ma=
iling lists, and perhaps even all php.net email accounts.

The problem with the concept you describe here is to consider that if
someone is harrassed/insulted/etc outside php.net's channels but still
related to php.net, we should look to the other direction. It is
wrong.

If someone starts to put bad pressure on another person (harassment,
insults, personal attacks, etc) trying to make this person either
abandon an idea, RFC or even to force this person to leave the
project, the attacker will most likely use non php.net's channel.
Saying that we "do not care" because it does not happen inside php.net
would be very hypocrite and makes the CoC totally useless.I agree it
makes the task harder but I do not see how some channels are under the
CoC and for other we should ignore the issue.

Cheers,
--=20
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org