Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90325
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.213.52 as permitted sender)
References: <CAAyV7nFbngZ42qzbSFyveH+vsyir9QNtMJq8H=u9VqTBVBv5Og@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAyV7nHrip8Ljxjdi2DiGbcnXxY9JK+pN+LCwYKqsjJNvEyUrg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nHrip8Ljxjdi2DiGbcnXxY9JK+pN+LCwYKqsjJNvEyUrg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQL0YDuyoRIgr+1z934JDGCphyFvsgJPha2hnJfX4nA=
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 22:50:03 +0200
Message-ID: <910b145571b2c3e98338d54c0dd6a981@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmaxell@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 8:15 PM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
>
> All,
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> There has been some discussion asking for a split of the RFC into two.
> I do not believe that this is a good idea, because the CoC is useless
> without
> some sort of resolution strategy (without *anything*). And if we do need
> to
> do something (which I firmly believe), then why not do it right the first
> time. I
> am more than willing to evolve this proposal significantly (it's no where
> near a
> final form). This discussion should help it evolve.

First, I firmly believe that having a CoC - without anything extra - is
anything but useless.  Values go a long way.  Telling people what you expect
of them isn't only the first step towards obtaining that behavior - it's by
far the most important step.  I suspect anybody who has kids (or that has a
reasonably fresh memory of being a kid himself) should be able to vouch for
that, and again, I'm bringing up the thesis that the vast majority of us
here follow the law not because we're afraid of what would happen if we
don't - but because it's the right thing to do.

Secondly, if we do want to add an extra layer, having a resolution strategy
does not have to include penalties - neither proposed ones nor the
jurisdiction to impose ones.  If the RFC stopped at structuring how people
can bring up issues and have them discussed and mediated, I doubt the RFC
would be nearly as controversial as it is right now.

The problems begin as soon as we try to create some sort of a
mini-judicial-body, that has substantial powers,  governs based on loosely
written rules, has zero tools and experience in getting to the bottom of
things or determining the truth between two or more quarrelling parties.
Thinking we can do that when we failed agreeing on infinitely simpler things
is remarkably optimistic.

I disagree we NEED to do something.  PHP is not in a situation where it's in
an absolute need of a CoC, and the fact it's thriving without one and that
nobody appears to be coming up with examples as to why we must have one
beyond future-proofing attests to that.  Yes, it's not perfect - but as Stas
said, that RFC isn't a magic wand that would make it perfect.  That said, I
think adopting a CoC is a good idea, much like I teach my daughters what's
right and what's wrong without telling them what would happen if they don't
follow my guidance.  Whenever I have to resort to penalties (which I'm happy
to say rarely happens) - I've failed, and I virtually always regret it.

I'm still interested in hearing more about the four explicit threats of
violence you mentioned.

Thanks,

Zeev