Zeev, On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 6:16 PM >> To: internals@lists.php.net >> Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct >> >> As to the comments in this thread, I won't reply to every one, but here >> are a >> few points I'd like to make. > > Anthony, > > Thanks - I think the new draft looks much better and addresses much of my > feedback. I still think it puts too much emphasis on the mechanics and > punitive actions, see below.
Awesome. It very well may be too hard on the punitive actions. A balance is surely the correct approach, I was more talking against lack of any "recourse". But am very much open to tweaking the level and tone. >> >> 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. >> Saying we should act >> reasonable is fine, but we need a method for what we are to do when one of >> us acts unreasonably. Additionally, as has been stated, requiring people >> to >> report publicly creates a barrier to entry. Many people will simply chose >> to >> leave quietly rather than report publicly. >> Simply look at the way people who speak out about harassment are treated >> in public to understand why. The point of the CoC is to create a safe >> place >> for everyone to contribute, not just those with thick skin. > > My main concern is/was that we're venturing into areas where we have > absolutely no experience and completely inadequate training. We are not > legislators nor lawyers; We've demonstrated more than once that we're not > very good at establishing 'written law' for far simpler and non-ambiguous > things, failing to predict all possible scenarios of the future. The fact > we need to borrow definitions from Criminal Law should be an indicator that > we're probably venturing in the wrong direction here. The system > responsible for implementing the law, as we all know, is complex and with > countless checks and balances - and as I think we all know, it is also > subjective, completely open for interpretation and with a very strong human > element - and consequently frequently fails. My concern is that we're > trying to sketch a simplistic system which would fail us in unpredictable > ways in the future, when the rubber meets the road. > > And with all that said, it seems to be much less of an issue with the > updated RFC, given the reduced power of the CoC team and the changed > 'spirit' of it. I do need to review the RFC more closely though. Yeah, I never intended it to be a "law document". The main reason for the CoC Team was to respect confidentiality and not require full public disclosure of all incidents (which will drive people away). The exact tone and language definitely still needs work. The main reason for posting it soon was to start the conversation, not finish it. In fact, I can see a very real world where the majority of the policies around the CoC team are replaced with https://www.drupal.org/conflict-resolution or something similar. The presence of the team is the important part to me, not the strength or precise process. >> As to why the Contributor Covenant as opposed to another CoC or our own >> custom one, there are two reasons for this. First, it's a standard that's >> been >> adopted by a number of significant scale projects. Second, it saves us >> from >> having to bikeshed over every single word of a CoC. >> If there's another standard CoC that we should entertain, I'm happy to >> look >> at it. But I do not believe that we should create our own. > > I think the Contributor Covenant is problematic when used as a law, as > opposed to guidelines - because it's way too open ended. > But again - with the substantial changes to the RFC, I think it's less of an > issue. > > Thanks again for the efforts on this! Yeah, I'm not locked to the Contributor Covenant. If there's another standard one that we want to adopt, I'm definitely on board to look at it and vet it. The one thing I'd prefer to avoid though is creating our own. As you correctly pointed out, we simply don't have the experience. Thanks for the feedback! And looking forward to moving forward with it! Anthony -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
