Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90847
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.48 as permitted sender)
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, internals@lists.php.net
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601201851500.3314@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <BY2PR02MB298A1648FE4552693C7174EACC20@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <43.8B.22511.75120A65@pb1.pair.com>
 <BY2PR02MB29847AC236A397C989235EBACC30@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <69.6C.09073.39601A65@pb1.pair.com>
Message-ID: <56A31D87.2090700@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 22:28:23 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <69.6C.09073.39601A65@pb1.pair.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> Why? Misconduct is simply the inversion of 'conduct', and a code of
> conduct, necessarily, primarily deals with misconduct. Good conduct is
> supposed to be what normally happens. It's the exceptions to that -
> misconduct - that you need a code to manage.

I would disagree with that. If you look around at numerous examples of
codes from other projects provided here on the list so far, most of them
*are* much more than penal code. And that's not a coincidence - it works
much better with people if you start with what we're trying to do and
why, and then proceed to what, *in the light of the above*, we do not do
and not allow to be done. It's not something we invented right now - a
lot of people in many projects seem to agree this is the best way to do
things.

> What do you consider to constitute consensus? Absolute unanimity, or
> large majority support?

I'd like to repost this link: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
While it does not exactly *answer* the question as such, I think it
makes it easier to get thinking about it and illuminates some issues
with what we do - e.g. 67% vote is hardly "consensus", and even 99% vote
*sometimes* may not be the same as consensus. Again, it's not a
solution, more food for thought.

> I suppose it means people should just plan to properly hand things over
> rather than quit, given how fairly inevitable someone else picks these
> things up again, but nobody is acting in bad faith here.

Yes, I think people should propose handover, especially for RFCs that
clearly have more than one person supporting. I understand it is hard to
do in the middle of rage-quitting or exhausted-quitting, but I think it
is time to remind people of this option, maybe add to the RFC process.
It can be as simple as "please take over this RFC otherwise I will
withdraw it" instead of just withdrawing.

> Seeing what has happened to countless people that have spoken up online
> about harassment, and knowing that I contribute under my actual
> real-life name, has made me self-censor to some extent. I decided not to

Well, this is a problem. It is a very serious problem. People lost their
jobs, careers, reputations and other things because of internet and
meatspace trolls. However, as far as I can see, it is not the problem
that *our* community has, and I think we can keep it this way. And that
relates of course to trolls of all political persuasions, colors and
shapes - of which, yes, there's no shortage of. Not providing food or
shelter to them is one of the thing we hope to achieve at least in the
spaces of this project.

> revive the CoC RFC myself for a reason. Seeing certain participants in
> the code of conduct discussion openly retweet messages by leaders of
> organised harassment campaigns, campaigns targeting people like me, is
> absolutely terrifying.

I would caution though about making guilt by association. Re-tweeting
something (often third-, fourth- and 9000th-hand) does not mean agreeing
with all the author of the tweet has ever said or done. I don't want to
go too deep into problems of Tweeter and such as a discussion medium
(TLDR: it is unbelievably bad), but one of the things we don't want to
get into is permanently labeling people because they once shared a link
to something written by somebody who also wrote something bad on
entirely different media, possibly years ago.
I think the principle of "assuming good faith"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith) would be a
good idea here. Note this is not a permanent label either, it is
"assumption" for initial approach to the interaction.

> We don't exist in a vacuum.

I agree. And this is why we should be careful in what we accept as a
commitment by the community - because it doesn't affect only us here
that discuss it, and not only our motivations, interests and actions
would be important. We know from our 20-year experience in PHP project
that people would try to use what we create in ways we never thought of,
some of them wonderful, some of them making us shudder.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com