[RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi!

The effort to create and adopt a CoC is minimal and the benefits are
huge. It creates, confirms or ensure that the context of the php.net
remains a safe for anyone to contribute.

It also provides a way for 5 (or, since CoC mechanisms are not specified
at all, even 3 assuming CoC decides by majority) people to accuse any
member of the community of some pretty dark things (without even having
to provide any substantial proof) and immediately ban them from all the
community spaces with no ability to explain or counter. I don't think
this is a good idea, especially when nobody actually thinks we need such
draconian measures for anything at all that actually happened.

Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com

Looks to me like solution in search of a problem. I'm with PHP project
since 90s, and maybe it is my biased view

As someone who originally was hesitant to do something similar with his
conferences. I can speak that the reason for such a proposal is not
"because we have a problem".

It's a pro-active step, which makes it clear to people who are not a
part of our community at the moment, when they happen to approach our
community, and perhaps, are interested/intrigued about joining it. That
yes, it will be a safe environment for them to do so.

Of course it's safe. It's the internet. They can't actually be harmed.

If they feel unsafe they should contact the police. They don't need to "search" anything other than their precious, fragile little hearts.

Please update your definition of safe. Physical harms are indeed
harder in this case but a CoC goes beyond that.

The end-result of this RFC is fascist censorious speech-policing. The rights of the accused are entirely ignored. The process is entirely opaque, on purpose, and not subject to external review. There is no need for it, pro-actvely or otherwise.

I agree it is not perfect and needs work and deeper thought. There are
proven to work well CoC out there, we can get inspiration from them.
That being said, saying that this RFC is a facist censorship is wrong
in so many ways.

My contempt for this terrible, horrible, very bad, no-good RFC is unlimited.

Now please propose.

--
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org

Additionally, given that this CoC has far reaching consequences, I would
suggest opening up voting on it's implementation to a wider segment of the
community eg those currently subscribed to the PHP mailing lists or at
least those who have recently participated on one.

~C

wouldn't that allow sock puppeting and vote brigading?

--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

And that won't happen on this rfc regardless?

It's been mentioned that we may want to adopt a CoC, but it shouldn't
"have teeth". I disagree here, as without an enforcement mechanism it
basically is no different from where we are at today.

I think it's actually very different. Today we have no CoC. Stating a
direction, a vision for the community - can go a very long way. To
illustrate, I suspect most of us are law-abiding citizens not because we're
afraid of being thrown to jail - but rather, because we value the rule of
law and know that abiding the law is the Right Thing to do. If we simply
adopt a CoC without adding teeth to it, we'd certainly not be the first
project to do so.

True, but as Larry said, either side is problematic. Too loose of a
CoC with no enforcement and nothing really was changed from today
considering we already have the post that Rasmus made 6-7 years ago.
Sure, it's something to rally behind, but it doesn't really solve any
problems. The problem is that there's no safe way for people to get
help. The CoC is part of the solution to that, but not the only one.

Perhaps there's a path to compromise here though. A CoC plus a
Response Team without authority for any punitive action would be a
step forward. We don't have to solve every problem right up front, we
can start with:

1. Provide a channel for safe reporting of incidents (and again, I
   speak of the safety of both accuser and accused).
2. Open safe dialogues between parties without airing drama and dirty
   laundry on the list.
3. Track statistics. We have no data on who's leaving quietly due to
   conflict. This can help us gather some of that. (And yes, I'm vague
   on how we can collate those stats, because I don't know yet - It's
   still a draft)

Will the lack of teeth have less of a deterrence effect? Probably,
but to paraphrase some sentiments, this isn't a war-zone. And
punitive powers do exist in the hands of people have earned the right
to have those powers. I for one, am willing to sacrifice the band-aid
of a temp-ban on the altar of compromise.

Having a clear statement of expected conduct is a good thing, be it as
vague as "Be nice" or as specific as "Don't lower yourself to name
calling and all caps shouting." Having a response team who's job it
is to help mediate when things go wrong is a good thing. We can leave
the pistols at home.

There's still 360 days left in the year for followup RFCs if this
doesn't work out, and years left in the project.

-Sara

Hi,

I'll only comment on some specific points, so hence the trimmed email.

I added a section on transparency, Conflict of Interest (though
this needs expanding) and accountability (giving internals@ the
ability to "overturn" any action by the CoC team with a vote of
50%+1). I also made it explicit that accused people have a right to
confidentiality as long as no action is taken by the team.

I am a big fan of transparency, but here in particular I'm not sure
that every mediation attempt should be indeed reported. Maybe if no
further escalation was required, less publicity is better. We need
to be careful here, as many things could be resolved in private more
efficiently if public displays and egos are less involved :) This is
another thing where over-legislation is bad, as there's a lot of
common sense needed and you can't legislate that.

Yeah, perhaps just require transparency when action is required
(reverting commits, edits, etc or temp bans)

I think there is a good argument for something like a quarterly report
though. It does not have to be large, but something along the lines of
"we had to mediate x time in the last 3 months" — and if something
significant happened, that of course should be mentioned too.

Such a summary report indicates towards the community that 1. the CoC is
not just some fancy bit of text on a web server, 2. things (sadly) do
happen, and hence nobody can make the argument any more of "the PHP is
safe, we don't need a CoC, because nothing ever happens".

Sadly, things happen—just like Antony illustrated. And I can
say the same from personal experience.

cheers,
Derick

http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine

Hi,

This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public
spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.

I think this is way too broad. "individual is representing the project
or its community" can be construed to mean basically anything - if a
person is known in the community, any of their actions, even without
relation to the community functions, can always be construed as
"representing", especially by people with an ax to grind. We'd get
people complaining "how could prominent member of this project vote for
that vile politician X" and "how could prominent member of this
community support that awful law Y" and we definitely not want to go there.

It is broad for a reason. If harassment that's obviously connected
with the project (it would need to be obviously connected) happens
off-list, that's still problematic. I think limiting the scope to just
the project territories is dangerous as it provides too easy of a way
for members to cause problems with no resolution possible.

Define "harassment."

Define "connected."

Define "obvious."

The broadness makes it possible to punish project member for any opinion they hold that is not what an accuser holds. If a prominent project member tweets from their personal account that there is no category for "hate speech" under US law, and thus it does not exist as a legal concept in the US, it is entirely possible for an accuser to say that they feel unsafe communicating inside the project with someone who believes "hate speech" is "protected speech". (Insert any unpopular political opinion here: pro-gun, pro-life, anti-3rd-wave-feminist, anti-immigration, whatever.)

The broadness of the language makes that project member liable within the project context for their political opinion outside the project context. It is, to reiterate my earlier point, fascist in its scope: it binds person, politics, and project, in such a way as to police the political speech of that person in all arenas, under cover of "abiding by the code of conduct."

Well, what's the alternative? To let them continue to cause trouble? I
would never vote for a ban (temporary or permanent) unless there was a
strong pattern of significant abuse, and I think many here would agree
to that.

Define "significant."

Define "abuse." (I myself have been labeled "abusive" on Twitter for the presentation of my dissenting opinions here; I can see "loud", or rude, or stubborn, or passionate, but "abusive"? No.)

I wanted to avoid citing personal examples for personal reasons. But
since you refuse to read between the lines, here it goes:

I have received no less than 4 direct threats of violence that were
directly due to my involvement with the Scalar Type Declarations RFC.

Did you report them to the police? If not, why not?

I believe that both Zeev and myself crossed significant lines during
that discussion as well, to which there should have been some level of
recourse or moderator that could have stepped in to cool us down and
help.

A code-of-conduct won't help much there, although the conflict-resolution stuff might, so long as it does not reach beyond the scope of the project.

Since posting this RFC, there have been people openly speculating
about my gender, sexual orientation and other personal matters. In
contexts that are purely obvious that it is connected to this RFC, and
hence the project.

I've been called a Nazi for having views at odds with popular opinion; threatened with being stabbed in my sleep (not credible), and with castration (credible, and reported to the police). Is there something in the COC about not threatening to cut off someone's balls?

And that's just me. I know for a fact that several other people have
had incidents. I know that several people avoid internals and the
project because of fear of incidents. I won't speak for them, that's
their prerogative.

If their fear of words on a screen overrides their desire to contribute, what does that say?

But please stop pretending nothing's ever happened. My experience
alone should be enough to justify.

For myself, I'm not "pretending nothing's ever happened." I get hammered daily for my opinions. I just don't let mere words get in my way. When the words are credible threats I report them to the police. Thankfully that has been rare.

I reiterate: the Code-of-Conduct as presented, and specifically the Contributor Covenant, is political protection for certain political views, overly broad in its scope, totalitarian speech-policing in practice, and to be dismissed out of hand with derision and malice.

A conflict-resolution document limited to the project scope alone is much more preferable.

--
Paul M. Jones
pmjones88@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php

Hi,

Le 06/01/2016 16:21, Anthony Ferrara a écrit :

I have received no less than 4 direct threats of violence that were
directly due to my involvement
with the Scalar Type Declarations RFC.

I'm surprised it went to that point but I'm glad you're talking about
the STH saga, because this is a good example, still fresh in memories.

So, let's analyze what happened when I was accused of 'sabotage' and
'strong-arming' because I had sent a supposedly offending mail to Sara.
In my reply, I published the mail in question so that everyone could
judge by itself whether it was offending or not. I'm glad we didn't have
a PHP official SJW team because it would have probably denied me the
right to publish the message, for confidentiality reasons. So, instead
of putting the case in the public space where everyone could see that
the accusation was highly exagerated, I would have been judged by 5
people who could have banned me on subjective matters (let's not
underestimate cultural differences here).

So, I'm all for a mediation team, but no sanction, even temporary,
without a public vote.

Regards

François

Hi!

It is broad for a reason. If harassment that's obviously connected
with the project (it would need to be obviously connected) happens
off-list, that's still problematic. I think limiting the scope to just
the project territories is dangerous as it provides too easy of a way
for members to cause problems with no resolution possible.

I think approaching it with the idea that it can resolve any
disagreement is very dangerous, as it implies scope creep and trying to
police other's speech and actions in venues having little or nothing to
do with the project. I understand it is not your intent now, but
once it's in place, you have no control over it, and it would develop by
its own laws. And documented experience shows that there are a number of
people willing to abuse CoCs (including in projects that they have
little or no prior involvement with) to play politics, bully, troll or
raise their own profile, and inviting this conduct by having undefined
expandable scope is asking for trouble. There are documented cases for
that.
Yes, there will be real bad incidents which this CoC will not be able to
handle. It is completely fine (not the incidents, but this property of
CoC). You can not control the whole world with one CoC. Let's limit
ourselves to building better community, not to try and control everybody
everywhere.

Unless we lift that ban just for the appeal. Meaning that the banned
individual requests an appeal, so they are unbanned for that single
thread until it is resolved...

Requests from whom? What about pre-appeal process? I think if we talking
about actions like long-term bans, process should be automatic, not
something that is optional and should be requested by undefined means.

The other side is far more serious though. Many MANY people avoid
coming forward about incidents because they are afraid they will be
labeled. Simply look at EVERY woman who has come forward to talk

I know, but if we want to take community-wide action, I see no other way
but letting the community know what happened. Due to the nature of the
incident, it may be possible to conceal people involved, or may not be
possible (i.e. if you know X and Y were feuding and then X is
sanctioned, it's pretty clear what is the cause) - but if you want
community consensus, I do not see how you plan to get one without
telling the whole story as much as possible. Telling one side is not
good and would be wildly misleading - I have seen enough cases where one
side tells one story, other says another, and the impartial evidence
(logs, emails, etc.) tells the third. Not having the full story is a
guarantee for unjust actions.

other side is innocent. No matter the strength of the evidence. Simply
because no matter how strong and clear the evidence is, some people
simply won't believe it.

That's fine, we do not need everybody to believe it. That's why we
have votes, etc. But if only 5 people ever know what it is about, I do
not see how they can be given power to decide for the whole community.

Well, what's the alternative? To let them continue to cause trouble? I

If they continue, there can be emergency measures. But then it would be
pretty clear-cut. If there is any reasonable doubt, there should be no
bans, at least not without consulting the community.

would never vote for a ban (temporary or permanent) unless there was a
strong pattern of significant abuse, and I think many here would agree

I believe you. But you are not the only person voting - in fact, I'm not
even sure if you'll be the person voting at all (are you going to be
member of the committee?).

As in the appeals process, perhaps we can figure out wording to lift
the ban on the mailing list during the RFC process, under the explicit
understanding that the accused offender not post to other threads
until the RFC process is done. Would that at least partially resolve
that concern?

I would rather replace ban with moderation (assuming we can have one
person moderated in our list software), with moderators be a wide set of
established contributors. While we can disagree on the details, I assume
most of us can distinguish egregious abuse from something else.

So I think the argument that "we're too big for that" is a bit of a stretch...

That's not the argument. The argument is "we're too different and it's
too important to just take preformulated one". Especially when it has
issues with both wording (too punitive and negative) and scope
(described above). We have seen much better examples, from Drupal to
Python to Django.

I have received no less than 4 direct threats of violence that were
directly due to my involvement with the Scalar Type Declarations RFC.

That's bad and obviously unacceptable. Were those list members? Do you
think a threat of being banned from the list would prevent them from
doing it?

I believe that both Zeev and myself crossed significant lines during
that discussion as well, to which there should have been some level of
recourse or moderator that could have stepped in to cool us down and
help.

Was it harassment? Do you think you and Zeev should have been banned
from the list for your conduct?

Since posting this RFC, there have been people openly speculating
about my gender, sexual orientation and other personal matters. In
contexts that are purely obvious that it is connected to this RFC, and
hence the project.

Are you implying that mentioning one's gender is harassment? That would
be very worrying in its broad scope. I hope we do not intend to police
the internet for any discussion that may involve anyone from the
community and try to intervene? Because I certainly don't remember
anyone's gender being discussed on any community resource.

Otherwise, there's a lot of crap going over the internet, and I don't
see how our CoC is going to change that.

And that's just me. I know for a fact that several other people have
had incidents. I know that several people avoid internals and the
project because of fear of incidents. I won't speak for them, that's
their prerogative.

What kind of "incidents"? I know there are heated discussions sometimes,
and it can be too much for people (I myself had to take time off from
the list several time because it is too exhausting and nerve-wrecking)
but I don't see how CoC would change any of that - heated argument is
certainly not harassment, and having CoC team intervene in the course of
even a heated discussion would only be hurtful, in my opinion, by
further poisoning the atmosphere with power plays.

But please stop pretending nothing's ever happened. My experience
alone should be enough to justify.

I never said "nothing's ever happened". The claim was specifically about
people scared away from contributing to PHP because there's no CoC, not
about anything happening ever. To substantiate that, we need example of:

1. Harassment that is against CoC and warrants counteraction
2. One that CoC would have actually stopped (if somebody is being
   harassed on Twitter, our CoC can't do anything about it)
3. One that would scare a person away

Luckily, your experience seems to not be of such kind - in fact, except
for the threats of violence, it seems other examples do not fall under
either of three.

Because the argument stands on its own. We shouldn't have to talk

If it stands on its own, the let it do that and drop the "crowds of
imaginary scared contributors" argument. There's a lot of things here
that could (and I am sure does) scare people away, but not having formal
CoC is nowhere near the top.

arguments stand on their own. And the vast majority of people agree
that even if nobody was hurt, it's worth having (the smoke detector
argument).

Smoke detector is fine. Smoke enforcer that beats you up when you are
having a barbecue on a backyard or enjoying a cigar on the beach is not.
I'm fine with having a smoke detector. Even fine with smoke cleaner.
It's smoke enforcer with indefinitely broad scope that I have problem with.

Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com

Stas,

I wanted to avoid citing personal examples for personal reasons. But
since you refuse to read between the lines, here it goes:

I have received no less than 4 direct threats of violence that were
directly due to my involvement with the Scalar Type Declarations RFC.

I believe that both Zeev and myself crossed significant lines during
that discussion as well, to which there should have been some level of
recourse or moderator that could have stepped in to cool us down and
help.

But do you think a CoC could or should have intervened here? Simply because two grown-up human beings couldn't agree on something and found it difficult to take a step back when the argument became to heated?

More to the point, where is that line crossed? Are you confident that Zeev and you both think that lines were crossed, and would you mark those lines at the same moments during the debate?

I think it's perhaps too general to be of great use to us here but The
Code Manifesto is a good example of the positive approach.
https://github.com/kayladnls/code-manifesto/blob/master/README.md

Agreed that it's too general, and while nicey-nice, it has key political
phrases that make it as unsuitable as the Contributor Covenant. E.g.: "a
space that is safe for all"; "arbitrary exclusion of a group of people"
(including by ability too contribute?); and regarding comfort levels "if
brought to your attention, heed it", etc. etc.

That language isn't to my taste either. I don't propose The Code Manifesto
as a basis for a PHP document. I just wanted to show that you can flip
this around and try to effect positive change using the resources
available.

Gotcha ...

I don't think PHP needs this CoC.

... and agreed.

--
Paul M. Jones
pmjones88@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php

Hi Andrea,

I do wonder if we're really going anywhere here.

I don't think we are. We're arguing protocol, process, and punishment
before agreeing on rights and responsibilities.

Design before requirements is engineering analogy that occurred to me.

Tom

Hi Anthony,

Presented for your consideration... PHP Contributor Etiquette
http://cerebriform.blogspot.com/2016/01/php-contributor-etiquette.html:

PHP Contributor Etiquette

PHP exists because programmers, admins, and writers from all over the world
volunteer their time and talent. Through mostly digital media, these
volunteers collaborate to improve PHP. It's a social system revolving
around intensely technical details. Like any social setting, there is a
need to define the code of ethical behavior and conventions of
communication. Our etiquette aims to foster an environment where all voices
are welcomed and heard:
(I) You are a contributor to, and representative of, PHP if you:

• Join any of the PHP communication channels (mailing lists, IRC
  channels, Twitter feeds, or Facebook group) and start or reply to a
  conversation.
• Post comments on php.net or bug/feature requests on bugs.php.net.
• Submit comments, issues, or patches to PHP or its extensions through
  Github.
• Attend any conference authorized to use the PHP logo.

(II) As a contributor to PHP, you have the right to:

• Participate in conversations without fear of harassment
• Present your thoughts and ideas
• Submit changes to PHP, its extensions, and documentation
• Walk away (both in person and digitally)
• Become a community moderator through the vote of other collaborators

(III) As a representative of PHP, you are responsible for:

• Your contributions:
  • Adhere to submission guidelines
  • Timely respond to inquiries about your submissions
• Your words:
  • Be understanding: everyone's perspective is different
  • Be polite
    http://www.londonschool.com/language-talk/language-tips/5-tips-for-polite-and-diplomatic-language/
  • Be concise
    https://oilpatchwriting.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/the-five-cs-of-writing-%E2%80%93-part-3-conciseness/
  • Discuss the position, not the person
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
• Your behavior:
  • Actively listen
    http://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/active-listening.html to those who
    are speaking
  • Affirm what you hear
  • Remain calm (strive for equanimity
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equanimity)
  • Keep your voice down (NO CAPS)
  • Stay out of other's personal space
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxemics#Personal_space
  • Heed the advice of community moderators

Community moderators are stewards of the community's interest in
collaboration. They proactively encourage collaborators to adhere to our
etiquette. They provide advice and guidance to individuals and mediate
dispute between collaborators. They listen without judging. They keep
specific details in confidence.

To reach a moderator, email moderators@php.net.

To become a moderator, email moderators@php.net. In your own words,
describe why you want to moderate (this your purpose statement). Include a
bio. Existing community moderators will help you shape and polish your
purpose statement and bio, then present your application for an anonymous
vote. With a 4/5 confidence, you will become a community moderator. You may
request a copy of the tally, with specific email addresses scrubbed.

Cheers,

bishop

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmaxell@gmail.com
wrote:

Zeev,

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmaxell@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 8:15 PM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

All,

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmaxell@gmail.com
wrote:

There has been some discussion asking for a split of the RFC into two.
I do not believe that this is a good idea, because the CoC is useless
without
some sort of resolution strategy (without anything). And if we do need
to
do something (which I firmly believe), then why not do it right the
first
time. I
am more than willing to evolve this proposal significantly (it's no
where
near a
final form). This discussion should help it evolve.

First, I firmly believe that having a CoC - without anything extra - is
anything but useless. Values go a long way. Telling people what you
expect
of them isn't only the first step towards obtaining that behavior - it's
by
far the most important step. I suspect anybody who has kids (or that
has a
reasonably fresh memory of being a kid himself) should be able to vouch
for
that, and again, I'm bringing up the thesis that the vast majority of us
here follow the law not because we're afraid of what would happen if we
don't - but because it's the right thing to do.

We already have that: https://lwn.net/Articles/452278/

The point is many people believe that does not constitute a code of
conduct. It is a worth while thing to have, but it doesn't make the
assurances to others that the project takes bad behavior, harassment
and discrimination seriously.

That is not why it's not a Code of Conduct. A Code of Conduct does not
inherently have to include assurances for what happens if you don't follow
it. That's almost by definition outside the scope of the Code itself. One
of the most famous codes in civilization, the ten commandments, has no
penalties in it (although it's perhaps the author went out of writing space
:)

The reason Rasmus' email is not a Code of Conduct - or at least not a
sufficient one - is that it covers just one issue out of many that can
occur. Which is precisely why adopting a wider CoC makes sense.

And I agree with you about not doing something because it isn't right.
However, I'm not attempting to codify what's "right" here. Instead,
it's about communicating to others that we take these things seriously
and hence hold each other to a standard.

Having a CoC which is wider in scope and ratified by a voted RFC rather
than an email on some mailing list sends a strong message. Having it in
our contributor guidelines would also go a long way.

I guess here we fundamentally disagree - it seems that sending the message
that 'we take this seriously' - by placing strong emphasis on reporting and
penalties - is more important to some than agreeing about the values
themselves. For me, the values themselves and communicating them properly
and prominently are infinitely more important than the policing mechanism,
as I believe that stating them clearly would go a very long way and is
anything but useless.

And if we don't have any means at all of holding ourselves to said
standard, what use is the standard?

I, for one, believe that setting expectations is one of the most important
things in life and minimizes friction tremendously. Just by setting
expectations, nothing else, humans can work and interact much better with
each other. Agreeing on a standard sets expectations, and while it may
seem magical - it can absolutely improve the situation, simply because
people would know what's expected of them, and what's unacceptable.

Secondly, I'm not against having a mediation team - ad-hoc or otherwise -
but giving it powers, and codifying what should be an extreme case - is a
very slippery slope.

Secondly, if we do want to add an extra layer, having a resolution
strategy
does not have to include penalties - neither proposed ones nor the
jurisdiction to impose ones. If the RFC stopped at structuring how
people
can bring up issues and have them discussed and mediated, I doubt the RFC
would be nearly as controversial as it is right now.

I think that the resolution strategy needs to have some sort of
penalty, up to and including removal from the project. Otherwise
what's the point of the resolution strategy? The worst thing we can do
is put up a resolution path that people just say "so? why should I
care?".

Again, I think I see things differently. To me, that's like saying "What
use is it telling my daughters they should always be polite and respectful
to others, if I'm not threatening that they'll get punished otherwise?".
At least the types of mediation I know - mediation is not at all like a
pseudo court. It's about mediation, and hence, has no power to force
either side to do anything. I would argue that if it did - the chances for
successful mediation go down tremendously for psychological reasons - both
of the mediators and the subjects.

Of course, our challenge is that unlike mediation, where you have the
option of going to court if mediation fails - we don't have a very good
conflict resolution mechanism, short of a public vote. But should an
extreme case of an extreme case (gross violation followed by complete
failure of mediation) dictate our mechanism? I don't think so. Here, the
fact that even if PHP isn't free of harassment - it's certainly not an
epidemic - should dictate which direction is more sensible. If it was an
epidemic - I might have thought differently.

The problems begin as soon as we try to create some sort of a
mini-judicial-body, that has substantial powers, governs based on
loosely
written rules, has zero tools and experience in getting to the bottom of
things or determining the truth between two or more quarrelling parties.
Thinking we can do that when we failed agreeing on infinitely simpler
things
is remarkably optimistic.

I'm not saying the current team I have proposed is good. I'm not
saying we need to be firm with it

That's usually the problem. I very much respect the fact that you're very
open to feedback and have modified your original RFC substantially and
realize how difficult it is. But the problem is that what you're trying to
solve is simply too complex. Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but
we're not legislators nor lawyers, and no matter how much we work on that -
whatever structure we come up with to enforce conflict resolution is going
to be riddled with holes and fail or be abused in unpredictable ways sooner
or later.

However, I think time and time again it's been proven that the court

of public opinion is a poor judge of these types of situations. The
recent edits that I have been making to the RFC reflect the reduction
in power of the team significantly. What I do want to keep is a safe
and private place for these resolutions to occur in.

And like I said, I think the newer drafts are way better than the original
one. But I still think that attempting to codify the response - beyond
having a mediation team - whose job is exclusively to mediate - would bring
a lot more bad than good

In extremely significant cases decisions will need to be public, but
with a private team like this at least the information gathering step
can be done in a non-biased manner with a team.

That will also happen with a mediation team. If mediation fails - and
again, I see no reason to believe this is going to be anything but an
extremely extreme case - we don't have good options beyond the court of
public opinion, as much as I agree with you it can sometimes be a poor
judge (heck, it voted in favor of STH... JOKE!)

I disagree we NEED to do something. PHP is not in a situation where
it's in
an absolute need of a CoC, and the fact it's thriving without one and
that
nobody appears to be coming up with examples as to why we must have one
beyond future-proofing attests to that. Yes, it's not perfect - but as
Stas
said, that RFC isn't a magic wand that would make it perfect. That
said, I
think adopting a CoC is a good idea, much like I teach my daughters
what's
right and what's wrong without telling them what would happen if they
don't
follow my guidance. Whenever I have to resort to penalties (which I'm
happy
to say rarely happens) - I've failed, and I virtually always regret it.

I don't believe we literally need to do something in the sense that
the project will die if we don't. With that said, I do believe that
adopting the right one will do a lot of good for the project and
community. So it's not a life or death need, I would say it's
something we should definitely try to do.

Another way to look at it is that if we adopt a CoC that stops at
mediation, we can use it for a couple of years and see how it goes. We
wouldn't be standing out as the first or second or 1000th project to go
down that route. It's very common. If it fails, we can always vote to
beef it up. This doesn't work in the opposite direction - once we
establish a body with bylaws and structure and code, it'll be almost
impossible to undo it - unless it fails spectacularly and with very clear
evidence - while it's more likely to fail silently with little evidence.

I'm still interested in hearing more about the four explicit threats of
violence you mentioned.

As I said before, I do not wish to discuss my personal matters in
public. I only said that because there was implication on list that
nothing has ever happened before, and I was showing that just my
experience should act as a counterpoint to that.

I missed that, and I fully respect your right to privacy. The reason I
wanted you to share this is that one of the key issues for opponents of the
'toothful' RFC is that the same dry facts can be perceived by one side as X
and the other as Y. What one calls harassment - another may call
argument. What one may call bullying - another may call discussion.
Threats of violence too can range from mild ("you should be banned from the
project") to the extreme ("I know where you live and I'm going to kill
you").

Thanks,

Zeev