Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90757
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR02MB298A1648FE4552693C7174EACC20@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601201851500.3314@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
	<BY2PR02MB298A1648FE4552693C7174EACC20@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:42:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CALwr1G=BpksHpMWA1QP6qsHfJ3qdWXDC0GVQ3EC97LjettNs6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Derick Rethans <derick@derickrethans.nl>, 
	PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: padraic.brady@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draic_Brady?=)

Hi,

Up front, I agree the objective of the COC needs to be clearly stated.
There is confusion, whether it's here or externally by observers, as
to whether this is intended to fix mailing list toxicity (I assume,
for now, not) or intended to state the projects intentions should
there be a complaint concerning conduct as specifically listed in the
COC text per the RFC. It serves neither side when this confusion gets
muddled into argument for, against or in-between.

On 20 January 2016 at 22:14, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
> I'm not going to repeat arguments I've made half a dozen times as to why =
having a judicial system must be avoided, and why we must deal exclusively =
with desired behaviors and not the 'exception handling' of bad behaviors.  =
I made my case in the best possible way I can and people who are interested=
 in it can read it in my previous replies on the topic.  Equally important =
- many others expressed similar views.  Thus far, the only response is a la=
conic 'without penalties it's useless', even though we've brought numerous =
supporting arguments as why this is simply not true.
>
> I will repeat that I'm very much in favor of a CoC that includes our posi=
tive core values, and that includes a mediation team in case people are fee=
ling offended and that can intervene also w/o complaint - but that does not=
 have any sort of special powers - but is instead exclusively based on good=
 will of all parties.  Even if certain people don't think that's good enoug=
h, I don't believe that anybody would argue that it's BAD - the way many th=
ink the current CoC proposal is.  This is precisely why this is the right p=
lace to start.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Zeev

At a basic level, what exactly is a code of conduct where the only
consequence is mediation, where both parties are assumed to have good
will, and where the outcome is ??????????. That's the a problem from
my perspective. What is the outcome? Does mediation continue
indefinitely without results? While the mediation is ongoing for the
long haul, will be there be any remediation set to protect a
theoretical victim? What is Plan B? Part of the COC is to explicitly
limit ad-hoc reactions should things go completely down the gutter by
defining something upfront. By extension, any uncertainty of what
would happen should Person A complain may act as a deterrent to making
such a complaint. It could be anticipated that long drawn out
procedures with an unknown ending are in and of themselves stressful
(and to both parties to boot).

Sincere apologies if this is covered elsewhere.

Paddy