Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90875
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.52 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56A43770.9080104@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>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:22:33 +0000
Message-ID: <CALwr1GkOKi=mQixE8b5LTynQi7AOB16hFSzometVs=XVUy8uVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, 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 24 January 2016 at 02:31, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> 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.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing here :). It was a reference
to the projects efforts, i.e. doing the best it can to achieve a
desired result.

>> 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.

The focus on bans is because it creates a fundamental point of confusion:
1. Bob is harassing Ben.
2. Ben reports harassment.
3. Mediation occurs, but fails.
4. Bob is still harassing Ben.
5. The Code of Conduct contains no mention of penalties.
6. What is the next action of the PHP project?

If the Code of Conduct avoids, cannot, or does not answer that final
question, then it's suggestive that no action would be taken: Bob
could continue harassing Ben for eternity without consequence despite
there being a Code of Conduct.

In other words, the Code of Conduct either has teeth, or has no teeth.
If it has no teeth, then how is it enforceable? If it's not
enforceable, then why should anyone bother making reports?

Worse, if the Code of Conduct doesn't even mention the teeth, can
someone involved in a rare extreme case then claim that the project
lacks the authority to punish them?

Paddy

--
P=C3=A1draic Brady

http://blog.astrumfutura.com