Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90853
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: <CALuPxdC1qD-agcALhg19jwXe6QWGkoXmvw7q-y_Nrw2NCvFeeQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALuPxdC1qD-agcALhg19jwXe6QWGkoXmvw7q-y_Nrw2NCvFeeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:26:52 +0000
Message-ID: <CALwr1GmoTm+k7By+dxhbGi1H_0gAWOZO4390ZZWyW1OKgWthzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brandon Savage <brandon@brandonsavage.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Specific incident in relationship to the proposed Code
 of Conduct
From: padraic.brady@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draic_Brady?=)

Hi,

On 23 January 2016 at 17:43, Brandon Savage <brandon@brandonsavage.net> wro=
te:
> I think these are fixable problems. I propose the following:
>
> * The Code of Conduct should specifically state that a person who is not =
a
> direct party to the alleged incident is not permitted to make a complaint=
.

Maybe. My main concern is closing doors on actual cases from being
reported where they occur very publicly for anyone for see and where
the identities of those involved are already public knowledge. It
would be a bit hard to just ignore such a case. On what basis would
we?

For example, non-targeted actions - like sexual images on a public forum.

The point I do take, separately, is that "unprofessional conduct" can
be permitted where it falls on the low end of the spectrum. Does the
COC get employed if someone is continually 10mins late to meetings? In
the workplace, that would get one kicked out the door very quickly,
but an open source project may be much more forgiving with respect to
everyone being a volunteer.

So basically:
a) remove the phrase; or
b) add a better phrase in the context of the project

> * We should require that any person who is accused of violating the Code =
of
> Conduct clearly have intent to do so. This is a harder standard to prove,
> but one that should help us from having to deal with edge cases. A death
> threat is a clear-cut case of intent, for example.

No. Harrasment can be conducted without intent. The reality is that
edge cases may exist, and just have to be dealt with.

> * The Code of Conduct should be modified so that abiding or not abiding b=
y
> it is demonstrable with evidence, taking "feelings" out of it entirely. F=
or
> example, a person shouldn't be in violation of the code because someone
> "feels harassed/trolled/etc", it should be because they're ACTUALLY
> harassed/trolled/etc.

Yes. I would have thought that obvious, so it's completely reasonable
to clarify it as clearly as possible should there be any doubt.
However, as I stress above, intent is not necessarily relevant in this
evaluation. I also note that the outcome of harassment may include
"feelings" of a severe negative nature so let's avoid that word for
clarity. I would go with the more clear term "beliefs". Believing
something is happening, does not make it true in the absence of
evidence.

> * The Code of Conduct should bar filing a claim of harassment if harassme=
nt
> from both parties towards one another can be demonstrated. This avoids a
> race to the courthouse by one side to punish the other in an argument.

On the basis of equal treatment, I disagree. They would then both have
allegations of unknown value which should be evaluated. This would
also open the door to baseless allegations being used to thwart the
process as a defensive tactic. As a basic level, the "demonstrated"
test still needs investigation, evidence gathering, etc.

Paddy

P.S. I like thought experiments - more the merrier in fact to actually
test ideas.

--
P=C3=A1draic Brady

http://blog.astrumfutura.com