Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90364 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 59798 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2016 16:39:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 Jan 2016 16:39:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=keith@caseysoftware.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=keith@caseysoftware.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain caseysoftware.com from 208.113.200.129 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: keith@caseysoftware.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 208.113.200.129 sub5.mail.dreamhost.com Windows 98 (1) Received: from [208.113.200.129] ([208.113.200.129:33214] helo=homiemail-a43.g.dreamhost.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C4/60-55593-326EF865 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:38:59 -0500 Received: from homiemail-a43.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a43.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B378C06B for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 08:38:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=caseysoftware.com; h= subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= caseysoftware.com; bh=olT9LgTUPjgy7poB3mHckF1xztM=; b=XMoFSp8z7U 2xXqvrFAFDn8wr6dzGL7BKHO88FeZnR1gqulZUuB2GLuO2cBQIB8nCY8baE4wYsf 2+Yr0BuZboDlcyy7iDj7+G9tt4Y06R1FD68pDQ0rWhtE1ruq+8PXaa71TOfWYCOE JaAaovuOgp4MsgYlI/+UjGT92WwQSsq6A= Received: from [192.168.2.117] (72-48-211-12.dyn.grandenetworks.net [72.48.211.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: keith@caseysoftware.com) by homiemail-a43.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D97748C057 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 08:38:55 -0800 (PST) To: internals@lists.php.net References: <66E04ACF-7363-4E47-BFFD-E380E5B1EA23@gmail.com> <6D.39.21755.3576D865@pb1.pair.com> <1AD1B991-A3E5-4D6C-A532-5F0FCCC2ED61@gmail.com> <568D7C5D.9020405@php.net> <1e6a13607a3a1c8b20a4649f8a5ef767@mail.gmail.com> <3AB5AA82-4F17-40C3-B8B5-33697A8DBEC2@gmail.com> <8D90A4F6-4E3E-4283-B8E3-152E4707EF4E@moonspot.net> <568F4E81.1020205@garfieldtech.com> Message-ID: <568FE61E.4010902@caseysoftware.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:38:54 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; 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; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct From: keith@caseysoftware.com (D Keith Casey) On 1/7/16 11:52 PM, Larry Garfield wrote: > On 01/07/2016 10:08 PM, Brian Moon wrote: >>> Why not? The harassment has been nullified. >> I agree with your position on most of this, Paul. However, free email, >> and thus, Twitter and other social media accounts are nearly >> unlimited. It becomes an arms race to try and block someone. >> >> Brian. > > Simply cutting off contact (either by the receiver of harassment or > otherwise) isn't the entire goal. There are least 2 others: > > 1) Harassment does not need to be direct. If I were to start tweeting > up a hostile, insulting storm about someone else on this list, by name > and talking about PHP Internals business, but not tweeting @ that > person, them blocking me isn't going to accomplish anything. The harm > isn't that they are seeing the message necessarily, it's that everyone > else I know is seeing it, many of whom that person may not even know. > That's still an attack on a person's reputation, and damaging to the > person. Good scenario but we don't have to be hypothetical. Let's apply it to the real world of this week: Throughout this discussion, Paul Jones has been active and - despite vocally attacking the proposal - I have yet to see him attack anyone in general. And then Phil Sturgeon else used a sexualized term to insult Paul to his ~16k followers but didn't name him: https://archive.is/oeekT While Phil claims this is not sexualized, Urban Dictionary disagrees but then he follows it up with a claim that he doesn't represent the project anyway: https://archive.is/TA2YP According to the definition including attending conferences that use the PHP logo and active in PHP channels, he does. And then Phil follows it up with another more potentially damaging attack - again, without naming Paul - https://archive.is/Z3zNy And finally, it turns out it's all Phil is blocking Paul anyway - https://archive.is/6iZQY - so Paul wouldn't even have see the attacks to defend himself or report to the PHP Code of Conduct group. So my questions: - In his day to day interactions, would Phil be considered a representative of the PHP team? - If not, why not? - If so, do his personal attacks using sexualized terms constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct? - If not, why not? - If so, what would the consequences be for Phil? Thanks, keith