Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90347
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.170 as permitted sender)
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, internals@lists.php.net
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> <08.FC.21405.382BE865@pb1.pair.com>
Message-ID: <568F620F.8090504@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 23:15:27 -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: <08.FC.21405.382BE865@pb1.pair.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!

> A code of conduct without an enforcement mechanism is useless. It's very
> nice to be able to say that we don't condone harassment or abuse, or
> that personal attacks or publishing personal information are not
> acceptable, but if we can't enforce it, then it falls down the moment

But we can. We can enforce it - and have enforced it, as it was
conveniently pointed out - already. The question is do we need
*additional* enforcement mechanism because one we had so far is not enough.

> someone actually does one of these things. In fact, it becomes worse
> than useless: you have a big, shining banner that says you have to be
> civil, yet people actually aren't.

Aren't they? So far, despite the examples brought forward, I thought in
general they (we) are keeping within bounds of civility, and while
discussion here, under our banner, can at times get extremely
frustrating and annoying, it does not transform into harassment. Of
course, it very well may not be the case outside the banner, but CoC
enforcement is not going to do much about that.
Am I wrong about this?

> The point isn't to be 'punitive' anyway. You don't strip people of their
> contribution privileges to make them suffer. You do so because you
> either want to force them to think about their actions for a bit, or

It is very dangerous path when you try to control what other people are
thinking about. The only reason to remove somebody from the community,
in my opinion, is if it is not possible to preserve/restore environment
that we want to have in the community otherwise. "Make them think" is
not a valid reason - first, they won't, and second, it's not our
business to control who's thinking what.

> Now, the statement that 'the value of a CoC lies exclusively in its
> punitive power' is, to an extent, true. A CoC is useful in and of
> itself, in that it tells people you care about creating a civil
> community. But if you don't actually do the work to keep the community
> to that standard, that value very quickly disappears.

If the community is not willing to uphold values in CoC, then no
enforcement can happen - there would be nobody to enforce it. CoC is not
some magic entity that is going to hold us accountable, it's just
something we promise to ourselves to do. If we do not keep that promise,
how making another promise to keep it "and this time we mean it" is
going to help?
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com