Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90845
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPKYkKxaBvWDLEGUcGMf038pAB6Fa4m_3RAzvv1VbBjWNx5BDA@mail.gmail.com>
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>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:40:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CALwr1GnjLTxv6xWyipRXthU-37pJF_fFMRQoFtrDPE+c1JspYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com>
Cc: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, Florian Anderiasch <ml@anderiasch.de>, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: padraic.brady@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draic_Brady?=)

Hi,

On 22 January 2016 at 18:15, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1.) I think everyone already knows how to be an adult. The fact that
> sometimes we don't act in a civil manner isn't because we don't have
> something telling us what civil behavior entails. Putting it in writing
> might make us feel good, but it isn't going to change how anyone behaves.
> Putting it in writing is necessary only if you intended to have a way to
> enforce it - which requires some form of punitive measures for those that
> don't, as well as a way to determine if someone violated them.

I agree. Which is why the COC only notes actions within the scope of
the project. Just because the COC may not alter behaviour in 100% of
cases, it does not follow that the project should sit idly by and do
absolutely nothing at all. Either we're a community of humans that
will close ranks to protect a fellow community member, or we're a
collection of code emitting machines with the empathic capability of a
brick. I'm sure that's a great place for machines, but it's not so
great for humans.

> 2.) Instead of focusing on what is and is not proper behavior, and how to
> punish someone that doesn't follow the rules, we should focus on how we c=
an
> help out one or more individual that feels they were harmed in some way b=
y
> one or more other individual. The only initial restriction on whether we
> help them out is if they are both involved in the PHP community. This mea=
ns
> we don't have to define what is and isn't considered "harm" nor do we hav=
e
> to define where such actions must take place. This is what many of us are
> talking about in reference to conflict mediation. The best thing about th=
is

That's great, but it makes no sense. If we pick any extreme issue,
like harrasment, you cannot both refuse to take action against the
offender, and also state that the victim has the community's undying
support. Those would be contrary statements. You also cannot assume
that all parties in mediation will act in good faith and make no
provision for when they don't.

This is why a COC should define harms (or alternatively, goals to
prevent the same harms), and then also define what happens when the
COC is not obeyed. Mediation is a great step that should cover 99% of
all cases with ease, but it can never ever be a long drawn out affair
without concluding. Eventually, should mediation fail, something else
needs doing for the 1% of cases that mediation cannot resolve.
Defining that "something else" is the ultimate statement that the COC
will be actively enforced, i.e. that it has teeth when teeth are
called for.

> 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 sma=
ll
> 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.

The current process is open to abuse...already. Anyone at anytime is
completely free to poke Internals with an email detailing a laundry
list of charges against anyone. The absence of a defined process
doesn't mean there's no process at all. It's also important to note
that the COC makes it clear that the proposed small team has very
limited abilities, with any additional action needing to be taken to
the entire project, and can be overruled in the same manner via the
appeals mechanism. All steps are also clearly tied to the existence of
evidence. This is significantly less open to abuse that the status
quo.

Paddy

--
P=C3=A1draic Brady

http://blog.astrumfutura.com