Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90395 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 13415 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2016 19:24:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 Jan 2016 19:24:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pmjones88@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pmjones88@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.173 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pmjones88@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.160.173 mail-yk0-f173.google.com Received: from [209.85.160.173] ([209.85.160.173:33953] helo=mail-yk0-f173.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 72/9B-55593-1FC00965 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:24:33 -0500 Received: by mail-yk0-f173.google.com with SMTP id a85so295424884ykb.1 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:24:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=UoSd7Phsi2/BvpWQvgiUS0Gb30Lulh5Fy+QbjOe/+18=; b=WmPdASiosy4CLSbu6AXjQz35PFOqcEK1ANAlvnLjcUL9mS4lY/fn/QcGg59qwWRYmF X8Tw1lQUqlYyHMiC39nK9XZ1Hs1KrB1hPtaMnXKNV/zQvCyjZauBxVh449UfCOhqB5NH YENz/Rbsb2M+UKUBLA3s7Ez3g8ooAn6AXPNsUOw97G/ZB4z+qf3nOlJpN1vTZdH3sHlK IpQKfDyqSYi4HmORPIxxtCX6Diyfe/GHYYotUXpyuOEsjDuwcRDZkrPz2kx3o5WzVCuZ ypW6I/0W+cjLFUn04MOT8KPMuPKntNJJofCTbCJnh9pfzdcxLvv6nYEWxJ8sb+hmGh0+ /njQ== X-Received: by 10.129.52.151 with SMTP id b145mr65985838ywa.201.1452281070042; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:24:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2602:306:cecb:ae30:617c:7daf:abb3:b9a4? ([2602:306:cecb:ae30:617c:7daf:abb3:b9a4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r198sm41533228ywg.38.2016.01.08.11.24.28 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:24:28 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\)) In-Reply-To: <015f1684ead6c94c4f844fb8dc8983aa@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:24:27 -0600 Cc: Larry Garfield , internals@lists.php.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <88800927-FD82-4212-A89F-0D6073605A5F@gmail.com> 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> <2732F2A4-51F7-42CC-A7E7-1EC7B26CDF97@gmail.com> <015f1684ead6c94c4f844fb8dc8983aa@mail.gmail.com> To: Zeev Suraski X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct From: pmjones88@gmail.com ("Paul M. Jones") > On Jan 8, 2016, at 13:07, Zeev Suraski wrote: >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Paul M. Jones [mailto:pmjones88@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 7:28 PM >> To: Larry Garfield >> Cc: internals@lists.php.net >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct >>=20 >>=20 >>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield > wrote: >>>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> Too long spent in a position of power, and even the most fair can = become >> unfair. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> Proponents of the response team: thoughts? >=20 > I think that depends on the nature of the response team. >=20 > If it's a mediation team, with the sole purpose to mediate - but = otherwise > cannot impose a solution - it's actually better to have a = 'professional' > one, rather than a random one. I'd still have them voted on and = changed > every so often (2 years that Larry proposed sounds reasonable), but = given > the almost nonexistent risk of abuse, it's not much of a concern. >=20 > If it's a judicial body of any sort - then it's a lot more = complicated. > I'm not sold on a randomly chosen team - but I think it is superior to = a > voted team. FWIW, it's quite different from a jury - as there's no = judge > to guide things through, and there is no law to refer to. Both fair points. (FWIW I'm not in favor of a judicial response team at = all, but *if* there is to be one, randomly-selected is less-bad than a = standing team.) --=20 Paul M. Jones pmjones88@gmail.com http://paul-m-jones.com Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP https://leanpub.com/mlaphp Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP https://leanpub.com/sn1php