Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91146
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain mprelu.de from 74.201.84.163 cause and error)
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1602091208150.7348@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
Message-ID: <56B9F00B.5020305@mprelu.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:56:27 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1602091208150.7348@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Contributor Guidelines, and Updates to Code of
 Conduct progress
From: me@mprelu.de (Matt Prelude)

Hi,

On 09/02/16 12:33, Derick Rethans wrote:
> [snip]
>
>    - Texts should be void from ambiguity.
I couldn't agree more. Ambiguity has a chilling effect on speech, and will
damage the quality of discourse on internals.

Having said that, I think that the CoC being proposed is too wordy, and 
still
quite ambiguous, some examples of statements I think are problematic:

1. "Make sure you know what you are talking about." - ambiguous and hostile
    wording, which really isn't going to change anything.
2. "It is better to be descriptive than to be concise" is in clear conflict
    with "Write ... as little as you can get away with" and both address the
    same point.
3. "never attack a person's opinion" - challenging opinions is very 
important
    in technical discussion.

I will submit a pull request later with some suggested amendments to improve
clarity and remove duplicates.
>    - Although their CWG dealt with plenty of cases, no punitive action
>      has occured as parties would often step back themselves. In most
>      cases, a gently reminder was all that was necessary.
>
>    - A Code of Conduct without *any* 'teeth' would not be beneficial.
These statements appear to be in direct conflict with each other.

If the Drupal CWG have not needed to impose punishments as a result of 
their
CoC, and in the history of Internals you could count the bans on one hand,
then I really don't see why we need to go to the lengths of establishing
committees and punishment procedures.

I feel that the CoC has a much greater chance of achieving consensus if 
we don't
try to impose a 'court of law' alongside it, especially considering that 
most
proposals for a 'court' have been secretive and focused on privacy 
rather than
on transparency (the opposite of all well-functioning legal systems).
>    - We should be reluctant to limit the scope of the Code of Conduct and
>      Contributor Guidelines.
This is an ambiguous statement, do you mean scope of enforcement (i.e. 
spaces
outside of PHP technical spaces) or something else? Would you mind 
clarifying and
also providing a brief summary of what lead to this conclusion?

Again, I think that the CoC has a much greater chance of achieving 
consensus if we
aren't trying to use it to police behavior outside of our spaces.
> I feel that the "Contributor Guidelines" are now in a reasonable shape
> to do a quick poll to gauge acceptability. As this is not a formal RFC
> vote, it's simply done through an online poll:
> http://twtpoll.com/y6hs4ndsfiki485
I've submitted a vote, not sure if I should as I don't have karma to 
vote on RFCs.

I think this is a lot better (and more technically-focused) than the 
Contributer
Covenant, so it's a step in the right direction, but I still think it 
needs some
refining to be 'production-ready'.

- Matt Prelude.