Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90476
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.175 as permitted sender)
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, internals@lists.php.net
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>
 <CAAyV7nGV4Vawdq67j0eZa4j+R2zM_14-KZpBe_S6JUOc7-9Yfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <0E9E4C89-1800-4000-BD5A-BC81F43BE2FE@gohearsay.com>
 <CAAyV7nEVKqOJWn9Fb7Sa2cAPRBZ-Pu00BOmha4ObGciwPHXiGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <44142A2C-0E7C-4525-880F-7759CD8A502A@heroku.com>
 <5691D820.4080309@gmail.com> <56934116.70002@garfieldtech.com>
Message-ID: <56936C66.2050006@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:48:38 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56934116.70002@garfieldtech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> Even without that, though, it's clear we *do* have more serious issues
> than just "rudeness".  When a major contributor is getting death-threats
> over an RFC, *there is a problem*.  That they're happening off-list
> doesn't change the fact that *that is a problem*.

OK, so to evaluate solution to a problem we need to see:
1. There is a problem
2. Solution is possible to implement
3. Solution solves the problem.
4. Solution does not produce the effects worse than the original problem

Now, do we have the problem that internals is not the nicest place in
the world? Definitely. Does CoC as solution solve it? Possibly, if we
apply it really extensively and ban all people that cause anybody to
feel any discomfort. That would kill any substantial discussion on the
list.

Do we have a problem with harassment outside internals (taken broadly)?
We do. Can we make CoC that would prevent it? Nope.

So, we have a situation where we have a mismatch between a problem and a
solution, and that is what the misunderstanding is based on. You and
several other people try to prove something we already agree about -
that certain problems exist - and forget to prove something that needs
to be proven - that what you propose would solve *these* problems in any
acceptable way. Instead, the solution (at least part of it) is designed
to solve *different* problems, which nobody showed we even had. This
mismatch is an issue.

> with the risk of those tools being abused.  It's not just "it's too
> dangerous", but "it's so dangerous that we'd rather have the current
> problem."  That is, that current problems are tolerable.

They are "tolerable" by definition, since we are tolerating them right
now :) That, of course, does not mean improvement can't be made. But for
that, we need to actually see the path to improvement, not just "do
something because something has to be done".

> The other "contra" position is to make a CoC toothless.  The argument

CoC can not have any tooth per se. It's just a promise, as I said.
Promise does not enforce itself. People can enforce promise, in
different ways. These ways are completely separate from the promise, and
I think there's a lot of value in the promise itself. In fact, I think
it is a much more significant step than figuring out how to punish
people that break the promise.

> I'll take that a step further: Having a CoC with no teeth has a higher
> risk of abuse than it having teeth, because those who would abuse it can
> use that lack of teeth to their advantage.

If you talking about insulting people on twitter and reddit, I do not
see how any tooth to CoC would change anything. We can't ban people from
twitter and reddit (thankfully).

> At the same time, though, if someone is being maliciously hostile what
> great cover!  A private email is not a PHP-Group managed resource, so no
> rules!  Twitter, ha, no rules!  Reddit?  LOL like they enforce

That's not true. The fact that PHP community does not enforce these
rules, does not mean there are no rules at all. It just means we do not
have responsibility to enforce them. We are not Team PHP World Police.

I could be OK with looking into matters directly related to RFCs and
alike discussions - but phrasing like "PHP business" open to obvious
trolling like "what do you mean heinous acts of $Person to support
position $whatever is not your business? Are you $whatever-ist?
Obviously you are, and I just finished an article for $MajorNewspaper
declaring PHP Group is a nest of $whatever-ists and I'll click "Send"
unless you agree to make it your business right this second". So we need
to be clear we never promised to get into this.

> infrastructure".  It's trivial to circumvent otherwise.  Now, how do we

It is trivial to circumvent anyway. Twitter and reddit as both
pseudonymous.

> Let's all focus on maximizing the benefit and minimizing the risk.
> Pretending that the status quo is oh-so-wonderful accomplishes neither
> goal.

I don't think anybody pretends oh-so-wonderful. But, see the four points
above. Having *some* solution is not enough. It needs to be *good*
solution. Going back to the pill analogy, if you're sick, raiding the
medicine cabinet and trying random pills may not be a good idea. And
saying that does not mean denying that somebody feels unwell - it just
means finding the right pill is a good idea before swallowing it.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com