Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90865
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.46 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: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:09:55 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU6qBXdNVcRs39FuDC52JM17e5BMES=vJyu7WaGnLaNHkg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Brandon Savage <brandon@brandonsavage.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d12a4e7c442052a0af2ad
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Specific incident in relationship to the proposed Code
 of Conduct
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--001a113d12a4e7c442052a0af2ad
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Jan 24, 2016 5:02 AM, "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
Code of
> > Conduct
> >
> > Open to suggestions/comments on this. I'll work on pull requests to
Derrick'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
wondering, almost out loud:
> Isn't it obvious we're trying to create an amateur drive-by judicial
system, borrowing ideas from the law (some mostly universal, some not),
oversimplifying  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 have (which still fail frequently enough, so they're far from being
perfect).
>
> To me, that's DOA.
>
> I think that the case you brought up could be very easily solved in a
penalty-free CoC:
> 1. One of the mediation team members contacts Gary (privately) - either
proactively or as a response to a complaint, pointing out to him that a PR
like this, even as a joke, reflects badly on the project and may be
considered by some as in violation of the CoC.
> 2. Gary, who obviously meant no harm to anybody, says 'Sure, didn't think
that'll offend anybody, but I'll refrain from doing it in the future'.
> 3. Case closed.
>
> We seem over-focused on the situation where the person's response in #2
would be ignoring the request from the mediation team, or worse, where the
likelihood of that is slim to non-existent.

Thanks Zeev.

This is exactly what I meant by common sense and appropriate reaction from
the group.

The only thing I had to add is a public (as in the project channel or in
the PR f.e.) apologize from the author of this PR and that's it.

I also think think it is wrong to try to use legal wording or comparisons
as it is not a public environment governed by laws (well, laws applied but
not in our scopes). It is about rules we define and we wish to follow in
our community. Just like what we can see in many other group of people, in
tech, sports or other.

Cheers,
Pierre

--001a113d12a4e7c442052a0af2ad--