Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90868
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain paragonie.com from 209.85.215.53 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU7p_ywqxmdPa0vPGj4f1wtm2BjWp7Jk2A+UiT=tJ3L3Pw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALuPxdC1qD-agcALhg19jwXe6QWGkoXmvw7q-y_Nrw2NCvFeeQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BY2PR02MB298F214CF78C48D6707057EACC50@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
	<CALwr1G=sQNURmwSPUxBxeYiu7L4fEPYAXYuBitzsXOCGv+smtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<56A43770.9080104@gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7p_ywqxmdPa0vPGj4f1wtm2BjWp7Jk2A+UiT=tJ3L3Pw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 22:25:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKws9z1LEAAmOMm4Gpy56Bva-7sVz3aQ_35tEs9_QROC6xU3MA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A1draic_Brady?= <padraic.brady@gmail.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Brandon Savage <brandon@brandonsavage.net>, 
	Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f8fa6b1dd25052a0bff9f
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Specific incident in relationship to the proposed Code
 of Conduct
From: scott@paragonie.com (Scott Arciszewski)

--001a113f8fa6b1dd25052a0bff9f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On Jan 24, 2016 9:31 AM, "Stanislav Malyshev" <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> >
> > Hi!
> .
> >
> > > 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.
> =E2=80=8B=E2=80=8B
> 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.
>
> I think it reasonable to think we don'g have data, at all. Yes we have tw=
o
> cases which were so obvious that we had to handle them.
>
> For anything we have nothing. This proposal will give us more data about
> how we are, how we feel, etc. If anything this is good.
>
> > So I
> > find a hard focus on bans be a bit strange - for something that we'd us=
e
> > maybe once per 10 years, it gets a lot of time spent on it.
>
> I think we should have used temporary bans a bit more to cool down things=
.
> Including to myself along other.
>


=E2=80=8BHi all,

I've been mostly staying out of these discussions because I'm focusing my
time and energy on things that will hopefully be more valuable than just
weighing in with another opinion on this issue. However, I do feel the need
to state this because I haven't seen it stated by anyone else yet (maybe I
missed it?) and everyone in this thread seems calm, collected, and
reasonable:

I think focusing on the extreme behaviors is harmful towards a mature and
progressive discussion on these matters. My opinion is based on two
premises:

1. Good opsec, which career criminals and dedicated harassers would be
incentivized to adopt, can completely thwart any CoC we could come up with.
A good example would be DOXBIN, which hosted peoples' personal information
(their "dox") on a Tor hidden service and thumbed its nose to law
enforcement for years. The operator, Nachash, is still free. At no point in
time has an arrest been made.
2. If you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If you create a
tool meant for dealing with the most extreme harassers, and you will never
CATCH them, all that happens is you create a system for potentially
inflicting damage on less extreme transgressors.

Focusing on the existence/nonexistence/frequency of extreme harassment is a
non-starter. Yes, you might think you only need it once every 10 years now.
Maybe it turns out we need it once per week and we were blind to the abuses
that were occurring. Or maybe it turns out we don't ever need it at all,
but we've created a process for harassment by proxy.

Extreme harassment needs to be dealt with by specialized professionals,
i.e. law enforcement, clinical therapists, and mental health professionals.
We shouldn't even consider them in scope.

So I disagree that notions such as, "=E2=80=8BIIRC we needed it one, two ti=
mes over
20 years?" are worth any future consideration.

Let's start with a solution that is appropriate for 50% or more of
situations, and take it one step at a time. There are no 100% or even 99%
solutions from day one.

That's all I have to say at the moment. I'm going to go back to addressing
technical problems; human problems are beyond me to solve adequately.

Scott Arciszewski
Chief Development Officer
Paragon Initiative Enterprises <https://paragonie.com/>=E2=80=8B

--001a113f8fa6b1dd25052a0bff9f--