Brandon, On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Brandon Savage <bran...@brandonsavage.net> wrote: >> >> At the same time, though, if someone is being maliciously hostile what >> great cover! A private email is not a PHP-Group managed resource, so no >> rules! Twitter, ha, no rules! Reddit? LOL like they enforce anything. >> If someone wanted to send a death threat to another developer about PHP >> business, I would hope that, as a developer, they are at least smart enough >> then to do so using a chat program that is "out of scope" so that they're >> untouchable. (If they tried to send someone a death threat on list, we >> should ban them for stupidity. :-) ) >> >> That's why the scope needs to cover "involves PHP business, regardless of >> medium" rather than "just on certain pieces of server infrastructure". >> It's trivial to circumvent otherwise. Now, how do we define "involves PHP >> business" in a way that, for example, forbids someone from harassing a gay >> person about PHP business but doesn't penalize someone for participating in >> an anti-gay-marriage protest in their home town? That's the question we >> should be discussing: How that balance works to minimize that risk, and >> avoid it being abused to Eich someone. (Yes, I just used Eich's name as a >> verb.) >> <http://www.php.net/unsub.php> >> >> > Larry, > > This is a great point, and brings up an interesting potential compromise > that might work well for solving this issue. > > If the issue is that someone might take an on-list discussion and harass > someone off-list, why not limit the jurisdiction to individuals who have > participated on-list in discussion or voted on the issue?
Honestly, this feels like an overly broad hole. It would be easy for someone to harass off-list, and then just claim "well, I haven't been part of the discussion for X, so doesn't count". Plus harassment isn't limited to just discussion on a certain topic. > And that to me is the crux of the issue. When it comes to making > discussions on internals more civilized, governing a person's conduct *as > it relates to their participation in the discussion* is about as far as PHP > should go. A person who is not a party to the discussion, who does not > vote, but does have karma, who happens to tweet "I think X is a moron for > proposing Y" is entitled to that opinion, *until they bring it here.* While everyone is entitled to their opinion, sharing that opinion is potentially another story. I think the exact quote you bring here is one of the things a CoC is designed to prevent. I would absolutely consider it bad if one karma-holding individual calls another a "moron" at all in public for proposing an RFC. While we may disagree with someone, we should hold ourselves to a constructive standard. The vast majority of people here want to see PHP (as a project) improve. Even if we don't agree with how someone approaches that, we should at least hold ourselves to a level of mutual respect. Going out and calling someone a moron in public is not constructive nor respectful, and IMHO we as a project shouldn't sit back and blindly say "whatever" if it happens. Anthony -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
