Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90267
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=_4F9A4D2E-3E2D-4DC0-B659-4441A1FE78FB"
Message-ID: <32EC26D7-5014-40B3-8DCF-8A6F33A0B560@gohearsay.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:34:03 -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>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <3AB5AA82-4F17-40C3-B8B5-33697A8DBEC2@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: kevin@gohearsay.com (Kevin Smith)

--Apple-Mail=_4F9A4D2E-3E2D-4DC0-B659-4441A1FE78FB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii


> On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> 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
>=20
> --=20
> Paul M. Jones
> pmjones88@gmail.com
> http://paul-m-jones.com
>=20
> Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
> https://leanpub.com/mlaphp
>=20
> Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
> https://leanpub.com/sn1php
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>=20

I like this a lot. If the goal is to send a clear message that all are =
welcome to contribute, this does it. And it promises that the project =
itself will never target you just because others in the community find =
you or your opinions objectionable (and as has been made clear several =
times in this discussion, whether someone finds you objectionable is an =
entirely subjective judgement on their part).

What worries several of us in this discussion is very real possibility =
that the CoC and/or the tribunal would encourage or enable that kind of =
targeting.

Kevin Smith
http://gohearsay.com=

--Apple-Mail=_4F9A4D2E-3E2D-4DC0-B659-4441A1FE78FB--