Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90517
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender)
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>,
 Brandon Savage <brandon@brandonsavage.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>
 <CALuPxdC64svDjOsK4z=gU8OurHDS6H0kFx7Re=G4xMrRxQU9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU572=7gHrVTuvSOPGWPmEHEE6ezWJxxanQK06goJ9-rYw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <56940D47.3060206@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:15:03 -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: <CAEZPtU572=7gHrVTuvSOPGWPmEHEE6ezWJxxanQK06goJ9-rYw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> I fail to understand how one can think that the CoC could be about
> censorship  (which is basically what this comment says).

I can explain you that very easily: there are known instances where CoCs
were used and even more instances where there were attempts to use CoCs
and CoC-like structures exactly for that. It's not a concern because
people think it *might* happen, it's a concern because it *already
happened* elsewhere and people think it also might happen *here*.

> I also fail to understand how one can fail to accept that we already had
> and have issues, despite numerous people having experienced it.

That's because nobody does that. Instead, the question is whether the
specific proposal is helpful to fix specific issues. The conversation
goes like this:

A: here's solution X!
B: for what?
A: for problem Y
B: but do we have problem Y? Also, X does not seem to solve Y and also
introduces problem Z
A: we can solve Z easily! Also, here's proof problem Q exists.
B: but Q is not Y. And we didn't see Y exists so far. And your solution
to Z sounds iffy.
A: why you keep denying problem Q exists?!

> 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 I note again, talking about abstract "having problems" as an argument
to do a specific thing is not very useful.

> 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.

First of all, asking for proof and denying is different thing (though
people often confuse the two, but these *are* different). Second, "very
issues we have" is, again, very unspecific thing, so it's not even
possible to deny it. Before I could even deny that "these problems
exist" - or before you claim I or anybody else does - I'd like to know
what exactly are "these problems" in specific terms. Because some of the
problems were almost unanimously recognized, some was not, so it's not
clear what parts we are talking about.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com