Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91177
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender)
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> <56BA251C.7060606@gmail.com>
 <56BA286B.1090900@mprelu.de>
To: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <56BA2AD2.1080305@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:07:14 +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: <56BA286B.1090900@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 17:56:
> Rowan
>
> On 09/02/16 17:42, Rowan Collins wrote:
>> Without going into point by point discussion, I think you're 
>> conflating several things here:
>>
>> 1) the right of the accused to know *what* they are accused of, which 
>> I agree is fundamental
>> 2) the right of the accused to know *who* is doing the accusing, 
>> which may be implied by (1), but may also be in conflict with other 
>> rights the accuser holds, and have to be balanced against them
>> 3) the right of the public to scrutinise the entire process, 
>> including all submissions by both parties
>>
>> In particular, private mediation between two parties - granting (1) 
>> and (2), but withholding (3) - is sometimes the most constructive 
>> approach, at least until that mediation breaks down.
>
> I'm inclined to agree with you in cases where mediation works, there's 
> no need for
> the public to scritinise this, although most useful forms of private 
> mediation
> would require the accuser and accused both to be 'present' at some 
> kind of 'sit
> down' (via email) to attempt to diffuse the situation.

Agreed.


> My concern is more about the rare case where all attempts fail and a 
> punishment is
> on the horizon.

Indeed. A good process should include multiple stages of resolution; 
this also helps lessen the fear of "policing" somewhat, if it is easier 
to demonstrate that authority is to be used as a last resort, not a 
routine instrument of control.

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]