Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90381
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain garfieldtech.com from 66.111.4.28 cause and error)
To: 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>
 <2732F2A4-51F7-42CC-A7E7-1EC7B26CDF97@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <568FFD08.1080104@garfieldtech.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:16:40 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2732F2A4-51F7-42CC-A7E7-1EC7B26CDF97@gmail.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: larry@garfieldtech.com (Larry Garfield)

On 1/8/16 11:28 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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 and we should all just give up now.  I do not believe that to be the case, at all.
> Too long spent in a position of power, and even the most fair can become unfair.
>
> As I have suggested before: *if* there is to be a response team, let it be randomly selected on per-reported-incident basis from the pool of voters. Then there is no possibility of a charge of continuing bias, and it distributes power among the pool, instead of concentrating it into a few members.
>
> Proponents of the response team: thoughts?

Randomly selected: Absolutely not.  I wouldn't randomly select someone 
to make Ultimate Decision(tm) on a technical RFC, either. But if a 
question about, say, a parser bug came up there are absolutely certain 
people that I would trust with that question more than others, and defer 
to their analysis/opinion more readily.

Related:

http://www.garfieldtech.com/blog/experts-opinions

rather, I would suggest non-indefinite membership.  As with the new FIG 
secretaries, and as I've setup in similar bodies before, a rotating set 
of "terms" is good as it maintains continuity without having the same 
people always there forever.  It also means that people can "roll off" 
the group gracefully without being either fired or actively resigning.  
A 2-3 year term makes the most sense to me for a team of 5.  I don't see 
a reason to have a term limit, though. If someone is doing well (as 
defined by the voting public) and is willing to continue doing well, let 
them keep doing well.

This would be a question to bring up with George, I think.

-- 
--Larry Garfield