Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91172 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 5655 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2016 16:26:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 Feb 2016 16:26:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=me@mprelu.de; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=me@mprelu.de; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain mprelu.de from 74.201.84.163 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: me@mprelu.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.201.84.163 sender163-mail.zoho.com Received: from [74.201.84.163] ([74.201.84.163:25227] helo=sender163-mail.zoho.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CA/7C-39202-4231AB65 for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:26:13 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.5] (5ec1ae50.skybroadband.com [94.193.174.80]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1455035169274191.4967339757926; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 08:26:09 -0800 (PST) To: internals@lists.php.net References: <56B9F00B.5020305@mprelu.de> <56B9F865.5000005@gmail.com> <56BA01B5.3050303@mprelu.de> <56BA04BA.8020306@gmail.com> <56BA0AEA.9090906@mprelu.de> <56BA1257.2010906@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56BA131E.4000507@mprelu.de> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:26:06 +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: <56BA1257.2010906@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Zoho-Virus-Status: 1 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Contributor Guidelines, and Updates to Code of Conduct progress From: me@mprelu.de (Matt Prelude) Hi, > 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? Yes, have no issue with codifying the process as long as it remains public & transparent. > Regards,