Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90399 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 21232 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2016 20:06:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 Jan 2016 20:06:49 -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] ([209.85.160.173:33606] helo=mail-yk0-f173.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5D/FC-55593-8D610965 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 15:06:49 -0500 Received: by mail-yk0-f173.google.com with SMTP id k129so351845978yke.0 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 12:06:48 -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=f06ullWz+mmJlbGBvWzI8aKZXu2lV/vQcisAPFymtmY=; b=OJjIipelZCkJA7hAaeXI6zFDe9EM2swKO75ur20Ohfh1HOcJWooPzsLfIPkUEpQLp9 diriAsXAEK+vKDDp+kqYsfzXtHKVO23xpvaW1603dRg1L9giAzDI9S5gNIxRbNbVUFk9 y025VIdUR8uoe/hNpNS0syRYfBKZs5tfvO7NId5KAQ0NZUC/IGiRSgX46TvDlsZAiMuv w+2em6OgCEWly+czMEpnKU5+4396RWfKc0+ouZ8N33LqFeMyh3A9GzACMAkJavuGl/x+ WPk4lY4GhHm9L4qO41VOARfHHomDZkUxv+evHgd9dIgZz6sMTbtl7kGlBVOq8+WmFW9P 4OPA== X-Received: by 10.13.245.6 with SMTP id e6mr67508392ywf.154.1452283605121; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 12:06:45 -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 x132sm44009935ywb.15.2016.01.08.12.06.44 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Jan 2016 12:06:44 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\)) In-Reply-To: <5690130A.9050801@garfieldtech.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:06:42 -0600 Cc: internals@lists.php.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <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> <568FFD08.1080104@garfieldtech.com> <2718DA23-C14B-427A-9FE8-C86918BAA00C@gmail.com> <5690130A.9050801@garfieldtech.com> To: Larry Garfield 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 13:50, Larry Garfield = wrote: >=20 > On 1/8/16 12:31 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote: >>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 12:16, Larry Garfield = wrote: >>>=20 >>> On 1/8/16 11:28 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> 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? >>> 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. >>=20 >> 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? >=20 > As many people, including both you and I, have said, we don't want to = focus on the "jury" aspect. (/me nods) If there must be a response team, I would prefer the "mediator" = approach, as you note. However, the RFC as I last saw it is not a "mediator" approach, but a = "judicial" one. If it is to be a "judicial" approach, my suggestion = stands. If/when the RFC changes to a "mediator" approach, I will change = my suggestions to fit the modified RFC. --=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