Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90401
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.52 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C152F025-783F-4A82-B49A-BF38AD7DAA27@gmail.com>
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>
	<C152F025-783F-4A82-B49A-BF38AD7DAA27@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:17:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAObuZduVah=kA3tGy82emQ99C6MywYLiG1cOxHgr4ct4WtFW9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com>
Cc: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1148ea962639a00528d84601
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: derokorian@gmail.com (Ryan Pallas)

--001a1148ea962639a00528d84601
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Jan 8, 2016, at 13:50, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> (/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.
>

Agreed, I think a mediator approach works best.  I also agree with Zeev,
that said mediator(s) should be picked not at random but for their ability
to diffuse a situation. If a situation requires a "judicial" process, then
I think at that point it should be a community decision.

--001a1148ea962639a00528d84601--