Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90788
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56A0EC53.2030206@allanmacgregor.com>
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>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:59:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CALwr1GkUh+Oy6TK8VyWkJB8zSZ3_+sesfQofop5gs0SeVCq_bw@mail.gmail.com>
To: amacgregor@allanmacgregor.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>
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 14:33, Allan MacGregor
<amacgregor@allanmacgregor.com> wrote:
> 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 tha=
t
> are pushing for a specific version of this code of conduct to use it as a
> political tool.

The RFC has actual text, which can be read, examined and discussed.
There is no need whatsoever to drag in anything beyond unless directly
relevant to the text at hand. Personal attacks on people who support a
COC, or do not support a COC, aren't productive. If there is a
political plot to undermine whatever in PHP, then please do support
this by quoting from the RFC.

> This is it what concerns most people regarding this specific CoC; you wan=
t
> to debate the CoC proposed, fine. Personally here are my issues with it:
>
> - Language is vague and open to interpretation

Propose specific text which also addresses harassment and the other
not vague words. I=E2=80=99m sure people will happily read and review it.

 > - There is no mechanism or ability for one to confront ones accuser

Any evidence being used against an individual will be made available
to them. In fact, it=E2=80=99s explicitly required. However, it=E2=80=99s a=
lso clear
that confidentiality will be adhered to. This is par for the course,
at least in my experience, of any such process. The COC is also not a
criminal proceeding =E2=80=93 there is no legal court involved =E2=80=93 so=
 the
emphasis is on protecting the potential complainant from additional
targeted action.

> - The CoC seems to be more concern with punitive action rather than
> establishing the values of the community.

Derick added a second section of more relevance to collaborative
values. Also, I=E2=80=99m on record as believing that while punitive action
need not be the central theme in a COC, it has to clear somewhere that
it CAN be employed when absolutely necessary. Hopefully never! But I
left my crystal ball at home=E2=80=A6so I can=E2=80=99t rule it out.

Paddy

--
P=C3=A1draic Brady