On Jan 8, 2016 5:51 AM, "Zeev Suraski" <z...@zend.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Zeev,
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote:
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 8:15 PM
> > >> To: internals@lists.php.net
> > >> Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
> > >>
> > >> All,
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> There has been some discussion asking for a split of the RFC into
two.
> > >> I do not believe that this is a good idea, because the CoC is useless
> > >> without
> > >> some sort of resolution strategy (without *anything*). And if we do
need
> > >> to
> > >> do something (which I firmly believe), then why not do it right the
> > first
> > >> time. I
> > >> am more than willing to evolve this proposal significantly (it's no
> > where
> > >> near a
> > >> final form). This discussion should help it evolve.
> > >
> > > First, I firmly believe that having a CoC - without anything extra -
is
> > > anything but useless. Values go a long way. Telling people what you
> > expect
> > > of them isn't only the first step towards obtaining that behavior -
it's
> > by
> > > far the most important step. I suspect anybody who has kids (or that
> > has a
> > > reasonably fresh memory of being a kid himself) should be able to
vouch
> > for
> > > that, and again, I'm bringing up the thesis that the vast majority of
us
> > > here follow the law not because we're afraid of what would happen if
we
> > > don't - but because it's the right thing to do.
> >
> > We already have that: https://lwn.net/Articles/452278/
> >
> > The point is many people believe that does not constitute a code of
> > conduct. It is a worth while thing to have, but it doesn't make the
> > assurances to others that the project takes bad behavior, harassment
> > and discrimination seriously.
> >
> >
> That is not why it's not a Code of Conduct. A Code of Conduct does not
> inherently have to include assurances for what happens if you don't follow
> it. That's almost by definition outside the scope of the Code itself.
One
> of the most famous codes in civilization, the ten commandments, has no
> penalties in it (although it's perhaps the author went out of writing
space
> :)
>
> The reason Rasmus' email is not a Code of Conduct - or at least not a
> sufficient one - is that it covers just one issue out of many that can
> occur. Which is precisely why adopting a wider CoC makes sense.
>
>
> > And I agree with you about not doing something because it isn't right.
> > However, I'm not attempting to codify what's "right" here. Instead,
> > it's about communicating to others that we take these things seriously
> > and hence hold each other to a standard.
> >
>
> Having a CoC which is wider in scope and ratified by a voted RFC rather
> than an email on some mailing list sends a strong message. Having it in
> our contributor guidelines would also go a long way.
>
> I guess here we fundamentally disagree - it seems that sending the message
> that 'we take this seriously' - by placing strong emphasis on reporting
and
> penalties - is more important to some than agreeing about the values
> themselves. For me, the values themselves and communicating them properly
> and prominently are infinitely more important than the policing mechanism,
> as I believe that stating them clearly would go a very long way and is
> anything but useless.
It is not more important. It is about emphasis our support to our values.
We do not have to create a list of penalties but to say something like "in
extreme cases, actions will be taken in coordination with our community,
including ban, temporary or permanently".
Doing so won't put a hard take on penalties but will clearly state that our
CoC is not an empty list of statements with consequences.
>
> > And if we don't have any means at all of holding ourselves to said
> > standard, what use is the standard?
>
>
> I, for one, believe that setting expectations is one of the most important
> things in life and minimizes friction tremendously.
Totally agree.
Sadly not sufficient in our world.
> Just by setting
> expectations, nothing else, humans can work and interact much better with
> each other. Agreeing on a standard sets expectations, and while it may
> seem magical - it can absolutely improve the situation, simply because
> people would know what's expected of them, and what's unacceptable.
>
> Secondly, I'm not against having a mediation team - ad-hoc or otherwise -
> but giving it powers, and codifying what should be an extreme case - is a
> very slippery slope.
>
>
> > > Secondly, if we do want to add an extra layer, having a resolution
> > strategy
> > > does not have to include penalties - neither proposed ones nor the
> > > jurisdiction to impose ones. If the RFC stopped at structuring how
> > people
> > > can bring up issues and have them discussed and mediated, I doubt the
RFC
> > > would be nearly as controversial as it is right now.
> >
> > I think that the resolution strategy needs to have some sort of
> > penalty, up to and including removal from the project. Otherwise
> > what's the point of the resolution strategy? The worst thing we can do
> > is put up a resolution path that people just say "so? why should I
> > care?".
>
>
> Again, I think I see things differently. To me, that's like saying "What
> use is it telling my daughters they should always be polite and respectful
> to others, if I'm not threatening that they'll get punished otherwise?".
> At least the types of mediation I know - mediation is not at all like a
> pseudo court. It's about mediation, and hence, has no power to force
> either side to do anything. I would argue that if it did - the chances
for
> successful mediation go down tremendously for psychological reasons - both
> of the mediators and the subjects.
>
> Of course, our challenge is that unlike mediation, where you have the
> option of going to court if mediation fails - we don't have a very good
> conflict resolution mechanism, short of a public vote. But should an
> extreme case of an extreme case (gross violation followed by complete
> failure of mediation) dictate our mechanism? I don't think so. Here, the
> fact that even if PHP isn't free of harassment - it's certainly not an
> epidemic - should dictate which direction is more sensible. If it was an
> epidemic - I might have thought differently.
>
>
> > > The problems begin as soon as we try to create some sort of a
> > > mini-judicial-body, that has substantial powers, governs based on
> > loosely
> > > written rules, has zero tools and experience in getting to the bottom
of
> > > things or determining the truth between two or more quarrelling
parties.
> > > Thinking we can do that when we failed agreeing on infinitely simpler
> > things
> > > is remarkably optimistic.
> >
> > I'm not saying the current team I have proposed is good. I'm not
> > saying we need to be firm with it
>
>
> That's usually the problem. I very much respect the fact that you're very
> open to feedback and have modified your original RFC substantially and
> realize how difficult it is. But the problem is that what you're trying
to
> solve is simply too complex. Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but
> we're not legislators nor lawyers, and no matter how much we work on that
-
> whatever structure we come up with to enforce conflict resolution is going
> to be riddled with holes and fail or be abused in unpredictable ways
sooner
> or later.
>
> >
> >
> However, I think time and time again it's been proven that the court
> > of public opinion is a poor judge of these types of situations. The
> > recent edits that I have been making to the RFC reflect the reduction
> > in power of the team significantly. What I do want to keep is a safe
> > and private place for these resolutions to occur in.
> >
>
> And like I said, I think the newer drafts are way better than the original
> one. But I still think that attempting to codify the response - beyond
> having a mediation team - whose job is exclusively to mediate - would
bring
> a lot more bad than good
>
>
> > In extremely significant cases decisions will need to be public, but
> > with a private team like this at least the information gathering step
> > can be done in a non-biased manner with a team.
>
>
> That will also happen with a mediation team. If mediation fails - and
> again, I see no reason to believe this is going to be anything but an
> extremely extreme case - we don't have good options beyond the court of
> public opinion, as much as I agree with you it can sometimes be a poor
> judge (heck, it voted in favor of STH... JOKE!)
>
>
> > > I disagree we NEED to do something. PHP is not in a situation where
> > it's in
> > > an absolute need of a CoC, and the fact it's thriving without one and
> > that
> > > nobody appears to be coming up with examples as to why we must have
one
> > > beyond future-proofing attests to that. Yes, it's not perfect - but
as
> > Stas
> > > said, that RFC isn't a magic wand that would make it perfect. That
> > said, I
> > > think adopting a CoC is a good idea, much like I teach my daughters
> > what's
> > > right and what's wrong without telling them what would happen if they
> > don't
> > > follow my guidance. Whenever I have to resort to penalties (which I'm
> > happy
> > > to say rarely happens) - I've failed, and I virtually always regret
it.
> >
> > I don't believe we literally need to do something in the sense that
> > the project will die if we don't. With that said, I do believe that
> > adopting the right one will do a lot of good for the project and
> > community. So it's not a life or death need, I would say it's
> > something we should definitely try to do.
>
>
> Another way to look at it is that if we adopt a CoC that stops at
> mediation, we can use it for a couple of years and see how it goes. We
> wouldn't be standing out as the first or second or 1000th project to go
> down that route. It's very common. If it fails, we can always vote to
> beef it up. This doesn't work in the opposite direction - once we
> establish a body with bylaws and structure and code, it'll be almost
> impossible to undo it - unless it fails spectacularly and with very clear
> evidence - while it's more likely to fail silently with little evidence.
>
>
> > > I'm still interested in hearing more about the four explicit threats
of
> > > violence you mentioned.
> >
> > As I said before, I do not wish to discuss my personal matters in
> > public. I only said that because there was implication on list that
> > nothing has ever happened before, and I was showing that just my
> > experience should act as a counterpoint to that.
> >
>
> I missed that, and I fully respect your right to privacy. The reason I
> wanted you to share this is that one of the key issues for opponents of
the
> 'toothful' RFC is that the same dry facts can be perceived by one side as
X
> and the other as Y. What one calls harassment - another may call
> argument. What one may call bullying - another may call discussion.
> Threats of violence too can range from mild ("you should be banned from
the
> project") to the extreme ("I know where you live and I'm going to kill
> you").
>
> Thanks,
>
> Zeev
