# [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct - Thread: https://externals.io/message/90896 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/90896 - Started by Sharon Levy on 2016-01-24T23:36:26+00:00 - Messages: 7 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #90896 — Sharon Levy — 2016-01-24T23:36:26+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/90896#90896 Or, is the purpose of the CoC really a device to control perceptions, i.e. protect the image of the PHP project and its citizens? > > […] What I fear is that if the citizenry of Userland and PHPland do not feel at liberty to publicly and freely express their criticism of the PHP project, then important feedback will not be forthcoming, feedback that could aid in advancing PHP. Also, if taking personal responsibility for one's communication style seems like an unworthy value to subscribe to, then it seems that a BDFL might be in order. My own unsolicited 0.02 is that their should be a brief lexicon of expressions that are deemed inappropriate for discussion along with *suggested* substitutions. Those who feel only comfortable with rigid rules underestimate the power that freedom affords to the creative process. So, is this CoC really about attracting new thoughts or is it about making the status quo an even more comfortable place for those who count as part of the meritocracy? ^Z --- ## #90897 — Allan MacGregor — 2016-01-25T01:00:50+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/90896#90897 · In reply to: #90896 Everyone, I been following the discussion over the weekend, albeit I been hesitant to post again I decided to write a blog post with everything in my mind regarding the subject. Feel free to read it at http://coderoncode.com/community/2016/01/24/on-codes-on-conduct.html Now, back to the issue at hand I think the current discussion is starting to derail from a meaningful conversation and productive output. It's clear that our opinions vary drastically when it comes down to the currently proposed CoC; from what scope should it cover, to what restrictions, to what if any kind of punitive actions should be taken. I believe that is time to take a step back, and start with a smaller goal; let's establish the PHP Community values first, set those up as a detached document from the CoC. What does the PHP Community stand for: - Openness - Communication - Stuffed Elephants Let's start small and move from there, once that's in place we can have a more productive conversation about a code of conduct that actually matches this community values. Now, if we are still adamant on coming up with a CoC first I would like to put forward the following 3 documents as alternatives for the Contributor Covenant: [A contribution policy for open source that works](https://medium.com/@jmaynard/a-contribution-policy-for-open-source-that-works-bfc4600c9d83#.d53666v7u) [The Code of Merit](https://github.com/rosarior/Code-of-Merit/blob/master/CODE_OF_MERIT.md) [The Pragmatists Code of Conduct](https://github.com/amacgregor/Pragmatists-Code-of-Conduct/blob/master/Prag-Code-of-Conduct.md) Cheers! Sharon Levy wrote: > Or, is the purpose of the CoC really a device to control perceptions, > i.e. protect the image of the PHP project and its citizens? > > > […] > > > > What I fear is that if the citizenry of Userland and PHPland do not feel > at liberty to publicly and freely express their criticism of the PHP > project, then important feedback will not be forthcoming, feedback that > could aid in advancing PHP. > > > > Also, if taking personal responsibility for one's communication style > seems like an unworthy value to subscribe to, then it seems that a BDFL > might be in order. > > > > My own unsolicited 0.02 is that their should be a brief lexicon of > expressions that are deemed inappropriate for discussion along with > *suggested* substitutions. > > > > Those who feel only comfortable with rigid rules underestimate the power > that freedom affords to the creative process. > > > > So, is this CoC really about attracting new thoughts or is it about > making the status quo an even more comfortable place for those who count > as part of the meritocracy? > > > > ^Z > > > > > > -- Allan MacGregor coderoncode.com Now, if we are still adamant on coming up with a CoC first I would like > to put forward the following 3 documents as alternatives for the > Contributor Covenant: > > > [A contribution policy for open source that > works](https://medium.com/@jmaynard/a-contribution-policy-for-open-source-that-works-bfc4600c9d83#.d53666v7u) This one deals with code contributions, but our discussion is wider. In fact, we never, as far as I could remember, had code contribution which was per se controversial. We did have ones that were controversial in that we disagreed on whether or not that code is doing what we actually want to do, but the code usually is not a problem. > > [The Code of > Merit](https://github.com/rosarior/Code-of-Merit/blob/master/CODE_OF_MERIT.md) I don't particularly like this approach, it sounds too defensive. > [The Pragmatists Code of > Conduct](https://github.com/amacgregor/Pragmatists-Code-of-Conduct/blob/master/Prag-Code-of-Conduct.md) This one basically can be TLDRed as "behave as an adult". Which is nice if we were to agree what it means, but that is in no way automatic, thus I am afraid it is not enough :) Assuming good faith is a nice touch though, I like it. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com --- ## #90903 — pajousek@gmail.com — 2016-01-25T07:56:00+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/90896#90903 · In reply to: #90900 > Hi! > > > […] > > This one deals with code contributions, but our discussion is wider. In > fact, we never, as far as I could remember, had code contribution which > was per se controversial. We did have ones that were controversial in > that we disagreed on whether or not that code is doing what we actually > want to do, but the code usually is not a problem. > > > […] > > I don't particularly like this approach, it sounds too defensive. > I already submitted it here once, so I'm skipping it - but I do personally like how it says the project is about code. > > […] > > > This one basically can be TLDRed as "behave as an adult". Which is nice > if we were to agree what it means, but that is in no way automatic, thus > I am afraid it is not enough :) Assuming good faith is a nice touch > though, I like it. Actually, IMHO it is totally enough. The best CoC would be just a CoC with one point: 1. Be polite and behave like an adult. This is still the second best approach though, the _best_ one is no CoC at all. People need to realize one thing - not having a CoC doesn't make you not welcoming or whatever; not listing all the SJW buzzwords in the rules doesn't make something it unsafe place. Basically, I don't think projects should act like a support group, but it seems it is the direction the CoCs try to push them. If somebody harrases you or something, you can always sue him - and it's much more effective approach than reporting him to the projects he is a part of. Regards Pavel Kouril --- ## #90905 — Stanislav Malyshev — 2016-01-25T08:21:49+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/90896#90905 · In reply to: #90903 Hi! > I already submitted it here once, so I'm skipping it - but I do > personally like how it says the project is about code. But it's not. Not only. Code is the result, sure, at least one of, but there's a lot of things involved that aren't code. > Actually, IMHO it is totally enough. The best CoC would be just a CoC > with one point: > 1. Be polite and behave like an adult. This is not a code in any meaningful sense except trivial - just as "main() {}" is a program in C, but not a useful one except for doing nothing. People's notions of "being an adult" differ. Now, it can be argued - and was argued - that we don't actually need a code, but then discussing details of the code is useless, of course. > rules doesn't make something it unsafe place. Basically, I don't think > projects should act like a support group, but it seems it is the > direction the CoCs try to push them. I've never been in support group, so I'm not sure what is meant by "act like a support group", but I guess where CoC pushes us depends on CoC? That's why we spend time on figuring it out. > If somebody harrases you or something, you can always sue him - and I think we should not disseminate legal advice here :) But without being a lawyer I can assure you suing somebody on the internet for trolling is not a winning proposition. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com --- ## #90910 — pajousek@gmail.com — 2016-01-25T09:36:11+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/90896#90910 · In reply to: #90905 > Hi! > > > […] > > But it's not. Not only. Code is the result, sure, at least one of, but > there's a lot of things involved that aren't code. > Well, kinda. If people just focused more on writing code and less on discussing unrelated "clutter" (like someone's beliefs/gender/whatever or even CoCs in general), then the need for some CoC fades away. > > […] > > This is not a code in any meaningful sense except trivial - just as > "main() {}" is a program in C, but not a useful one except for doing > nothing. People's notions of "being an adult" differ. Now, it can be > argued - and was argued - that we don't actually need a code, but then > discussing details of the code is useless, of course. > Yes, I know - and I would like for people to take a step back and think again whether or not they really need a CoC, and to think about the reason why they need it - but not just "vague" what-ifs, but reasons with some real backing, not just empty "buzzwords". Also, either the CoC is gonna be vague in penalties (vague punishments and stuff is slippery slope and bad) or will be long and try to define bad behavior and penalties for them, only making the "trolls" use loopholes to piss people off and be protected at the same time by CoC. It's a lose-lose situation, IMHO. > > > […] > > I think we should not disseminate legal advice here :) But without being > a lawyer I can assure you suing somebody on the internet for trolling is > not a winning proposition. Well, I never said trolling, I said harassment - you know, stuff like cyberstalking, death threats, etc. - the stuff that's really really harmful and abusive and shouldn't be done. I would guess you can definitely sue and win for that (or report it to police), depends probably on the country you live in. "Trolling" is a vague word with no clear-cut definition. Just kinda another "buzzword". Regards Pavel Kouril --- ## #90917 — Allan MacGregor — 2016-01-25T11:57:37+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/90896#90917 · In reply to: #90900 Hi Stanislav, I have made a small change to The Pragmatist Code of conduct from 'behave like an adult to 'you are expected to show others civility and courtesy.' > This one basically can be TLDRed as "behave as an adult". Which is nice > if we were to agree what it means, but that is in no way automatic, thus > I am afraid it is not enough :) Assuming good faith is a nice touch > though, I like it. That should be cleared, and assuming good faith should be part of the CoC no matter which one we choose in the end, having people in the project so many diverse background and cultures. Here is the thing, it might not be enough but is at least what I consider a minimal foundation; the way the conversation has approach the problem so far is trying to elaborate on every single scenario and how to penalize the bad actors on those scenarios. But if we are to agree into a first version of the PHP CoC then we should start with minimum requirements the MVP if you like :D. Asking people to assume good faith and be civil is in my opinion all we can and should ask in my opinion; yes there will be misunderstandings, yes there will be bad actors. But when the time comes those scenarios can be deal with. This at it's core is what really bothers me about the Contributors Covenant and the whole narrative behind that assumes to worst in people; that in my opinion is fundamentally wrong. Assume the best in people and you will pleasantly surprised, assume the worst of them and all your fears will be validated. Kind Regards, Allan MacGregor Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > […] > > This one deals with code contributions, but our discussion is wider. In > fact, we never, as far as I could remember, had code contribution which > was per se controversial. We did have ones that were controversial in > that we disagreed on whether or not that code is doing what we actually > want to do, but the code usually is not a problem. > > > […] > > I don't particularly like this approach, it sounds too defensive. > > > […] > > > This one basically can be TLDRed as "behave as an adult". Which is nice > if we were to agree what it means, but that is in no way automatic, thus > I am afraid it is not enough :) Assuming good faith is a nice touch > though, I like it. -- Allan MacGregor coderoncode.com