Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90873
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.53 as permitted sender)
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, internals@lists.php.net
References: <56A3F0FA.1050609@mprelu.de>
 <BY2PR02MB298857B07D0082648965EF4ACC50@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <EC.4C.03822.02364A65@pb1.pair.com>
Message-ID: <56A46649.8030802@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 21:51:05 -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: <EC.4C.03822.02364A65@pb1.pair.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> This is a question I'm wondering about as well. It all seems pretty
> good, but I wonder if, for example, the lists of unwelcome behaviour and
> discrimination characteristics are sufficiently complete.

They are not supposed to be complete. Again, we're not writing a penal
code. If somebody does something clearly destructive but not in the
laundry list, we'd have to deal with it and we'll find the way to. The
list is just to show what kind of behavior we see as unacceptable, not
to provide complete list with a presumption if it's not on the list, it
must be OK.

For "discrimination characteristics" it's even worse, as we'd be
pretending to have a complete list of human identity and background
groups, which we can not have, and each failure mode for it is worse
than the other - either we presume anything we omitted does not exist,
or is not important enough, or it's OK to discriminate against members
of that group. Also, nobody ever reads these lists anyway - checking
everything against the exact list of a dozen or so items is not a common
behavior, considerate person would behave in a way to be polite to
everybody without the list, and inconsiderate person would ignore it
anyway.

I think simple "we respect everybody regardless of personal and group
identity" would be enough. Just as when we say we'd be polite we do not
list offensive words we don't use, when we say we'd be fair we shouldn't
list ways in which we won't be unfair. And even if we do give examples,
we should not pretend to have "complete" list.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com