Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90282
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.49 as permitted sender)
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
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>
 <32EC26D7-5014-40B3-8DCF-8A6F33A0B560@gohearsay.com>
Message-ID: <568EA0FC.4070000@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:31:40 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <32EC26D7-5014-40B3-8DCF-8A6F33A0B560@gohearsay.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

>>    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.

This makes sense. I would not object to adding the positive values
stuff, like in examples already cited, too. Except for the part where we
talk about experience - this is just not true, when evaluating
contribution we would definitely treat code from somebody who spent last
5 years digging into the engine and code from somebody who never
contributed before at least somewhat differently (the latter would
probably get more scrutiny). That's just a fact. That does not mean we
would reject new contributors outright or subject them to different code
standards, for example - but promising blanket "without regard" seems
promising something we have no capability or intent to deliver.
"Ability" is also ambiguous - I *think* I know what you mean there, but
it may be also read as a promise that we will evaluate contributions
regardless of contributor's ability to actually produce good
code/text/whatever it is, which is obviously not true.

>> Alternatively, if that's not specific enough, use this single sentence instead:

I don't think we need to over-specify, that only leads to more rule
lawyering ("I called her X, which is not on the list, so she has no
right to feel insulted!").

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com