Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90843
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601201851500.3314@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601221028450.3314@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <CAEZPtU7QgfRp-ipT=H5BGbLQhWiUBxGHkuB2bb11nEvuJfag3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <56A25C2D.3060903@anderiasch.de> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601221652090.3314@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <CAPKYkKxaBvWDLEGUcGMf038pAB6Fa4m_3RAzvv1VbBjWNx5BDA@mail.gmail.com> <56A27BEE.1040006@leetchee.fr>
In-Reply-To: <56A27BEE.1040006@leetchee.fr>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:02:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPKYkKzBiogKhqBRS+uEZC_VtRzz+3nt4xkdxh12fLi+nssw9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alda Marteau-Hardi <php-internals@leetchee.fr>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11379428ec00010529f1b163
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)

--001a11379428ec00010529f1b163
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:59 PM Alda Marteau-Hardi <
php-internals@leetchee.fr> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hello everyone !
>
> It's my first mail here and before writing anything else I'd like to
> say that I'm thankful to Anthony and Derick for carrying this RFC.
>
> Now=E2=80=A6 I have one issue with this argument :
>
> Chase Peeler a =C3=A9crit le 22/01/2016 19:15 :
> > 3.) Finally, I think a Code of Conduct that includes punitive
> > measures is a bad idea. I won't go into details on why, as we've
> > gone over them in detail, but I'll sum it up as follows: a Code of
> > Conduct that gives a small group of people the ability to punish
> > others is open to abuse. I'm not saying that anyone proposing such
> > a code of conduct has evil intentions, or even that anyone on this
> > list would purposely act in an evil way if a member of the
> > committee. In fact, the reason I feel such Codes of Conduct is
> > dangerous is that someone acting in what they feel IS a noble way
> > can easily do the opposite.
>
> I think it falls in the =C2=AB perfect solution =C2=BB fallacy. We have t=
he
> current situation, which is already open to abuse (see the repeated
> references towards  =C2=AB the toxicity of internals =C2=BB) and because =
such
> abuses can still happen with a Code of Conduct and the team in charge
> of watching its application you consider that it is a bad idea.
>
> In my opinion, an imperfect system based on freedom is much preferred to
an imperfect system based on restrictions and centralized power.

Also, I'm not saying reject the Code of Conduct outright just because it
isn't perfect. I'm arguing that a Code of Conduct that includes the ability
for a small group to impose punishment on others is WORSE than no code of
conduct at all.


> Furthermore, the abuses that may be perpetuated by such a team are
> already limited by the =C2=AB Accountability =C2=BB paragraph of the RFC =
:
>
> =C2=AB The PHP project voting body has the right to overturn any action
> taken the Community Mediation Team by vote (50% + 1 required to
> overturn). =C2=BB
>
> I see a few issues with that.

First, the whole idea is contradictory to the other tenants involving
privacy. The draft even points out that people might abuse the appeals
process for this reasons. I think that leaves things open to, at best, an
unfair appeals process, and at worst, appeals getting squashed in the name
of "privacy." Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly in the right to face
ones accusers, so I'm not supporting the privacy clauses, just pointing out
the contradictory nature.

Second, the whole point that trying to put some sort of judicial process in
place still holds. In relative terms, the community is small. The community
of voting members is even smaller. Bias (conscious or subconscious) against
one of the two parties involved is still likely. The chances of certain
members voting opposite of how they feel they should in order to "prevent
drama" or keep things from getting "toxic" is also a real possibility.


> Respectfully yours,
> - --
> Alda Marteau-Hardi
> XMPP: alda@leetchee.fr | Web: http://aldarone.fr/
> GPG: 0xC2F8A5C7
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWonvuAAoJEDKPoMbC+KXHeTQH/RdpxlejsT9tg3u42lrIvpQs
> GiJ2nK8sTJvTfu2Mz6JGpFTwcIzFrw3h2xy8vRInuHHn8nx1mdDJL2lb1AhnlXjm
> bB2rZCAjj/I6Z5+YiAehRqm2fHoye+qEu72Q4Temea8bQGwHmQZXtVG+NIbH+lU/
> nFTEUfAodtDTUfowXbDj3qQGnvyLYnmH0Uzvl9oEK8AkUpAqRzKCyA88O9hBhCwy
> Sy6Pqu1YC7O+7ZuTb7x5Y6FG0c9dMFMIzDsayPGhavyt95AQY/GdDqFnAZNZhQAE
> 73ktZTBNf9AKB/0BfJ3KbFiEP39iZiEEgOhrXa/k2aJoXzl8C7iLJh9Nli/Kh/s=3D
> =3DOA7I
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
> --
-- Chase
chasepeeler@gmail.com

--001a11379428ec00010529f1b163--