Hi! > I don't think that's a fair characterization of this discussion. Some > people have questioned what this is a solution to, but most haven't. > Some have questioned if we have a problem, but most haven't.
Again, "a problem". You and Pierre are talking as if there's specific problem you have already identified, and there are people agreeing that it exists and those that still deny it exists. But it's not the case - we don't even know what *is* that problem. Is that harassment? On the list? Off list? Aggressive discussion on list? Reputation of the list being unfriendly, regardless of what actually happens? What "a problem" is that you are fixing? I still don't know. It may be crystal clear to you and Pierre, but so far I don't think you succeeded in explaining it. > Actually, asking for proof and denying are the same thing. If they > weren't, then why would you be asking for proof unless you believed it > didn't happen? Well, I honestly don't know how to react to this. It's just not. I can't believe you are seriously saying this. I'm sorry if I'll get a bit to deep into the woods here, but I honestly never expected reading something like that. The whole structure of science, mathematics and logic is built on the concept of proof, moreover, the whole concept underlying this - that there are facts, knowable laws of nature, that reason and logic are possible, etc. - are based on these concepts, and nowhere it is equated with denial. People have been looking for proof for Fermat's Last Theorem for over 350 years - were they all denying its veracity for all that time? Of course not. In fact, most of them were sure it is true. But opinion and proof are not the same. You seem to be under impression that there can be only two stances with relation to some claim - either completely and unquestionably acknowledging it as the holy truth, or completely denying it. This is actually not so - for most claims, it is rarely one of these, and for claims that have not been substantiated, the right relation is "we do not know anything about the validity of this claim". Proof is the one that helps us move from "no idea" to "it's probably so" or "I'm as sure in it as I ever been in anything" or "looks very fishy, it's probably completely bogus", etc. I now start to think maybe the trouble you have understanding why people have problems with the structure you propose stems from this misunderstanding - you seem to think there are only hard obvious facts which one either accepts or denies, and merely asking for proof is the same as denial, since it's not acceptance - either it is true, and then we need no proof, or it's false, and then any "proof" is just lies. Of course, in reality we would not deal with anything like that - we'd only deal with claims of unknown veracity, for which we would have to ask for proof. With your approach, of course, that would be denying the experience of the person who complained, which is IMO unacceptable - how you can deny somebody's experience - so I wonder how you imagined a resolution team would work? > As far what exactly "these problems" are specifically, that's an > entirely different discussion than the one we've been having here as > part of the CoC. Because the vast majority of "these problems" aren't > the goal of the CoC. The goal of the CoC to me is to help create a > safe place. To create a mechanism and reinforcement that we should all > behave appropriately. But what is a "safe place" we are trying to create (note: that's one of the reasons I wanted more positive CoC)? I would be glad to help all I can to do this, but for that I assume I'd need to know what I am trying to do? How we know if we created this place or utterly failed in it? Let's say we did create that "safe place" - could you describe any specific difference with what is happening on the list now? For example, if somebody were given the archive of the list pre-safe-place and post-safe-place, they would be able to distinguish which is which using that criteria? What we would have more of, what we would have less of, what we would stop seeing here and what would we start seeing here? > Other issues (such as over aggressiveness on the list, etc) are out of > scope right now, so aren't worth discussing *in this thread*. Feel > free to discuss it as much as you want in another thread, but I'd like > to see this one get back to constructively discussing the proposal. > Well, not really "get back to", but "start". > I think we started long ago. And the question if style of discussion on the list would *ever* be in scope for CoC, is very much relevant to it, especially as the problems with this style was repeatedly pointed to as the primary reason why we need the CoC. Once we have created those powers that you require, we can not (at least not without a lot of drama) un-create them, so I think it is prudent to know what these powers are to be used for. Note that I and others - again, very much in scope of discussion - did agree on the concept of having CoC and mediation team detached from the question of creating the amateur court. So we not only started discussing, but are in agreement about 50% or so of it - including complete agreement on the idea of having CoC. And I don't think anybody ever objected to the larger goal of making or community more welcoming. The only controversial part is the one where new powers are created and the scope of those. If that is not the question that you want to discuss right now, fine, but then we need to either split the RFC or wait until we're ready to discuss, but I don't see too many questions left beside that. Well, maybe the text of it - that would be better to address after we talk to Drupal folks this week. -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
