Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91162 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 88099 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2016 15:32:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 Feb 2016 15:32:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.204 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.147.176.204 mail4.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [217.147.176.204] ([217.147.176.204:39014] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id AA/B8-39202-F660AB65 for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:31:59 -0500 Received: (qmail 3035 invoked by uid 89); 9 Feb 2016 15:31:56 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 3028, pid: 3032, t: 0.0742s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52/d:10677 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.7?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@81.155.186.161) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 9 Feb 2016 15:31:56 -0000 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <56B9F00B.5020305@mprelu.de> <56B9F865.5000005@gmail.com> <56B9FDE1.7070109@lsces.co.uk> <56B9FF5F.3060103@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56BA066B.4040807@lsces.co.uk> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:31:55 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56B9FF5F.3060103@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Contributor Guidelines, and Updates to Code of Conduct progress From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 09/02/16 15:01, Rowan Collins wrote: > Lester Caine wrote on 09/02/2016 14:55: >> On 09/02/16 14:32, Rowan Collins wrote: >>> nobody would agree to an "out of court settlement" if there was no court >>> case to be avoided. >> That one is probably a bad example. How many cases are settled simply to >> avoid exorbitant legal costs? Being right has nothing to do with the >> results, or 'no admission of guilt' when it could help everybody if the >> facts were established. > > My e-mail originally began with a disclaimer that I wasn't 100% sure of > the validity of the idea, but I edited it out for brevity. > > Each of the examples I gave could be challenged in their practical > details, but my point was merely that they at least have some logical > basis, and are not inherently self-contradictory. In the context of policing CoC 'infringements' then a threat of some action should be enough to defuse the situation. There is no need to 'settle out of court', but my point was more one of the feeling these days that "out of court settlement" is little to do with what is right and more to do with what costs less without actually solving the problem. The aim of any 'stick' should be to get at the truth rather than pressure one party to settle for the others opinion ... with the right amount of lubrication :( In an open source environment there is very little lubrication available ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk