Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90329
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender)
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
References: <CAAyV7nFbngZ42qzbSFyveH+vsyir9QNtMJq8H=u9VqTBVBv5Og@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAyV7nHrip8Ljxjdi2DiGbcnXxY9JK+pN+LCwYKqsjJNvEyUrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <910b145571b2c3e98338d54c0dd6a981@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <568EDE96.3040704@php.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 22:54:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <910b145571b2c3e98338d54c0dd6a981@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Laupretre?=)

Le 07/01/2016 21:50, Zeev Suraski a écrit :
>> -----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.
>

Zeev, thanks for expressing exactly what I think about it, especially 
the fact that having a law, without a police to enforce it, is anything 
but useless.

Of course, if explicit threats of physical violence have been issued in 
the past, I may switch my mind, so that it cannot happen again. But I've 
seen no evidence yet.

Regards

François