Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90778
Return-Path: <sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 35553 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2016 14:36:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 21 Jan 2016 14:36:27 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain myrasecurity.com designates 185.85.3.44 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 185.85.3.44 mailoutb.myrasec.de  
Received: from [185.85.3.44] ([185.85.3.44:59041] helo=mailoutb.myrasec.de)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 71/85-09073-9ECE0A65 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:36:26 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:36:22 +0100 (CET)
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <1385445140.3821.fd941ca0-f3d1-4b3c-8747-f8166ff46b39.open-xchange@ox.myrasec.de>
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR02MB29847AC236A397C989235EBACC30@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601201851500.3314@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <BY2PR02MB298A1648FE4552693C7174EACC20@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <43.8B.22511.75120A65@pb1.pair.com>
 <BY2PR02MB29847AC236A397C989235EBACC30@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Medium
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.8.0-Rev6
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: sascha.schumann@myrasecurity.com (Sascha Schumann)

> For what it's worth, I find the description 'rules for misconduct' extremely
> telling and fairly horrible way to describe a Code of Conduct, as I'm sure any
> people involved with education would agree.

Agreed.

> > But we don't really have an alternative process for this currently
> > established,
> > so an RFC is the best we can do.

Wow, you managed to dismiss +15 years of people working together, creating
something which changed the world, in just one sentence. Perplexing.

> We have clear rules which disallow revival of RFCs which failed a vote for a
> duration of six months, unless they're very substantially modified, so revival
> isn't always allowed in open source.

I think Derick is abusing the RFC process here clearly. The necessary action
should be clear based on that.

Sascha