Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91150
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender)
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1602091208150.7348@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <56B9F00B.5020305@mprelu.de>
Message-ID: <56B9F865.5000005@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 14:32:05 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56B9F00B.5020305@mprelu.de>
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: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

Matt Prelude wrote on 09/02/2016 13:56:
> 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. 

Having procedures for violation and not using them could still have 
value. The most famous example of this is surely nuclear weapons, which 
are frequently cited as a deterrent, not intended for actual use.

A less violent example in the UK would be the phrase which came up when 
arranging a coalition government, "avoid embarrassing the Queen" - the 
Queen has the constitutional right to appoint a Prime Minister, but 
forcing her to do so would be a major failing of the normal processes. 
Her constitutional value lies, paradoxically, in her not exercising any 
of her constitutional powers, because it forces people to negotiate a 
solution which doesn't require them.

In the context of a CoC, having some escalation procedures for if people 
refuse to compromise sharpens the minds of those involved - they can't 
just half-heartedly reply to a complaint and carry on as they were, but 
have to at least engage with the issue raised. Thinking about it, the 
same happens in many civil court cases - nobody would agree to an "out 
of court settlement" if there was no court case to be avoided.

So insisting on having "teeth", but assuring people that they will 
probably never be used, is a justifiable position, not a contradiction.

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]