Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90881
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR02MB29864A702D8E6CC049356E4ACC60@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CALuPxdC1qD-agcALhg19jwXe6QWGkoXmvw7q-y_Nrw2NCvFeeQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BY2PR02MB298F214CF78C48D6707057EACC50@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
	<CALwr1G=sQNURmwSPUxBxeYiu7L4fEPYAXYuBitzsXOCGv+smtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BY2PR02MB29864A702D8E6CC049356E4ACC60@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:56:49 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU4OLdbcvN5CET5bgumiQZxC-K2wM1ZfcbZ6C_B9obV0Zw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: "padraic.brady@gmail.com" <padraic.brady@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Specific incident in relationship to the proposed Code
 of Conduct
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> We are overly focused on steps beyond mediation, because that's where
>> most of the objections and arguments are focused - on the assumption that
>> mediation does not solve all problems.
>
> I obviously realize that, but I think you agreed as well that mediation does solve the vast majority of issues (alongside a clear statement of values, which is very helpful on its own).
> To use the 99/1 breakdown you mentioned in another email - I'd say absolutely yes.  Yes, it's better to 'sacrifice' 1% of the cases if it greatly benefits the common 99%.

I have to disagree. Nothing should be sacrificed and especially nobody.

For the n % of extreme cases where mediation fails, we have to leave
the door open to something we can escalate. We do not have to define a
one rule for all possible issues but we do have to clearly state that
we will act if we need to, on a case by case basis. Meditations alone
do not always work, we know it already.

I think instead of trying to make the RFC looks like what camp or the
other wants for this specific section, we should propose the two and
put options in the vote. That means I also do not agree to do it in
another later RFC. These are fundamental parts of the RFC that should
be agreed (or not) on from the beginning.

-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org