Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90863
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR02MB298F214CF78C48D6707057EACC50@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CALuPxdC1qD-agcALhg19jwXe6QWGkoXmvw7q-y_Nrw2NCvFeeQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BY2PR02MB298F214CF78C48D6707057EACC50@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 22:51:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CALwr1G=sQNURmwSPUxBxeYiu7L4fEPYAXYuBitzsXOCGv+smtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Brandon Savage <brandon@brandonsavage.net>, 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 22:02, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brandon Savage [mailto:brandon@brandonsavage.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 7:44 PM
>> To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
>> Subject: [PHP-DEV] Specific incident in relationship to the proposed Cod=
e of
>> Conduct
>>
>> Open to suggestions/comments on this. I'll work on pull requests to Derr=
ick's
>> repo over the next couple of days to let folks share their thoughts.
>
>
> I've been reading the mini-thread that followed this message, and I'm won=
dering, almost out loud:
> Isn't it obvious we're trying to create an amateur drive-by judicial syst=
em, borrowing ideas from the law (some mostly universal, some not), oversim=
plifying  them (amateurishly, as we would as amateurs) and intending to put=
 amateur investigators and judges in charge?  A system that will definitely=
 not have the countless checks and balances real world judicial systems hav=
e (which still fail frequently enough, so they're far from being perfect).
>
> To me, that's DOA.

We are overly focused on steps beyond mediation, because that's where
most of the objections and arguments are focused - on the assumption
that mediation does not solve all problems.

I have to agree with the earlier part of your statements also though
from a different direction.

What is being proposed is not in any way a court of law, nor does it
claim to be. Communities have been dealing with complaints, moderation
issues, bans, telling offs, and a whole host of steps since forever.
This is no different. I literally cannot fathom why the COC not being
a court is a problem. It's one of the most bizarre and, frankly,
concerning line of objections to arise in the debate from my
perspective. The absolute best we can do is just that - the absolute
best. And it's entirely responsible to ensure that it IS the absolute
best that can be achieved.

However, the argument that since our absolute best does not match a
specific model of a legal court where the participants have decades of
training and experience (and precedence/laws) does not mean that the
PHP project should automatically do nothing whatsoever and call it a
day. To state an obvious question - what precisely is the status quo
in comparison to a COC? Ad-hoc bans by whoever has access to the ML?
No action ever? Does anyone actually know what it is?

Do people object to Twitter's policies? Reddit's? Facebook's? That
forum over there? Some mailing list where one will get perma-banned
for trolling? Your employer's disciplinary process which ends in a
cardbox box and a security escort to the exit? What about the rules at
the local pub on behaviour?

All of the above? Not courts. All of the above? Implemented by people
who are not professional judges and just do the best they can because
they value their communities.

By this odd logic, nobody operating any public forum, event or public
space should ever ban anyone for anything or even caution them. Ever.

And yet...they clearly do.

In the extreme cases which should be very rare where mediation
completely fails :P.

Paddy