Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90889
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.170 as permitted sender)
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
References: <56A3F0FA.1050609@mprelu.de>
 <BY2PR02MB298857B07D0082648965EF4ACC50@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <EC.4C.03822.02364A65@pb1.pair.com> <56A46649.8030802@gmail.com>
 <BY2PR02MB298A79E7F121746142E7583ACC60@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <56A530FD.6030404@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:15:57 -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: <BY2PR02MB298A79E7F121746142E7583ACC60@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.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!

> That's true, but I think that somewhat goes against the point of
> having a 'penalizing CoC'.  The list of violation is supposed to be
> detailed and exhaustive.

Well, this is part of the problem with "penal code". To create and
maintain one, there are teams of very highly paid professionals working
for years. That's how they reach "detailed and exhaustive", but even
then they have to update it constantly and spend years arguing about it.
We don't have any resources to do that, so I think we should not try the
"penal code" approach. Instead, we should take "reasonable person"
approach - if it is obvious something bad is going on, then something
bad is going on. If there is a disagreement about it, moderation team
comes in.

> As far as I can see this is more or less based on what's in the US
> law: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/

Maybe. US law, however, is very much a product of both US history and
current US political constellation, and taking this as the sacred text
looks both imprudent and somewhat narrow-minded. US law also exists in a
vast ecosystem of case law, legal practices, governmental regulations,
etc. which complement it - none of which we have or need. So we should
not borrow from it needlessly.

> Again, here too, I think it is in fact supposed to be exhaustive,
> with the exception of 'similar *personal* characteristic'. Would

That's a contradiction :) You can not be both "exhaustive" and add an
out clause of "also whatever we like to add in the future", but you have
to. And that's the fundamental problem with the laundry list approach.
That's why I do not like it. Because it grows too large and still is
never complete.

> control access be considered discrimination? Would someone not
> willing to cooperate with a member or supporter of a US/EU designated
> terrorist group (say ISIS) be considered discrimination?

Good question. There's a potential for a lot of rule lawyering and
controversy about such things, and I think the right way to handle it is
not to try and write down every special case.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com