Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90776
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain allanmacgregor.com from 209.85.213.182 cause and error)
Message-ID: <56A0EC53.2030206@allanmacgregor.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:33:55 -0500
Reply-To: amacgregor@allanmacgregor.com
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draic_Brady?= <padraic.brady@gmail.com>
CC: Kevin Smith <kevin@gohearsay.com>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, 
 =?UTF-8?Q?Pavel_Kou=C5=99il?= <pajousek@gmail.com>,
 PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601201851500.3314@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl> <CAB6YZuzsMW5Z5LbXz16Tdu=VFn8qA9tDbOtj36MKarxXEcFqLA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601202118430.3314@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl> <45CA8C41-4C0A-418C-925D-4B147ECBF297@gohearsay.com> <CALwr1G=hGaF_2XiMh4jhG_nKTNxQY091c8U1-VuAaMd-Zj+SXg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALwr1G=hGaF_2XiMh4jhG_nKTNxQY091c8U1-VuAaMd-Zj+SXg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------050008020803090000060301"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: amacgregor@allanmacgregor.com (Allan MacGregor)

--------------050008020803090000060301
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------000106000500030209070903"


--------------000106000500030209070903
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Padraic,

Taking a step back, instead taking a knee-jerk reaction; I think Kevin 
brought up a valid point. Is very clear that there are certain actors 
that are pushing for a specific version of this code of conduct to use 
it as a political tool.

This is it what concerns most people regarding this specific CoC; you 
want to debate the CoC proposed, fine. Personally here are my issues 
with it:

- Language is vague and open to interpretation
- There is no mechanism or ability for one to confront ones accuser
- The CoC seems to be more concern with punitive action rather than 
establishing the values of the community.

Allan.

Pádraic Brady wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 21 January 2016 at 04:37, Kevin Smith<kevin@gohearsay.com> wrote:
>>
>> I noticed you were contacted by Randi Lee Harper 
>> [https://archive.is/b8RDW], the ironically abusive founder of the 
>> Online Abuse Prevention Initiative 
>> [https://archive.is/eqco9][http://archive.is/A1Azz] known for 
>> attacking and attempting to eject from projects/employment people she 
>> associates with groups she doesn’t approve of 
>> [http://archive.is/1A8SQ], wherein she suggested that you ignore the 
>> Code of Merit that Pavel recommended for consideration because she 
>> associates the author of said code with a group that—though entirely 
>> unrelated to his Open Source contributions—she finds undesirable and 
>> then proceeded to make general derogatory comments about him [again, 
>> https://archive.is/b8RDW].
>
>
> Are you here to debate the proposed COC, or to mount personal attacks
> on someone outside of the PHP community?
>
>>
>> (My deepest apologies for such a tremendous run-on sentence.)
>>
>> I certainly hope this isn’t indicative of the spirit of this 
>> proposal. This exchange really seems to suggest the goal of these 
>> codes in general, and now possibly this one in particular, is what so 
>> many of us have feared: to exclude people with wrong ideas and 
>> associations, as defined by the in-group.
>
>
> Is that what the RFC actually states though? As it's a code of
> conduct, it's directed at specific actions not whatever is running
> through your, or my, head.
>
> Paddy

--------------000106000500030209070903
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<HTML><HEAD><META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"></HEAD><BODY>Padraic, <BR>
<BR>
Taking a step back, instead taking a knee-jerk reaction; I think Kevin brought up a valid point. Is very clear that there are certain actors that are pushing for a specific version of this code of conduct to use it as a political tool.<BR>
<BR>
This is it what concerns most people regarding this specific CoC; you want to debate the CoC proposed, fine. Personally here are my issues with it:<BR>
<BR>
- Language is vague and open to interpretation<BR>
- There is no mechanism or ability for one to confront ones accuser<BR>
- The CoC seems to be more concern with punitive action rather than establishing the values of the community.<BR>
<BR>
Allan.<BR>
<BR>
Pádraic Brady wrote:<BR>
<blockquote type="cite"><BR>
Hi,<BR>
<BR>
On 21 January 2016 at 04:37, Kevin Smith&lt;kevin@gohearsay.com&gt;&nbsp; wrote:<BR>
<blockquote type="cite"><BR>
I noticed you were contacted by Randi Lee Harper [https://archive.is/b8RDW], the ironically abusive founder of the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative [https://archive.is/eqco9][http://archive.is/A1Azz] known for attacking and attempting to eject from projects/employment people she associates with groups she doesn’t approve of [http://archive.is/1A8SQ], wherein she suggested that you ignore the Code of Merit that Pavel recommended for consideration because she associates the author of said code with a group that—though entirely unrelated to his Open Source contributions—she finds undesirable and then proceeded to make general derogatory comments about him [again, https://archive.is/b8RDW].<BR>
</blockquote><BR>
<BR>
Are you here to debate the proposed COC, or to mount personal attacks<BR>
on someone outside of the PHP community?<BR>
<BR>
<blockquote type="cite"><BR>
(My deepest apologies for such a tremendous run-on sentence.)<BR>
<BR>
I certainly hope this isn’t indicative of the spirit of this proposal. This exchange really seems to suggest the goal of these codes in general, and now possibly this one in particular, is what so many of us have feared: to exclude people with wrong ideas and associations, as defined by the in-group.<BR>
</blockquote><BR>
<BR>
Is that what the RFC actually states though? As it's a code of<BR>
conduct, it's directed at specific actions not whatever is running<BR>
through your, or my, head.<BR>
<BR>
Paddy<BR>
</BODY></HTML>

--------------000106000500030209070903--

--------------050008020803090000060301--