Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90348
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.174 as permitted sender)
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, 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>
 <FD56BF25-0825-4666-AEF9-06996E59C514@gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU7nNuEQehisOZK3nC4AuafrahQbvLgZOGteR1jt4cWV_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <B1697F0F-883C-4D49-8CB6-4DF152662886@gmail.com>
 <8D90A4F6-4E3E-4283-B8E3-152E4707EF4E@moonspot.net>
 <568F4E81.1020205@garfieldtech.com>
Message-ID: <568F632D.5070404@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 23:20:13 -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: <568F4E81.1020205@garfieldtech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> And yes, I am aware that a large part of the concern is the definition
> of "malicious jackass who hurts people" and "hostile, insulting storm". 

Not only that. But that even if we have the definition, nobody walks
around with a convenient label of "malicious jackass who hurts people"
on their foreheads. That's not where the problem lies. What we'd be
dealing with is people coming to us complaining said something offensive
to them (or to somebody) at resource X, which may not even be public,
conveniently providing only evidence that supports it, and we'd have to
decide whether it's true or not, knowing no context, no prior history,
no full information about what happened, etc. And since we declared
universal jurisdiction, not taking sides is no longer an option.

> There *is* a risk of that turning into a "morality clause".  That's
> true. But it could go either direction on such matters, not necessarily
> just in the "evil PC witch hunt" direction.  That's where, as has been

That's not exactly encouraging phrase - it's like saying "take this
pill, it would not *necessarily* kill you, it could go both ways". Would
you take it?

> Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust
> to make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that
> are fair) that don't fall too far into "thought policing", in *any*
> direction?  If not, then the community is already lost beyond all hope

Again, as I explained already before, it's not a matter of people being
"corrupt" or "unfair". It's the matter of dealing with uncertain
information and also - unfortunately - potentially some dishonest
players trying to abuse the system. People can be misled and manipulated
- that happens routinely to much more robust systems than ours, such as
courts - so ignoring it and not having security against it besides "we
are all good people, we can do no wrong" looks naive to me.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com