Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91171
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.41 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> <56BA04BA.8020306@gmail.com>
 <56BA0AEA.9090906@mprelu.de>
Message-ID: <56BA1257.2010906@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:22:47 +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: <56BA0AEA.9090906@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 15:51:

> On 09/02/16 15:24, Rowan Collins wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Here, we agree.
>
> Nowhere in the documents ...

We're talking cross-purposes here. By "current process", I don't mean 
the current draft document, I mean your claim that "we already have the 
'teeth' to enforce the CoC in borderline cases" - i.e. that there is 
already some process, which the proposed document would replace.


> With respect, I don't think that disagreeing that there is any need for a
> new enforcement process is 'agreeing with' the new RFC. 

This thread is not about agreeing with the full Code of Conduct, only 
the top-level guidelines here: 
https://wiki.php.net/adopt-code-of-conduct/guidelines

While not quite a straw man, the details you are looking into here are 
not the current focus of attention.

So, rather than putting words in your mouth, I will ask the question 
directly: you say above that you do not agree that there is a need for a 
*new* enforcement process, but do you agree that there is a need for the 
*old* enforcement process to be recognised as such?

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]