Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90514
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALuPxdC64svDjOsK4z=gU8OurHDS6H0kFx7Re=G4xMrRxQU9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
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>
	<CALuPxdC64svDjOsK4z=gU8OurHDS6H0kFx7Re=G4xMrRxQU9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:51:51 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU572=7gHrVTuvSOPGWPmEHEE6ezWJxxanQK06goJ9-rYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brandon Savage <brandon@brandonsavage.net>
Cc: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c32ddc82d8190529129744
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--001a11c32ddc82d8190529129744
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Jan 11, 2016 8:47 PM, "Brandon Savage" <brandon@brandonsavage.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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 anything.
> > If someone wanted to send a death threat to another developer about PHP
> > business, I would hope that, as a developer, they are at least smart
enough
> > then to do so using a chat program that is "out of scope" so that
they're
> > untouchable.  (If they tried to send someone a death threat on list, we
> > should ban them for stupidity. :-) )
> >
> > That's why the scope needs to cover "involves PHP business, regardless
of
> > medium" rather than "just on certain pieces of server infrastructure".
> > It's trivial to circumvent otherwise.  Now, how do we define "involves
PHP
> > business" in a way that, for example, forbids someone from harassing a
gay
> > person about PHP business but doesn't penalize someone for
participating in
> > an anti-gay-marriage protest in their home town?  That's the question we
> > should be discussing: How that balance works to minimize that risk, and
> > avoid it being abused to Eich someone.  (Yes, I just used Eich's name
as a
> > verb.)
> > <http://www.php.net/unsub.php>
> >
> >
> Larry,
>
> This is a great point, and brings up an interesting potential compromise
> that might work well for solving this issue.
>
> If the issue is that someone might take an on-list discussion and harass
> someone off-list, why not limit the jurisdiction to individuals who have
> participated on-list in discussion or voted on the issue?
>
> For example, during the very heated discussion over static type hints, if
> someone who had discussed the issue on Internals had then gone out to
> Reddit and called Zeev a bunch of terrible things, that could be made
> actionable under this code of conduct, reportable to the mediation team.
>
> On the other hand, we have a lot of people with karma who don't always
vote
> and may not participate in a particular issue on-list. If two people who
> have karma have a run-in outside the discussion of an issue related to
PHP,
> they should have to be adults and hash that out themselves.
>
> And that to me is the crux of the issue. When it comes to making
> discussions on internals more civilized, governing a person's conduct *as
> it relates to their participation in the discussion* is about as far as
PHP
> should go. A person who is not a party to the discussion, who does not
> vote, but does have karma, who happens to tweet "I think X is a moron for
> proposing Y" is entitled to that opinion, *until they bring it here.*
>
> If, on the other hand, the goal of the CoC is not to make Internals a
> better place, but to govern what people in the community think, say and do
> when they have no direct involvement with this group, that's another
matter
> entirely. And a much scarier one at that, don't you think?

My main concerns or worries are exactly those.

I fail to understand how one can think that the CoC could be about
censorship  (which is basically what this comment says).

I also fail to understand how one can fail to accept that we already had
and have issues, despite numerous people having experienced it.

I remember a time where we use to say "if you cannot stand the heat, leave
the kitchen" and I was actually supporting this idea. The problem is is
that it went too far. And we have to admit our weakness first to be able to
create a somehow useful CoC. If we do not see us having problems, there is
no point to even discuss a document to solve non existant (for us) problems.

As a side but important note, it is very disturbing to read so many of us
denying the very issues we have. Even if it is denied in a very diplomatic
way. I am convinced that this is the first problem we must solve to get a
CoC, to accept the very existence of these problems.

My apologizes if this is seen as arguing but I feel like it is the only
fundamental difference I can see between the two camps.

--001a11c32ddc82d8190529129744--