Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90398
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.213.44 as permitted sender)
References: <BE0EB5B804BC488AAD1344BF9D3B9277@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>
 <568FFD08.1080104@garfieldtech.com> <2718DA23-C14B-427A-9FE8-C86918BAA00C@gmail.com>
 <5690130A.9050801@garfieldtech.com>
In-Reply-To: <5690130A.9050801@garfieldtech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQHu5WcmVO8w6FQExoubxXKsnxz4JgKRMYPmAPmlqBwAvQIn5wIwcEL4ARLx4VMCSazT5QG3aSeRAs5mBhoB6AlwcwE4gUxsAZumLC8BjvV0awI4SH+KAgmqwCoB6UloGgH/aGoLARjvd2ABqNn2n526QBlQ
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 22:01:06 +0200
Message-ID: <9b86733fc00a8e2669464e4d2019395b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Garfield [mailto:larry@garfieldtech.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 9:51 PM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
>
> On 1/8/16 12:31 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote:
> >> On Jan 8, 2016, at 12:16, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> > Certain people *you* would trust more than others, but that *others*
> would not trust more.
> >
> > Also, this is a social/political realm, and not a technical realm;
would you not
> trust, say, a randomly-selected jury to hear and decide on a case? If
not, why
> not?
>
> As many people, including both you and I, have said, we don't want to
focus
> on the "jury" aspect.  Rather, we want to focus on conflict resolution
and
> mediation, not on hammer dropping.  And conflict resolution and
mediation
> is not even remotely a universal skill. No, I would not trust a "select
a person
> at random" as a "defuse a situation"
> role, not even a little.

As I said in my other note, I agree 100%.

I think the problem is that the RFC right now goes well beyond mediation,
and so far, I haven't heard willingness to let go of these extra elements
or break them into a separate RFC.
So we're, in effect, discussing several things at the same time, with this
fundamental issue remaining undetermined.

If it's a mediation team and not a judicial/jury one, then everything
happening in private becomes a non-issue and very natural.  Having the
most skilled people to mediate becomes a no brainer, as there's no real
risk for abuse of power.

Deciding how these people get elected and where discussion happens should
only happen after we establish what jurisdiction they have in the first
place, otherwise, we're discussing it backwards IMHO.

Zeev