Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90332
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.180 as permitted sender)
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
References: <BE0EB5B804BC488AAD1344BF9D3B9277@gmail.com>
 <66E04ACF-7363-4E47-BFFD-E380E5B1EA23@gmail.com>
 <CAL=_i_kspY_v0Z-WvPdUAc3-_YfNC_a=59nUrLuW65G97+qZTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6D.39.21755.3576D865@pb1.pair.com>
 <1AD1B991-A3E5-4D6C-A532-5F0FCCC2ED61@gmail.com>
 <CAObuZdtKyJXVEAtJzvZENf+Da6S+BFCnXaErvmiHJXen9DCDmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <568D7C5D.9020405@php.net>
 <CAAyV7nFYYxZELZhgo_wrhr9u2+Lww1jQAw+3O=fGqLJJdg7GkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e6a13607a3a1c8b20a4649f8a5ef767@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU5BaogkrJ4H9o1x9ENWXOVqnAye8Oh535aTHOefMuJz6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <3AB5AA82-4F17-40C3-B8B5-33697A8DBEC2@gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU6T14yr8UN1F0goY=7sme-iKgXLECSL7yiAqFLf_xPchw@mail.gmail.com>
 <568E9D01.1020808@gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuSf_Z9MfL=HH02Lh4S2pds0k2twctpZaQFtuHHPW5oMGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <568EA4F1.9070802@gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU4PMU-TVRv4_C4Apy7yNFY8JH2AETZo1HYYeUbL+X-opQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <568EED7D.2090207@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 14:58:05 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU4PMU-TVRv4_C4Apy7yNFY8JH2AETZo1HYYeUbL+X-opQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> It is not what I am referring to but harassment, insults, attacks or
> similar events. I do not think we need to discuss endlessly that we

Proposed CoC says "insulting/derogatory comments" and "[o]ther unethical
or unprofessional conduct". And that can be (and in some cases has been)
treated very broadly - from "how can an ethical person support that
fraud of a politician X" to "your statement in support of policy Y is
offensive to group Z and therefore is insulting and derogatory". I want
to avoid that as much as possible upfront.

> It is not about taking actions now blindly but to create a structure
> that allows to create action when necessary, after investigations,
> discussions and decisions, with common sense in mind during all these
> processes. Is it not obvious? I feel like you keep come back to

What I am trying to say is that supporting doing something with argument
"we don't know if this is needed or if it would help, but since we can't
conclusively prove it would not we must do it" - is a very bad argument.

> extreme cases where common sense should apply. I agree that we have
> seen cases where it happened. So let try to prevent them here. But not
> at the price of creating a CoC with no power to actually ban someone
> if necessary (even if I am sure it will happen extremely rarely).

We already have power to ban someone, that doesn't need to be created.
The question is how this power is to be applied.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com