Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90263
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gohearsay.com designates 50.116.30.253 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5F0842D2-28BF-4DB5-8D05-C7A435C46616"
Message-ID: <3544BDF1-1CBF-433A-BD6A-E5174BE37AF4@gohearsay.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:26:38 -0600
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> <CAEZPtU6T14yr8UN1F0goY=7sme-iKgXLECSL7yiAqFLf_xPchw@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU6T14yr8UN1F0goY=7sme-iKgXLECSL7yiAqFLf_xPchw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: kevin@gohearsay.com (Kevin Smith)

--Apple-Mail=_5F0842D2-28BF-4DB5-8D05-C7A435C46616
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

> Saying that we "do not care" because it does not happen inside php.net =
<http://php.net/>
> would be very hypocrite and makes the CoC totally useless.

Recognizing that it is irresponsible (and indeed impossible) for an =
official PHP body to try to control behavior that takes place outside =
the PHP project=E2=80=99s jurisdiction does not mean those of us who =
make up the PHP community do not care about others and how they are =
treated. It is simply a recognition of the project=E2=80=99s legitimate =
spheres of responsibility.

> 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.

Because those channels are *actually* official PHP channels and the =
others are owned and operated by entirely separate third-parties.


Kevin Smith

Hearsay Interactive <http://gohearsay.com/>
kevin@gohearsay.com <mailto:kevin@gohearsay.com>
615.829.6356

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com =
<mailto:pmjones88@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>=20
>> As I have stated previously, I find the Contributor Covenant text =
objectionable, in that it couples person, project, and politics, so that =
the person becomes answerable to the project for their politics.
>>=20
>> If there simply must be a code of conduct, they should be decoupled. =
To that end, I propose that the entire "Code Of Conduct Text" in the RFC =
be removed, and replaced with this single sentence:
>>=20
>>    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.
>>=20
>> Alternatively, if that's not specific enough, use this single =
sentence instead:
>>=20
>>    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.
>>=20
>> 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 resulting actions-to-be-taken from the expectations of =
conduct, and leaves it to the conflict resolution language.
>>=20
>> 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 beyond the scope of the project to either reward or punish members =
for their activity outside channels owned by the project. Even so, =
conflict in non-project channels does occur. As such, I suggest adding =
the following text (or substantially similar text) to the conflict =
resolution language:
>>=20
>>    Q: What about conflict outside of project channels?
>>=20
>>    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:
>>=20
>>        - 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.
>>=20
>>        - 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.
>>=20
>>        - If you feel you are subject to a credible threat of
>>        physical harm, you should report it to law enforcement.
>>=20
>> Finally, although the original RFC text does not define "project =
spaces", I think that "project channels" should be defined; for example, =
the official PHP accounts on Github, Twitter, and Facebook, as well as =
all php.net mailing lists, and perhaps even all php.net email accounts.
>=20
> The problem with the concept you describe here is to consider that if
> someone is harrassed/insulted/etc outside php.net <http://php.net/>'s =
channels but still
> related to php.net <http://php.net/>, we should look to the other =
direction. It is
> wrong.
>=20
> 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 =
<http://php.net/>'s channel.
> Saying that we "do not care" because it does not happen inside php.net =
<http://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.
>=20
> Cheers,
> --=20
> Pierre
>=20
> @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org <http://www.libgd.org/>
>=20
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php =
<http://www.php.net/unsub.php>

--Apple-Mail=_5F0842D2-28BF-4DB5-8D05-C7A435C46616--