Hi all, I've already written a blog on the topic, so needless to say I have no objections personally to seeing a Code of Conduct. Reading the current draft RFC, I did see a few potential issues which I'd like to raise on the specific text used insofar as it's starting point.
1. It should probably be made explicit that the Conflict Resolution Team is uniquely responsible for determining what is or is not "unethical or unprofessional conduct" subject to overview by Internals (via the appeals process). It's already implied, but this may cover any spurious claims that they lack the authority to do so. It also recognises that what constitutes unethical or unprofessional conduct needn't immediately be defined in a 100 book volume. Also see pt. 6 below. 2. The phrase "representing" strikes me as difficult to assess and is open to interpretation. Examples towards the end of the RFC clarify this better, but may be insufficient. I'd be more in favour of an open ended approach, centered on whether or not the subject of a complaint currently utilises the resources (list, git, etc.) of the project, i.e. where the project actually has recourse to punitive measures. This would encompass scenarios where there's no direct representation in evidence but the conduct in question is still linked to the PHP project through more indirect means. It's all too easy to imagine scenarios where harassment is designed to avoid the appearance of representing the project despite it obviously being linked to the project by context. 3. I'd like to see the Conflict Resolution Team framed as a group whose members will, volunteers allowing, be diversified. 4. The process for reported incidents does not mention specific timelines. There's also no mention of immediate relief measures. I'd find it troubling if the timeline turned into weeks, and the subject of a complaint continued their actions unabated and without consequence. If the team can make a rapid provisional determination, it should be explicitly allowed for them to request the accuser cease any objectionable actions under question while a final determination is pending. 5. It should be made explicit that the accused is definitely not allowed to disclose the identity of their accuser, directly or indirectly, without consequences. I'll leave it open to the floor as to what extent this could be applied, e.g. in scenarios where it's fundamentally necessary in order for the accused to collate evidence in their defense. 6. It's easier to enumerate what to do, then what not to do. Perhaps fold in text from the likes of the Debian COC as a supplementary or inline statement of accompanying principles? Regards, Paddy "But I Only Voted That One Time" Brady -- Pádraic Brady http://blog.astrumfutura.com http://www.survivethedeepend.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
