Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90519
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56940D47.3060206@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>
	<CAEZPtU572=7gHrVTuvSOPGWPmEHEE6ezWJxxanQK06goJ9-rYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<56940D47.3060206@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:31:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nFfgaFXxEE8waUAGPWJ_ScMR5eCVhbgY45UDjYjjZyezA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, Brandon Savage <brandon@brandonsavage.net>, 
	Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

Stas,

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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*.

Can you cite examples of where this has happened before? Perhaps
studying those incidents will reveal insights we can use to prevent
it.

>> 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?!

I don't think that's a fair characterization of this discussion. Some
people have questioned what this is a solution to, but most haven't.
Some have questioned if we have a problem, but most haven't.

Most of the constructive discussion (meaning the discussion not using
hyperbole or overloaded terms) has been not talking about if we need
to do something, but if what is proposed is good or not. And the best
parts have been help molding the proposal to be better overall.

>> 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.

Actually, asking for proof and denying are the same thing. If they
weren't, then why would you be asking for proof unless you believed it
didn't happen?

As far what exactly "these problems" are specifically, that's an
entirely different discussion than the one we've been having here as
part of the CoC. Because the vast majority of "these problems" aren't
the goal of the CoC. The goal of the CoC to me is to help create a
safe place. To create a mechanism and reinforcement that we should all
behave appropriately.

Other issues (such as over aggressiveness on the list, etc) are out of
scope right now, so aren't worth discussing *in this thread*. Feel
free to discuss it as much as you want in another thread, but I'd like
to see this one get back to constructively discussing the proposal.
Well, not really "get back to", but "start".

Anthony