Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90308 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 9141 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2016 20:05:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Jan 2016 20:05:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=peter.e.lind@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=peter.e.lind@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.50 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: peter.e.lind@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.82.50 mail-wm0-f50.google.com Received: from [74.125.82.50] ([74.125.82.50:36739] helo=mail-wm0-f50.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 3F/D1-21405-A05CE865 for ; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:05:30 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id l65so110926304wmf.1 for ; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:05:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=GDudDsjhiEC1mA73yhc9gyp/KnNXuXvLtH66kSqdRig=; b=EJnYFkXvsCsIlCo790jx5ndo1zNTmLCicSd3Gf49On3mU4sRfGHLqrI37QeNrCmnph LEnhdx3h9SX8jw3IHN4Z1GJWGxPl6oRD2jX1uNviAg0qTLOnInopfkiTEQl5W1U6lsmT CZaOYJzObar7kACQVgqVawvR97+c5YH8Jj68c51Oh3tRudU9BUpq1shKrs/XA7iokF3z FhLxLNC5GbMg+j3r+GDtHlCJEgiq8bJfMQIfG107CNrBZCgvjrqWsowJXdY4pCdu0sNk kuy0zivQ2MfMCO2AogqFhcT2rPMAr26aE8GBI8CcnotMLfZG0JfYHRMd1DkMbLqUkdoK 6uZw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.238.231 with SMTP id vn7mr131877279wjc.109.1452197126997; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:05:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.28.21.78 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:05:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.28.21.78 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:05:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <66E04ACF-7363-4E47-BFFD-E380E5B1EA23@gmail.com> <6D.39.21755.3576D865@pb1.pair.com> <1AD1B991-A3E5-4D6C-A532-5F0FCCC2ED61@gmail.com> <568D7C5D.9020405@php.net> <1e6a13607a3a1c8b20a4649f8a5ef767@mail.gmail.com> <3AB5AA82-4F17-40C3-B8B5-33697A8DBEC2@gmail.com> <0AFAA09D-0933-4C8D-91A4-307F9916D3AD@gmail.com> <2328961D-4B28-4EE7-8DDD-AD1F1A0A3617@gmail.com> <87E54FB2-7294-4CED-B969-46B086903E18@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 21:05:26 +0100 Message-ID: To: Chase Peeler Cc: Anthony Ferrara , "Paul M. Jones" , PHP internals , Pierre Joye Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c37a3ae60e140528c3fd95 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct From: peter.e.lind@gmail.com (Peter Lind) --001a11c37a3ae60e140528c3fd95 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 7 Jan 2016 20:59, "Chase Peeler" wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > > > On Jan 8, 2016 2:44 AM, "Paul M. Jones" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:39, Pierre Joye wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2016 2:27 AM, "Paul M. Jones" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:25, Pierre Joye > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2016 2:21 AM, "Paul M. Jones" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:15, Pierre Joye > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jan 8, 2016 1:58 AM, "Paul M. Jones" < pmjones88@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I notice you did not answer my question. I'll ask again: when > > you say "proven guilty" what exactly do you mean? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see you are going to nitpick here. So let clarify it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When we're talking about banning people as a result of their > > actions, we'd better be clear on the details, don't you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is a clear set of evidences that someone harassed, > > insulted, attacked another person then it fits this definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What to you would be "a clear set of evidences"? (If you have > > examples of actual occurrences, that would be better than building > > hypotheticals, and probably easier.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please keep in mind than harassment, attacks or insults have > > nothing to do with opinions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, too many people confuse "argument" with > > "harassment", and "disagreement" with "attacks", and "observations" as > > "insults." So I'd like to hear first what "clear evidence" means to you. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is what I mean by nitpicking. I am sure you perfectly > > understand my point as well as what I would consider as bad. Just in case, > > an opiniated hot discussion is not. I would appreciate a clear answer as > > well from your side and little less nitpicking. > > > > > > > > > > To give clear answers, I need clear statements. For example, if a > > person *claims* harassment, what to you would be *evidence* of that > > harassment? This is not nitpicking; this is defining the terms of the > > conversation. If you are unable to clarify, that's cool, just say so. > > > > > > > > I think you are playing. > > > > > > I have never been more serious. This RFC, if passed, is going to have > > wide-ranging consequences, and if the terms in it are so vague as to give > > open-ended powers to those charged with enforcing it, I think that's a > > dangerous thing. > > > > > > So again: What to you would be "a clear set of evidences"? (If you have > > examples of actual occurrences, that would be better than building > > hypotheticals, and probably easier.) > > > > > > And again, if you are unable to clarify this, I'm OK with that. I get > > that it's messy. > > > > It is not. To me to distinguish harassment vs hot discussions (public or > > private) is part of common sense and I trust us to have this common sense > > when this group will be created. > > > > Also the very definition of harassment is pretty clear. Read > > http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment for the > > reference. > > If it is not clear for you then yes, I cannot make it clearer. Sorry. > > > > I do not think we need to build up our own definition because some thinks > > we will abuse powers. > > > > " the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of > one party or a group, including threats and demands." > > Nothing in the definition beyond that is exclusionary. It includes various > examples, but does not limit it beyond that. To me, "unwanted or annoying > actions" probably describes how a lot of people feel about Paul's comments > (I'm not one of them). Does that make him guilty of harassment? > Paul has switched to constructively participating in the discussion. He is also not singling out any group or person for unwanted or annoying actions. So no, he is not guilty of harassment. Was that answer you were looking for? --001a11c37a3ae60e140528c3fd95--