Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90526
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.172 as permitted sender)
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@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>
 <CAAyV7nFfgaFXxEE8waUAGPWJ_ScMR5eCVhbgY45UDjYjjZyezA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <56943CB6.2010300@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:37:26 -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: <CAAyV7nFfgaFXxEE8waUAGPWJ_ScMR5eCVhbgY45UDjYjjZyezA@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 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.

Again, "a problem". You and Pierre are talking as if there's specific
problem you have already identified, and there are people agreeing that
it exists and those that still deny it exists. But it's not the case -
we don't even know what *is* that problem. Is that harassment? On the
list? Off list? Aggressive discussion on list? Reputation of the list
being unfriendly, regardless of what actually happens? What "a problem"
is that you are fixing? I still don't know. It may be crystal clear to
you and Pierre, but so far I don't think you succeeded in explaining it.

> 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?

Well, I honestly don't know how to react to this. It's just not. I can't
believe you are seriously saying this. I'm sorry if I'll get a bit to
deep into the woods here, but I honestly never expected reading
something like that. The whole structure of science, mathematics and
logic is built on the concept of proof, moreover, the whole concept
underlying this - that there are facts, knowable laws of nature, that
reason and logic are possible, etc. - are based on these concepts, and
nowhere it is equated with denial. People have been looking for proof
for Fermat's Last Theorem for over 350 years - were they all denying its
veracity for all that time? Of course not. In fact, most of them were
sure it is true. But opinion and proof are not the same.

You seem to be under impression that there can be only two stances with
relation to some claim - either completely and unquestionably
acknowledging it as the holy truth, or completely denying it. This is
actually not so - for most claims, it is rarely one of these, and for
claims that have not been substantiated, the right relation is "we do
not know anything about the validity of this claim". Proof is the one
that helps us move from "no idea" to "it's probably so" or "I'm as sure
in it as I ever been in anything" or "looks very fishy, it's probably
completely bogus", etc.

I now start to think maybe the trouble you have understanding why people
have problems with the structure you propose stems from this
misunderstanding - you seem to think there are only hard obvious facts
which one either accepts or denies, and merely asking for proof is the
same as denial, since it's not acceptance - either it is true, and then
we need no proof, or it's false, and then any "proof" is just lies. Of
course, in reality we would not deal with anything like that - we'd only
deal with claims of unknown veracity, for which we would have to ask for
proof. With your approach, of course, that would be denying the
experience of the person who complained, which is IMO unacceptable - how
you can deny somebody's experience - so I wonder how you imagined a
resolution team would work?

> 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.

But what is a "safe place" we are trying to create (note: that's one of
the reasons I wanted more positive CoC)? I would be glad to help all I
can to do this, but for that I assume I'd need to know what I am trying
to do? How we know if we created this place or utterly failed in it?
Let's say we did create that "safe place" - could you describe any
specific difference with what is happening on the list now? For example,
if somebody were given the archive of the list pre-safe-place and
post-safe-place, they would be able to distinguish which is which using
that criteria? What we would have more of, what we would have less of,
what we would stop seeing here and what would we start seeing here?

> 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".
> 

I think we started long ago. And the question if style of discussion on
the list would *ever* be in scope for CoC, is very much relevant to it,
especially as the problems with this style was repeatedly pointed to as
the primary reason why we need the CoC.
Once we have created those powers that you require, we can not (at least
not without a lot of drama) un-create them, so I think it is prudent to
know what these powers are to be used for.
Note that I and others - again, very much in scope of discussion - did
agree on the concept of having CoC and mediation team detached from the
question of creating the amateur court. So we not only started
discussing, but are in agreement about 50% or so of it - including
complete agreement on the idea of having CoC. And I don't think anybody
ever objected to the larger goal of making or community more welcoming.

The only controversial part is the one where new powers are created and
the scope of those. If that is not the question that you want to discuss
right now, fine, but then we need to either split the RFC or wait until
we're ready to discuss, but I don't see too many questions left beside
that. Well, maybe the text of it - that would be better to address after
we talk to Drupal folks this week.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com