> > Quite honestly, I have not seen a CoC that would cover what is currently > being discussed to a degree of certainty sufficient to have a clear guide > line how to react.
I'd suggest, make an new rules for the current situation only. You don't need to cover all eventualities for civil conduct. You only need to cover those that have posed a problem. I mentioned earlier, any good discussion forum has rules for it's members to follow, which are also used for moderation of the discussions. The FIG's "discussion group" rules need to cover behavioral expectations of its members, how moderation/ judgement is carried out, along with the punishments. Then you have a basis to judge and punish, fairly, any member, who might get out of line in the discussions. It sounds bureaucratic, but it is the best solution. It is what a governing body has to do to keep up discipline. In the future, if you have other problems not covered by the rules, you improve the rules again, to fix the issue and more importantly, avoid that particular problem in the future. If you don't have problems, you don't need added rules covering them. Paul has now shown these "civil/ non-disruptive discourse" rules are necessary. Or, again, if you don't feel you need such rules, you'll have to live with the consequences of not having them and that could be more disruptive members. As I see it, if anything, this should be a vote to decide if the by-laws should be amended with "civil/ non-disruptive discourse" rules. Scott -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/822378b1-1d4b-465e-b606-e814906f94fd%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
