Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90374
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gohearsay.com designates 50.116.30.253 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EAA28F51-4D06-4EA2-A9CB-1E0C06439BE2"
Message-ID: <E06D2D2B-2071-4944-899A-2F5BEF0AC9AF@gohearsay.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:25:22 -0600
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nHnGCfWagtcUJsf45E46OKqTHibjD60-dR7+BFMwLOXaw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: kevin@gohearsay.com (Kevin Smith)

--Apple-Mail=_EAA28F51-4D06-4EA2-A9CB-1E0C06439BE2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Anthony,

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Keith,
>=20
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:38 AM, D Keith Casey =
<keith@caseysoftware.com <mailto:keith@caseysoftware.com>> wrote:
>>=20
>> -  If so, do his personal attacks using sexualized terms constitute a =
breach
>> of the Code of Conduct?
>=20
> I think a strong argument could be made for that. Either way, I don't
> think it's the level of comment or discussion we want to encourage, so
> whether or not it's a "violation", it's definitely something that's
> bad.
>=20
>> -  If not, why not?
>> -  If so, what would the consequences be for Phil?
>=20
> Depends on the precise version we adopt. I think having someone step
> in and say "Phil, cut it out" would be enough. Though if he continues
> to do it, then we may want to escalate further.
>=20
> In general, I think the fact that we tolerate that sort of behavior is
> insane. The fact that many in this thread are suggesting that "it
> didn't happen on list, so we shouldn't care" is extremely narrow. We
> should hold ourselves to a higher standard. We should commit ourselves
> to treating each other fairly and with respect, even if we disagree
> with that person.

Let me make sure to say I appreciate you honestly answering the =
questions posed here. And I agree that we should each hold ourselves to =
a standard of respect and professional conduct. But is that sort of =
regulation of behavior outside a software project the business of that =
project?

Further, doesn=E2=80=99t your answer reveal just how blurry the goals of =
this proposal have become? Is the point to provide specific relief for =
someone being attacked or to enforce general regulation of behavior?

The latter is what=E2=80=99s got so many of us up in arms. So if the =
point of this proposal isn=E2=80=99t to regulate people=E2=80=99s =
behavior, why does the subject of behavior that isn=E2=80=99t good but =
wouldn=E2=80=99t constitute an action under the CoC keep coming up?


Kevin Smith
Hearsay Interactive <http://gohearsay.com/>=

--Apple-Mail=_EAA28F51-4D06-4EA2-A9CB-1E0C06439BE2--