On Jan 11, 2016 8:47 PM, "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? > > For example, during the very heated discussion over static type hints, if > someone who had discussed the issue on Internals had then gone out to > Reddit and called Zeev a bunch of terrible things, that could be made > actionable under this code of conduct, reportable to the mediation team. > > On the other hand, we have a lot of people with karma who don't always vote > and may not participate in a particular issue on-list. If two people who > have karma have a run-in outside the discussion of an issue related to PHP, > they should have to be adults and hash that out themselves. > > 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.* > > If, on the other hand, the goal of the CoC is not to make Internals a > better place, but to govern what people in the community think, say and do > when they have no direct involvement with this group, that's another matter > entirely. And a much scarier one at that, don't you think?
My main concerns or worries are exactly those. I fail to understand how one can think that the CoC could be about censorship (which is basically what this comment says). I also fail to understand how one can fail to accept that we already had and have issues, despite numerous people having experienced it. I remember a time where we use to say "if you cannot stand the heat, leave the kitchen" and I was actually supporting this idea. The problem is is that it went too far. And we have to admit our weakness first to be able to create a somehow useful CoC. If we do not see us having problems, there is no point to even discuss a document to solve non existant (for us) problems. As a side but important note, it is very disturbing to read so many of us denying the very issues we have. Even if it is denied in a very diplomatic way. I am convinced that this is the first problem we must solve to get a CoC, to accept the very existence of these problems. My apologizes if this is seen as arguing but I feel like it is the only fundamental difference I can see between the two camps.
