Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91160
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender)
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1602091208150.7348@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <56B9F00B.5020305@mprelu.de> <56B9F865.5000005@gmail.com>
 <56BA01B5.3050303@mprelu.de>
Message-ID: <56BA04BA.8020306@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:24:42 +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: <56BA01B5.3050303@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 15:11:
> Taking your nuclear weapons analogy a little further, we are now (as a
> world) very concerned about making sure that the wrong people do not get
> access to nuclear weapons. Whilst we cannot go back and un-invent the
> nuclear weapon, we can avoid creating a punitive process which we have
> to 'play politics' around to try to keep it under control.

As I said in my reply to Lester, my post was not intended to say "see, 
it works really well for nuclear arms races, it must be a good thing", 
but to reply specifically to a point you had made, namely that two 
statements were "in direct conflict with each other". Whether or not it 
is a Good Thing, having a process which is defined but never applied is 
not a contradiction.


> I don't object to the idea that people who are clearly being
> unconstructive can be blocked from the project. What I object to is
> the proposal to make this an opaque 'secret court' where a few 'judges'
> have the ability to make secret decisions based on secret reports and
> secret evidence.

Here, you are moving from principles to details. The principle Derick 
has said so far is that there should be some process defined. That is all.


> I'd suggest that we stick with the teeth we already have, rather than
> creating a new set based on an issue which has occurred a couple of times
> in a decade, and always been adequately resolved. 

That's fine, and can be looked at when we get onto the details. The 
final draft could simply state in words the status quo, so that everyone 
is aware that that is where the authority lies.

That said, I am not convinced either
a) that the current process has any guarantee of transparency - who 
exactly has the right to block people from the list, or revoke other 
karma? what transparent process are they obliged to follow when doing so?
or b) that the current draft entail a "secret court" - the wording you 
filed a PR to remove talks only about anonymity of witnesses (which, 
admittedly, includes "accusers"), and makes no mention of "secret 
decisions based on secret reports and secret evidence"

Again, this is jumping ahead to the details of the implementation, which 
Derrick has said will be discussed at a later date.

The principle at discussion right now, is that on the face of it, there 
should be some definition of enforcement mechanism. If you consider the 
status quo to include such an enforcement mechanism, and do not wish to 
remove it, then you agree with that general principle.

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]