Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90318 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 25830 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2016 20:43:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Jan 2016 20:43:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=chasepeeler@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=chasepeeler@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.49 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: chasepeeler@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.218.49 mail-oi0-f49.google.com Received: from [209.85.218.49] ([209.85.218.49:35952] helo=mail-oi0-f49.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 82/F2-21405-127CE865 for ; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:14:25 -0500 Received: by mail-oi0-f49.google.com with SMTP id o62so315463717oif.3 for ; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:14:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=BYtJXcCS2svrmj2zpBxUBWfDKDa0LY+fT34/2y/efO8=; b=aMYaCdqOuhjFLDoC7vDWe7AOLTeJD4YPkxvZIzYQIxfTiLL3sSKBlmN3k4Di2yRGbs maSQKYvKfR+sb2p1NoprZSanyYpotv3OvS9n8znhNR2d/JEBddZSImxRKAcUiUAfCgua 4s4JaqStfA8yjYCvS/BSn2xbIBAYvewi6WpPB+WSi5YQ2OtWwBkHU5HhVNWLfH6U1k2+ Y5ShcJrXehjS34ij7ONA90GFAkU8C5V3mcUSwrYTSfHSp9pkTsNGpD34tKnyXt9NelQD 3/dTxqVIh8EEMfiBzUoGp2LLOXKIOOTIWBPmtxdCO+RCXMBSWEMWmNBQx5tHSsr8rhfx uXQg== X-Received: by 10.202.71.147 with SMTP id u141mr55675196oia.45.1452197663065; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:14:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.144.65 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:14:03 -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 15:14:03 -0500 Message-ID: To: Pierre Joye Cc: Anthony Ferrara , "Paul M. Jones" , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e5768d9cf440528c41dd4 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct From: chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler) --001a113e5768d9cf440528c41dd4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > > 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" < > 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 > > 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. > And none of those caveats exist in the definition you provided. That is a prime example of one of the main concerns we all have - the ability for anyone to reshape definitions as they please. Even if you assume they will do so in a way they believe is in everyone's best interest, we all know that won't always happen -- Chase Peeler chasepeeler@gmail.com --001a113e5768d9cf440528c41dd4--