Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90387
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.213.50 as permitted sender)
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> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601081058400.4541@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601081058400.4541@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQL0YDuyoRIgr+1z934JDGCphyFvsgJPha2hApcenPgC/93UjgGTMvB1Ajck2iYBttk7nZxAgv6w
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 20:39:19 +0200
Message-ID: <e87b703b881a22b1af4cc0e1bc7cf2a7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:derick@php.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 7:18 PM
> To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
> Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>; Anthony Ferrara
> <ircmaxell@gmail.com>; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
>
> 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".

Two things:
1. The key point here is 'etc'.  Reporting & mediation is hardly
controversial.  It's the executive part that's very controversial - and by
nature, once you add it, reporting & mediation become complicated too (as
they're just step one).  If we stop at mediation, which I strongly believe
we should at this point, it's probably fine to have a single RFC.
2. If 'etc' involves jotting down the mechanisms and jurisdiction for a
CoC team that's not at all a mediation team but the equivalent of a
judicial entity, then I strongly believe we must separate the RFCs.  If
you think the 'etc' part is needed, that's fine - but realize there are
other schools of thought that disagree, and passionately so - but at the
same time are supportive of adopting a Code of Conduct, the way CoCs are
(and as I mentioned before, CoC pretty but by definition don't include
penalties or mechanism to deal with violations - emphasis is on the Code
itself).  Why force people who are supportive of the concept but not the
executive parts vote against the RFC, instead of making it possible for
them to vote in favor of the CoC adoption (incl. mediation) and against
punitive and other executive conflict resolution mechanisms?

Zeev