Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90787
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:46:50 +0000 (GMT)
To: Allan MacGregor <amacgregor@allanmacgregor.com>
cc: =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draic_Brady?= <padraic.brady@gmail.com>, 
    Kevin Smith <kevin@gohearsay.com>, 
    =?UTF-8?Q?Pavel_Kou=C5=99il?= <pajousek@gmail.com>, 
    PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <56A0EC53.2030206@allanmacgregor.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601211516220.3314@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
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> <56A0EC53.2030206@allanmacgregor.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans)

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, Allan MacGregor wrote:

> 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.

I am going to stop you right there. There is no agreement on the text of 
the code of conduct, and rather, perhaps not even on the base which 
might result in PHP's version of anything. Randi merely pointed out her 
specific issues with an alternative Code of Conduct (which, funnily, 
said it is actually not one). As I already wrote, I don't think it's 
suitable: http://news.php.net/php.internals/90771

> 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
> - The CoC seems to be more concern with punitive action rather than
>   establishing the values of the community.

Picking up on these two first. Both points are probably valid, and I 
have already asked for constructive feedback on it. Just stating these 
two points is not feedback, it's just saying that you don't like it. 
Suggest how to improve it, and I would be more than happy to listen to 
the feedback. We might not agree though.

> - There is no mechanism or ability for one to confront ones accuser

That is a tricky one. In my opinion, in the case of abuse as pointed out 
in the draft CoC, I think this is fair, and necessary that we all for 
reports of abuse in private, and with secrecy. Without it, an accusor is 
likely immediately going to be lambasted by the perpetrator. 

Having a private mediation board or process is for the same reasons that 
companies allow annonymous feedback about managers, co-workers, peers 
and leadership. Their HR basically would function as our proposed 
Mediation Team. Without privacy, it is extremely unlikely people would 
even bother putting in a complaint, afraid of a public outlash.

However, the accuser can through the Mediation Team of course reach the 
complainant - but the identity should be guarded as private. The current 
language in the RFC reads:

	"Reasonable efforts should be taken to ensure the privacy of the
	reporting party. The only two exceptions would be if the 
	incident was public or if the reporting party agrees to be 
	identified."

That is in the context only among the accusor, Mediation Team, and 
accused. Not towards the community as a whole.

cheers,
Derick