Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90372
Return-Path: <derick@php.net>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 72310 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2016 17:17:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 8 Jan 2016 17:17:45 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net
X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6
Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:47459] helo=xdebug.org)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 9F/F2-55593-63FEF865 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 12:17:43 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8900CE20F0;
	Fri,  8 Jan 2016 17:17:38 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:17:38 +0000 (GMT)
X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, 
    "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVqrXQHpYabkOZvVhbGVUNtQLLS_h=OsnaaQWhEeHWx+uw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601081058400.4541@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
References: <CAAyV7nFbngZ42qzbSFyveH+vsyir9QNtMJq8H=u9VqTBVBv5Og@mail.gmail.com> <CAAyV7nHrip8Ljxjdi2DiGbcnXxY9JK+pN+LCwYKqsjJNvEyUrg@mail.gmail.com> <910b145571b2c3e98338d54c0dd6a981@mail.gmail.com> <CAAyV7nGGJ3-mCZhDcmhcjqgEOMUBQwvA0vVEE67K4Vmot4ep5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPgLKii-L-TvKLiSYNdcXxmkr60k2_93EE7hc9LSL=3NQwQjRw@mail.gmail.com> <CAESVnVqrXQHpYabkOZvVhbGVUNtQLLS_h=OsnaaQWhEeHWx+uw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans)

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016, Sara Golemon wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>
> > Having a CoC which is wider in scope and ratified by a voted RFC 
> > rather than an email on some mailing list sends a strong message.  
> > Having it in our contributor guidelines would also go a long way.
> >
> > I guess here we fundamentally disagree - it seems that sending the 
> > message that 'we take this seriously' - by placing strong emphasis 
> > on reporting and penalties - is more important to some than agreeing 
> > about the values themselves.  For me, the values themselves and 
> > communicating them properly and prominently are infinitely more 
> > important than the policing mechanism, as I believe that stating 
> > them clearly would go a very long way and is anything but useless.
> >
> And maybe this RFC is trying to do too much at once.  Code diffs 
> should be scoped to "one change per diff", and RFCs should as well.
> 
> Anthony, would you be amenable to reducing this first RFC to just a 
> code of conduct.  This is; Define expectations from members of the 
> community.

<snip>

> Further evolution of that can come in later RFCs.

I don't think it is a good idea to split things up. The value of a CoC 
is to show that you are trying to make a "community" a safe space. It's 
all fair and dandy to write down a set of rules/guidelines that a 
community should abide to, but IMO, the *real* values is in documenting 
the procedures to following - initial report, medition, etc - when 
something does go against the agreed upon "rules".

cheers,
Derick