Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90320 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 26022 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2016 20:43:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Jan 2016 20:43:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.50 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.218.50 mail-oi0-f50.google.com Received: from [209.85.218.50] ([209.85.218.50:34042] helo=mail-oi0-f50.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A3/F2-21405-0F7CE865 for ; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:17:52 -0500 Received: by mail-oi0-f50.google.com with SMTP id o124so320841294oia.1 for ; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:17:52 -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=9GJ/nwrGB3ohMlwb0N71ReXyg2/Qbd6RI/IogWS5UIs=; b=gQSI6hx9St+T66PO76HHaPkTgpsK7cB8SAaEyJGTl0N0t1o4zVlAvIOZJKbgseHy9C 5JYJZ+MFMnR5EYCGIX0E9bqR3T7XXkukZ3r1M+Oj+wefANIFjk7cXdOcgNpRKfWpzraJ 1sUmDDDXDr7w6M6LioqZhP1SAKR/q/vHcrVmtIdu9Dlr8xWFD2nXdshkGym9AIPYYAgg 1wZ3utL7EsxWilp1Cxe9etdbYsFnMjosLqqSTK49qH9SEBEBXT/Fr0/ozm7fNa5AMUG/ 2HJYzg2epLJMo6cpDQ1l9MXYCSyi6pWdytu1/RGn0QQriI6EpvawyBdZcWOopImEklyF D+6A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.71.213 with SMTP id u204mr74822396oia.63.1452197869810; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:17:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.64.136 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:17:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.64.136 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:17:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4594B7A8-D6A0-433A-9EAB-92C421E73EB9@gmail.com> 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> <4594B7A8-D6A0-433A-9EAB-92C421E73EB9@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 03:17:49 +0700 Message-ID: To: "Paul M. Jones" Cc: Anthony Ferrara , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e51542c7e110528c42a38 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) --001a113e51542c7e110528c42a38 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Jan 8, 2016 3:12 AM, "Paul M. Jones" wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:51, Pierre Joye wrote: > > > > 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. > > I opine that if "common sense" were enough, then no COC would be under discussion now. We're in a different realm now. > > > > 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. > > Now we're getting somewhere. Quoting that definition: > > """The act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker.""" > > So, that's both rather vague (the opening sentence) and rather specific (the latter portions). If the activity in question rises to the level of filing a petition for *and being granted* a restraining order, *then and only then* might the project have some responsibility to help enforce that order, since the project itself may become subject to a lawsuit or other legal actions. (I am satisfied to read "employee" as "contributor/participant" and "employer" as "the project" in this case.) > > But anything less? No, the project's responsibility is only to enforce its policies on its own communication channels. > > Do you feel otherwise? As I said, if someone is clearly behaving with harassment, insult, etc to fulfil his goal (f.e. to kick someone out, or stop/force someone to do something ), then he has no place here. No matter where the acts happen. I am slowly giving up on getting an answer from you about accepting such people afterwards. --001a113e51542c7e110528c42a38--