Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90795 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 73084 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2016 16:32:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Jan 2016 16:32:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=amacgregor@allanmacgregor.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=amacgregor@allanmacgregor.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain allanmacgregor.com from 209.85.213.178 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: amacgregor@allanmacgregor.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.213.178 mail-ig0-f178.google.com Received: from [209.85.213.178] ([209.85.213.178:34108] helo=mail-ig0-f178.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 57/EC-09073-30801A65 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:32:03 -0500 Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id ik10so127466918igb.1 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 08:32:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=allanmacgregor-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=vNvg/BpSxEL9OCJNsy29JR94NNGh4jNDTofZM1pnq7s=; b=thg70bf0mEZSOhWJ43Tf5xiZlpPykB633ULfAKvM3rjUjx1bYTH2OP1pIE1hEZ4gzH IlzqnoO8rhsITLh3RIngMeF5hMVN1W1KQpVPOyF5S+9vfzVUrOJrHtG0Tid7wgSOFoUO AsaTQKsOXU9tW1MIwydKeCLA5czhRmgpJoJJ2BAx+SsjQMbvCPgBFtUzfIEzrvmGvYbG PW6EgZxwqiIlyfqrNrbxh15yn+iTY+hUZC9tgczmpGVA9Gwqn8ICB1685Xg8bj/4AQ9Y 5q3ZkcjVkCkx6esQ2nAb/MtFFBiht6xqhAh8+qWCC9y5NBYHht5WyaGDk0ReaP2Avwhk O1yw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=vNvg/BpSxEL9OCJNsy29JR94NNGh4jNDTofZM1pnq7s=; b=EuqeXvJrWbNtgaLjMrfXq34xzDY4TNkjhxsOE6ibp74tikiVpnkIllc3HLFDdhYwVp 2CkF2eOVk4MMnSqnnecoZl2cdxrmuvV1CxdgrNeNwLDVV6wfeyF6ppBHAsb/Tfw9+z6w ASOsH9GBo5rikKnFbEfkQZJyfXfrhaTY7QLGlJ/+LtVbvFuY1G8/K0UtTXOPUMD05ZrJ 4iMOyHicrDtCJn7DPV3BAQpJ08TyF+CM6pKQ0EIuzyVC7lzCjoOqUxVGiiJgRUuWM9ol Bw0pffkFC36cxvqXodrgQbzzOaouItFM9ohkP33oW2fM6kcd2eignfKOtwweH1NSbhUm F68A== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORV/k+4kR3BmERgJmEZdmJk7/WRPVKDeoFleBI5mFNOAZTeF7bVWZpustDXlKF5LQ== X-Received: by 10.50.111.18 with SMTP id ie18mr9883568igb.19.1453393919939; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 08:31:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.250.135.101] (dhcp-198-2-78-253.cable.user.start.ca. [198.2.78.253]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id k6sm1360467igx.20.2016.01.21.08.31.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 21 Jan 2016 08:31:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <56A107FB.9080007@allanmacgregor.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:31:55 -0500 Reply-To: amacgregor@allanmacgregor.com User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?UMOhZHJhaWMgQnJhZHk=?= CC: Kevin Smith , Derick Rethans , =?UTF-8?B?UGF2ZWwgS291xZlpbA==?= , PHP Developers Mailing List References: <45CA8C41-4C0A-418C-925D-4B147ECBF297@gohearsay.com> <56A0EC53.2030206@allanmacgregor.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------000309070904000100000903" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct From: amacgregor@allanmacgregor.com (Allan MacGregor) --------------000309070904000100000903 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010608030603080508090705" --------------010608030603080508090705 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, > Pádraic Brady > January 21, 2016 at 10:59 AM > Hi, > > On 21 January 2016 at 14:33, Allan MacGregor > 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 that >> 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. Let's discuss the CoC at hand. Is my opinion that the current text based on the Contributors Covenant 1.3 is too broad on its scope and the punitive actions. What do I mean too broad? well I think the CoC needs to define what a project channel/space is; as well there should be a clarification that contributors are entitled to their political views and opinions outside of these channels. With that in mind I'm attaching the following draft that extends the definition of the second paragraph and attempts to define that the official project channels are https://gist.github.com/amacgregor/16c62908ff39f51604e2 in short: We are committed to evaluating contributions within project channels (such as reporting issues, posting feature requests, updating documentation, submitting pull requests or patches, and other project activities) without regard to the contributor's level of experience, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, nationality, politics, or activity outside of project channels. The following are considered the official project channels: * PHP Mailing list * PHP Official IRC Channel * PHP Official repositories * PHP Official social media accounts Based on paul's earlier post http://news.php.net/php.internals/90259 >> 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 > > Propose specific text which also addresses harassment and the other > not vague words. I’m 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’s explicitly required. However, it’s also 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 – there is no legal court involved – so the > emphasis is on protecting the potential complainant from additional > targeted action. That might be the case, but we are talking about applying sanctions with real world repercussions and as such having a confrontation clause or at least the right to cross examination and face my accuser. – so the emphasis is on protecting the potential complainant from additional targeted action. If the emphasis is on fairness, equality and justice, then you have to protect the rights of the accused and the accuser. >> - 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’m 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…so I can’t rule it out. > > Paddy > > -- > Pádraic Brady > Allan MacGregor > January 21, 2016 at 9:33 AM > 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: > Pádraic Brady > January 21, 2016 at 7:19 AM > Hi, > > On 21 January 2016 at 04:37, Kevin Smith 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 > > Kevin Smith > January 20, 2016 at 11:37 PM > > Hi Derick, > > 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]. > > (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. > > > Kevin Smith > Hearsay Interactive > Derick Rethans > January 20, 2016 at 4:20 PM > > Sure - I would very much appreciate a list of things to look at. Would > you have time to suggest a list with C of C's? It is unlikely that one > will cover it all anyway. Something that (stolen the idea from twitter) > has a good list of *positive* core values is also in my opinion > important to have. > > cheers, > Derick -- Allan MacGregor coderoncode.com --------------010608030603080508090705 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi,
January 21, 2016 at 10:59 AM
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 that
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.
Let's discuss the CoC at hand. Is my opinion that the current text based on the Contributors Covenant 1.3 is too broad on its scope and the punitive actions. What do I mean too broad? well I think the CoC needs to define what a project channel/space is; as well there should be a clarification that contributors are entitled to their political views and opinions outside of these channels.

With that in mind I'm attaching the following draft that extends the definition of the second paragraph and attempts to define that the official project channels are https://gist.github.com/amacgregor/16c62908ff39f51604e2 in short:

We are committed to evaluating contributions within project channels (such as reporting issues, posting feature requests, updating documentation, submitting pull requests or patches, and other project activities) without regard to the contributor's level of experience, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, nationality, politics, or activity outside of project channels.

The following are considered the official project channels:

  • PHP Mailing list
  • PHP Official IRC Channel
  • PHP Official repositories
  • PHP Official social media accounts
Based on paul's earlier post http://news.php.net/php.internals/90259
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


Propose specific text which also addresses harassment and the other
not vague words. I’m 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’s explicitly required. However, it’s also 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 – there is no legal court involved – so the
emphasis is on protecting the potential complainant from additional
targeted action.
That might be the case, but we are talking about applying sanctions with real world repercussions and as such having a confrontation clause or at least the right to cross examination and face my accuser.

– so the emphasis is on protecting the potential complainant from additional targeted action.

If the emphasis is on fairness, equality and justice, then you have to protect the rights of the accused and the accuser.  

- 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’m 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…so I can’t rule it out.

Paddy

--
Pádraic Brady
January 21, 2016 at 9:33 AM
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:
January 21, 2016 at 7:19 AM
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 [aga
in, 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
January 20, 2016 at 11:37 PM

Hi Derick,

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].

(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.


Kevin Smith
Hearsay Interactive <http://gohearsay.com/>
January 20, 2016 at 4:20 PM

Sure - I would very much appreciate a list of things to look at. Would
you have time to suggest a list with C of C's? It is unlikely that one
will cover it all anyway. Something that (stolen the idea from twitter)
has a good list of *positive* core values is also in my opinion
important to have.

cheers,
Derick

--
Allan MacGregor
coderoncode.com

--------------010608030603080508090705-- --------------000309070904000100000903--