Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90866
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.177 as permitted sender)
To: =?UTF-8?Q?P=c3=a1draic_Brady?= <padraic.brady@gmail.com>,
 Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
References: <CALuPxdC1qD-agcALhg19jwXe6QWGkoXmvw7q-y_Nrw2NCvFeeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <BY2PR02MB298F214CF78C48D6707057EACC50@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CALwr1G=sQNURmwSPUxBxeYiu7L4fEPYAXYuBitzsXOCGv+smtw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Brandon Savage <brandon@brandonsavage.net>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <56A43770.9080104@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 18:31:12 -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: <CALwr1G=sQNURmwSPUxBxeYiu7L4fEPYAXYuBitzsXOCGv+smtw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Specific incident in relationship to the proposed Code
 of Conduct
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> 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.

I think this is an incorrect approach - both in making software and
other places. You don't release software when it's absolute best it
could ever be - otherwise PHP would never exist and neither would
99.9999% of other software. You do it when it is good to solve practical
problem you have. This is why there's a request on identifying the
problem we're trying to solve and result we are trying to achieve.
Because that's the way to know when we're good enough.
Another reason is a dangerous illusion we could predict what people
would do with it years from now. We can't. Thus it is important not
over-specify things - because we don't have enough information now to
know what we'd like to do in specific case in the future.

> 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?

Yes, status quo is pretty much that. IIRC we needed it one, two times
over 20 years? And it worked fine then. Now, maybe it's time to improve
on it, but the data so far does not show we're in failure mode. So I
find a hard focus on bans be a bit strange - for something that we'd use
maybe once per 10 years, it gets a lot of time spent on it.

> Do people object to Twitter's policies? Reddit's? Facebook's? That

Of course, all the time in fact. I'm reading allegations of Facebook
both not doing enough and over-doing it, for various dark reasons,
almost daily, and same for other social platforms. Every site with
petitions (except maybe White House one, but even that I'm not sure) has
petitions for Facebook to change their policies for this or that.

> cardbox box and a security escort to the exit? What about the rules at
> the local pub on behaviour?

I have never seen a pub with a formal CoC so far, but maybe they have
them now, I never asked. But pubs have owners, so it's not the same as
here.

> And yet...they clearly do.

Of course. And most social platforms you mentioned also both horrible
for cooperation and teeming with harassment. So I wouldn't take them as
a positive example just yet.

> In the extreme cases which should be very rare where mediation
> completely fails :P.

Almost none of them though ever practiced mediation and such - it's not
scalable and they are all about scale. Thankfully, this is not our case.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com