Larry >> I'll chime in on this, since you and I had a quite pleasant and >> productive conversation last night. I believe we agreed that the >> original draft was over-focused on punitive measures and not enough on >> low-impact mediation. >> >> I imagine, because I love all you guys (and gals), that the volume of >> traffic to a response team would be low to begin with. I further >> imagine, since you're all such a great bunch of lads (and lasses), >> that the vast majority of those complaints would be resolvable with >> some gentle mediation. That's a good focus for the CoC, and I would >> love to bring us to that point. (Sorry if you've already addressed >> this Anthony, I haven't read your updates yet, it's been a busy >> morning). >> >> I said it in a prior email, but I'll repeat it. I see it like the >> security@ list. A place to send issues that don't necessarily bear >> airing in public. That's good for both the accuser AND the accused. >> A tiny layer of discretion to ease what may be a tense issue. >> >> I don't, however, agree that the response team should be entirely >> toothless. As a *last resort*, a (no more than) 7 day ban to act as a >> cooling off period isn't "vast sweeping powers", it's a band-aid for a >> situation that's gotten out of control. A situation that demands the >> wider community's attention, because it's become unacceptable. We can >> define the limits of these powers (again I've said this in a previous >> email). >> >> Worried about abuse of temp-bans? Don't think a stringent requirement >> of justification is enough? How about the accuser must suffer an >> equal ban? By the time it's come to the point where action must be >> taken, the problem has escalated to the point where privacy of the >> accused won't be maintainable anyway (due to evidence requirements). >> Turn the temp-ban into a cooling off period. Because honestly, do we >> have mustache twirling ne'er-do-wells? Or do we have passionate people >> who get worked up into a lather and sometimes cross a line? >> >> As someone who has crossed that line more than once, I hope you'll >> trust it's just the latter. >> >> -Sara > > > I agree with Stas (previous email) that a bad CoC can backfire. I'd go as > far as saying that a bad CoC (either one that is so toothless as to be a lie > or one that is so draconian that everyone lives in fear of it) is worse than > no CoC at all. That is, I think, the point of this discussion: Make sure > that a CoC is adopted that is good and has a positive impact, not bad with a > negative impact. > > Which is where I agree with Sara: A good CoC should be positive and focused > on conflict-resolution, not on punitive measures. So let's build a good > conflict-resolution-oriented CoC and process rather than a > ban-hammer-mechanism. Also, recall that this is not a for-all-time > definition. CoCs can and should evolve over time, as should the process > around them. > > Disclosure: I've been through Drupal's Community CoC, the DrupalCon CoC, and > multiple rounds of CoC-esque discussion in a 20-year old online RPG club I > used to help run. I've been around this block more than once. > > Reference material: > > Drupal's Community CoC: > > https://www.drupal.org/dcoc > > was derived originally from the Ubuntu Community CoC: > > http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/conduct > > The DrupalCon CoC was more contentious until it was rewritten to be more > positive-oriented (less "we don't" and more "we do"): > > https://austin2014.drupal.org/code-of-conduct.html > > The main author of the DrupalCon CoC, George DeMet, pointed me at the Django > CoC as another good model: > > https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/ > > Sara, Stas, Anthony, are you open to talking with George? (Disclosure: > Besides being on the Drupal CWG, George is also my boss. <g>)
Definitely! I overall like Drupals CoC (I looked at it in response to this thread). Thanks for offering to set something up! Anthony -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
