Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90784
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR02MB2984FCB554D30D8EB77F77FACC30@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601201851500.3314@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
	<BY2PR02MB298A1648FE4552693C7174EACC20@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
	<CALwr1G=BpksHpMWA1QP6qsHfJ3qdWXDC0GVQ3EC97LjettNs6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BY2PR02MB2984FCB554D30D8EB77F77FACC30@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:23:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CALwr1GnGhPamGM40bVQ00iTU22djr3S6MnEu_nrPC+OvO7kMtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: 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,

On 21 January 2016 at 07:50, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
> I think the fact that this RFC was (and still is) perceived to be a solut=
ion for the toxic internals problem -  actually served the proponents of th=
is RFC very well.  On one hand, this is what people at large care about.  O=
n the other - the proponents can tell the those who oppose that it's not at=
 all what the RFC is about, and that their worries about this becoming a to=
ol for a behavioral/thought police are completely baseless.
>
> Note that despite the fact that Derick - who's now the RFC author - clear=
ly said that the reason he's reviving the RFC is because internals is toxic=
 - you're still assuming that the RFC isn't intended to 'fix mailing list t=
oxicity'.
>
> Can we get any more confused than that?

We can but try to be more confused ;). I was indeed though =E2=80=93 my bad=
.
The revised RFC has two parts combined and I glossed completely over
the second:

1. The Code of Conduct (i.e. Contributor Covenant 1.3)

2. Constructive Collaboration Guidelines (i.e. somewhat =E2=80=9Ctoxicity=
=E2=80=9D related)

>> 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 ??????????.
>
> My take?  A successful one.  One that we can all rally behind, as opposed=
 to a controversial one that is creating much angst.  Please see my respons=
e to Andrea.
>
>> That's the a problem from my
>> perspective. What is the outcome? Does mediation continue indefinitely
>> without results?
>
> No, in the vast majority -  and I do mean VAST majority, mediation works =
and results would be quick.  When people are told that they should cool off=
, they typically do.  I know I would.  Even more so if that mediation team =
could point me to a certain desired behavior I'm not quite following at tha=
t time, and do so respectfully and not judgmentally.

Agreed.

>> While the mediation is ongoing for the long haul, will be
>> there be any remediation set to protect a theoretical victim? What is Pl=
an B?
>
> I don't think we can go on discussing two completely different issues - s=
afety and 'toxicity', while jumping in between them as if they're the same =
thing.  The way the current RFC author sets of the scope is much wider than=
 safety issues, and the use of the word 'victim' and 'remediation' are not =
really relevant to it - at least in the vast majority of incidents we're li=
kely to experience

Apologies, that wasn=E2=80=99t my intent =E2=80=93 I wasn=E2=80=99t referri=
ng to the
=E2=80=9Ctoxicity=E2=80=9D issue. Solely referring there to anything under =
the
Contributor Covenant section of the RFC. The words =E2=80=9Cvictim=E2=80=9D=
, etc do
apply there in the context of harassment and such.

>> 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 lon=
g
>> drawn out procedures with an unknown ending are in and of themselves
>> stressful (and to both parties to boot).
>
> There's just no way to undo the damage that the threat of penalties does =
when the goal is trying to foster positive behavior.  Any education person =
- and hopefully most parents - will tell you that.  Our brains respond comp=
letely differently to demands and threats versus encouragement and guidance=
.
>
> There's no absolute winning formula, and there's no one size fits all.  Y=
es, in an extreme, uncommon case - the fact we're focusing on desired behav=
ior and not on 'deterrence' - might cause a certain individual to feel they=
 can do a certain something and get away with it (something, that if safety=
 issues was what we're dealing with, may very well be illegal and carry cri=
minal penalties).  Is it worth to design our whole system around that extre=
mely infrequent situation *AT THE EXPENSE* of how we deal with the normal d=
ay to day situations?  I know my answer.

It doesn=E2=80=99t need to revolve entirely around it, but it should somewh=
ere
acknowledge it. Honestly, I don=E2=80=99t care if it=E2=80=99s one line in =
a footnote
in pt2 font size, so long as it=E2=80=99s there.

Also, loosely connected and off on a tangent perhaps, it=E2=80=99s importan=
t
that we don=E2=80=99t just expect legal consequences to solve everything at
the extreme end of the spectrum. While that avenue can certainly
exist, depending on local laws, I imagine the cost would be
prohibitive (for not outright criminal behaviour) and I really don=E2=80=99=
t
see that working well across international borders. I can only speak
to local practice and solicitor costs here on one small island, of
course.

Paddy


--
P=C3=A1draic Brady

http://blog.astrumfutura.com