Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90309 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 10880 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2016 20:07:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Jan 2016 20:07:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.48 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.218.48 mail-oi0-f48.google.com Received: from [209.85.218.48] ([209.85.218.48:36365] helo=mail-oi0-f48.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B3/42-21405-795CE865 for ; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:07:52 -0500 Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id o62so315345636oif.3 for ; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:07:51 -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=q7pZ8wpobQ7ifE7WTf8yimZiDWvduKO/BzMegGFsawU=; b=IhrB+6UoVcq/ysMgH91U6OHHPn/R+xzcZLQn12W8BflOcqX3BM6UyizwaR0XzsAYqC lYT741IrN+PVu30YxrTqu/59xLzT7pldgFTkUkByyCfK2RDU7G5f8fOvViXi4TiyWtev nk8XWHTuD8dHoIRGooaAGRllqfvH1a/pn2BLUL0SXKcD0ud1V5CV8Zuj/S8wrVpLWHFL RXWG1EhYGXWME5A9DH0P1UJy49wcrj06sLwWtuvZtANpj2p2VOVuxh+f2nSc7V8jgwvl exu94uNahZHojOXH/V8JY0wLpmBYGfk58phMC3lN99jQ2iO3v6l5BcDHDJ+aGYHKy1HK uewg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.203.198 with SMTP id b189mr67155732oig.39.1452197269382; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:07:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.64.136 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:07:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.64.136 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:07:49 -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: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 03:07:49 +0700 Message-ID: To: Chase Peeler Cc: Anthony Ferrara , "Paul M. Jones" , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1137d93a62abf10528c406fe Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) --001a1137d93a62abf10528c406fe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Jan 8, 2016 2:58 AM, "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" >> 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 To me absolutely not. It is a hot debate, at best. Now, as an example, if he would start to message privately, aggressively, and would continue to do so after I asked him to stop, then yes, at some point I will consider it as such. --001a1137d93a62abf10528c406fe--