Let's look at this from the perspective of a conflict mediation standpoint On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:55 AM Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Keith, > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:38 AM, D Keith Casey <ke...@caseysoftware.com> > wrote: > > On 1/7/16 11:52 PM, Larry Garfield wrote: > >> > >> On 01/07/2016 10:08 PM, Brian Moon wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Why not? The harassment has been nullified. > >>> > >>> I agree with your position on most of this, Paul. However, free email, > >>> and thus, Twitter and other social media accounts are nearly > >>> unlimited. It becomes an arms race to try and block someone. > >>> > >>> Brian. > >> > >> > >> Simply cutting off contact (either by the receiver of harassment or > >> otherwise) isn't the entire goal. There are least 2 others: > >> > >> 1) Harassment does not need to be direct. If I were to start tweeting > >> up a hostile, insulting storm about someone else on this list, by name > >> and talking about PHP Internals business, but not tweeting @ that > >> person, them blocking me isn't going to accomplish anything. The harm > >> isn't that they are seeing the message necessarily, it's that everyone > >> else I know is seeing it, many of whom that person may not even know. > >> That's still an attack on a person's reputation, and damaging to the > >> person. > > > > > > Good scenario but we don't have to be hypothetical. Let's apply it to the > > real world of this week: > > > > > > Throughout this discussion, Paul Jones has been active and - despite > vocally > > attacking the proposal - I have yet to see him attack anyone in general. > > > > And then Phil Sturgeon else used a sexualized term to insult Paul to his > > ~16k followers but didn't name him: https://archive.is/oeekT > > > > While Phil claims this is not sexualized, Urban Dictionary disagrees but > > then he follows it up with a claim that he doesn't represent the project > > anyway: https://archive.is/TA2YP > > > > According to the definition including attending conferences that use the > PHP > > logo and active in PHP channels, he does. > > > > And then Phil follows it up with another more potentially damaging > attack - > > again, without naming Paul - https://archive.is/Z3zNy > > > > And finally, it turns out it's all Phil is blocking Paul anyway - > > https://archive.is/6iZQY - so Paul wouldn't even have see the attacks to > > defend himself or report to the PHP Code of Conduct group. > > > > So my questions: > > - In his day to day interactions, would Phil be considered a > representative > > of the PHP team? > > In normal day-to-day interactions? No, I don't think so. In this case, > considering he's directly discussing the project at the time, I think > that it would be fair to say he is representing the project in > context. > > Conflict mediation is a tool for any members of the community to attempt to resolve their conflicts. In this case, both Phil and whatever party or parties were harmed by his tweets would be eligible to utilize the service. Conflict mediation isn't about telling anyone how to act, and there isn't any restrictions on where behavior took place. It's a way of supporting other members of the community. > > - If not, why not? > > - If so, do his personal attacks using sexualized terms constitute a > breach > > of the Code of Conduct? > > I think a strong argument could be made for that. Either way, I don't > think it's the level of comment or discussion we want to encourage, so > whether or not it's a "violation", it's definitely something that's > bad. > > Again, we do need to even talk about encouraging or discouraging anything. If someone feels they were harmed in some way by his post, they are free to seek mediation. > > - If not, why not? > > - If so, what would the consequences be for Phil? > > Depends on the precise version we adopt. I think having someone step > in and say "Phil, cut it out" would be enough. Though if he continues > to do it, then we may want to escalate further. > > Again, no need for the community to decide right and wrong/civil and uncivil. > In general, I think the fact that we tolerate that sort of behavior is > insane. The fact that many in this thread are suggesting that "it > didn't happen on list, so we shouldn't care" is extremely narrow. We > should hold ourselves to a higher standard. We should commit ourselves > to treating each other fairly and with respect, even if we disagree > with that person. I know I have crossed that line before. I've also > apologized each time, and am honestly working hard to not do that > again. None of us are perfect in this regard. > > I agree, on a personal level. I don't think we should personally accept such behavior. However, I don't believe it's right for a few members to decide what the community as a whole does and does not accept. > What we're talking about isn't a "if you're not perfect, get out". > It's a "we know you won't be perfect, but that doesn't mean we should > tolerate bad behavior either". > > Anthony > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > Like I said, a conflict mediation system removes all need for the community to take a stance on anything that could potentially misrepresent some of it members. Instead, it's about offering support to members that feel they have been harmed by other members of the community. -- -- Chase chasepee...@gmail.com
