> I wouldn't say the idea of a code of conduct is really a constitution per se > (it's > not setting down the foundation and goals of the PHP project, merely rules > for misconduct)
Should somehow this RFC get ratified, it would be by far the closest thing that the PHP project will have for a constitution. For what it's worth, I find the description 'rules for misconduct' extremely telling and fairly horrible way to describe a Code of Conduct, as I'm sure any people involved with education would agree. > That being said, > you may have a point with it not being what RFCs were really intended for. Thanks for acknowledging the possibility - however remote - that the author of the RFC process he 'may have a point' about what the document he was the lead author for was or rather wasn't about :) > But we don't really have an alternative process for this currently > established, > so an RFC is the best we can do. Oh, but we do. As I'm sure many of us remember, PHP existed for 15 years before the RFC process, and it actually became the most popular language on the planet during that time. Yes, the RFC process made things go quicker and evolution faster - but given it was designed for technical decisions and administrative items - not constitutional ones - it cannot be used here. Namely - decision by consensus. This is absolutely required in a topic as far-reaching as this, which is very clearly outside the scope of the RFC process. > RFC revival is essentially like forking, and that's always allowed in open- > source. We have clear rules which disallow revival of RFCs which failed a vote for a duration of six months, unless they're very substantially modified, so revival isn't always allowed in open source. Maybe I'm a cynic, but when I saw that the RFC was withdrawn, I was (almost) literally counting the minutes before someone came, in the electronic equivalent of a shining armor, to revive it. It's also clear that had Derick not done it, someone else would have. Maybe I'm a cynic #2, but to me, it's an attempt to make a point in an undue manner. And I don't think that should be allowed. I think we all have bigger fish to fry right now though, so that's not something I'm going to actively argue on - especially as the current Voting RFC doesn't detail that. I'm merely stating my opinion. > > Third, on undue pressure. > > Certain people have either implied or outright said that not having a CoC > will make them reconsider actively contributing to PHP. This is undue > pressure IMHO, avoiding the use of bigger words. > > It might leave others feeling pressured s/might/absolutely does. >, but it's not their fault if those > contributors feel unsafe without a code of conduct. I'll state right here that I find it virtually impossible to believe that the abovementioned individuals feel *unsafe* because of the lack of a CoC. And before I'm under a torrent of attacks that I couldn't possibly *know* how people feel - I'm acknowledging that right now. I don't. But that's what I think, and I stand behind this guesstimate. > Nor is the flip-side true: a > certain person said they fear getting in trouble for their political views if > the > CoC passes, and if they wanted to leave as a result, so be it. But incidentally, nobody did - at least to the best of my knowledge - even though I wouldn't be surprised if some do. Which is precisely the difference between what can be described as a threat, and a true action->consequence. > Nobody is under > any obligation to contribute to PHP, they can freely choose not to contribute > if they wish, and that is their right. Right. But I'll say it again - I think that threatening to quit the project if one doesn't get their way about something - anything - is undue pressure. That's my opinion, and I'm not pretending it's the law so obviously people are free to ignore it. > I think it would be worse if you were not allowed to make such statements. > It's better that people be aware of consequences than be surprised later. I think it would be awful if people weren't *allowed* to make such statements. And at the same time, it's disappointing to me that people *choose* to make those statements. So far, the only document around that is trying to claim jurisdiction about what people *may* or *may not* say is the CoC RFC (notice the fundamental difference between 'may', 'should' and 'encouraged to'). > Personally, I don't see how expanding from covering serious misbehaviour > (harassment etc.) to covering more generally non-conducive-to-civil- > discussion actions would make things more or less open to potential abuse. > Generally, opinions are not the problem, but rather the way people go about > expressing them. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that assuming we have a penalty - at the discretion of a given body - to temp-ban someone from the project and recommend a perma-ban, it doesn't matter whether they can do it only in response to a threat of violence that's clearly proven that was made by that individual, or, instead, someone thinking they heard this said individual calling them a moron while talking to his friend in a conference venue? And it's all because the judicial team would be comprised of people we can trust? Do you really not see a difference between that whole system kicking into gear around something that many of us don't think ever happened in the relevant venues we're dealing with (safety issues) - and that same system kicking into gear whenever someone feels that somebody else is 'being toxic'? To me, that's equivalent to having the life in prison penalty available as a punishment for every crime, at the discretion of the judge. Judges are professional, right? We can trust them not to practically deprive someone of their life for a traffic violation, right? So why not have life in prison available as an option for any and all crimes? Why even have different punishments for different crimes? The potential for mishaps (not just abuse) is DIRECTLY correlated to the scope and pervasiveness of the domain the law (in our case, the CoC RFC) deals with. If it's dealing with safety issues - that likelihood is RELATIVELY limited (but still, substantial). If it's for 'detoxicating internals', the potential for mishaps is mind-bogglingly explosive. It's not a matter of if - it's a matter of when and how frequently. > > I'm not going to repeat arguments I've made half a dozen times as to why > having a judicial system must be avoided, and why we must deal exclusively > with desired behaviors and not the 'exception handling' of bad behaviors. I > made my case in the best possible way I can and people who are interested > in it can read it in my previous replies on the topic. Equally important - > many > others expressed similar views. Thus far, the only response is a laconic > 'without penalties it's useless', even though we've brought numerous > supporting arguments as why this is simply not true. > > Even if you believe that it's not a problem, that doesn't change the opinion > of > people who do think that an unenforced code of conduct is problematic. The word 'problematic' doesn't belong here. Nobody claimed that a CoC without penalties is 'problematic', in the sense that it's worse than not having one. In fact, everyone, yourself included, seem to agree that it's a good thing - with virtually no downsides. You're calling it 'problematic' - because in your opinion, it doesn't properly address what you think needs to be addressed. But 'problematic' is simply not the correct word here. 'Inadequate' or 'Insufficient' are. Replace the wrongly applied 'problematic' with 'insufficient', and it becomes clear that the fact there is consensus that stating our desired behavior is a Good Thing makes it precisely the right place to start. We can 'upgrade' from that into a judicial CoC at any given time, if it gains consensus. > A set of positive values is all well and good, but that won't fix anything > when > people nonetheless act outside the rules, which is what a code of conduct > sets out to deal with. That's simply not true. First, we don't have these rules to begin with, and for some reason, the one invariant in all of the discussion of the CoC is how it 'must be enforceable', while the values themselves are pretty much for hire. That's backwards. We should first be talking about these values. Secondly, when there's an agreed-upon set of rules, you'd be surprised how it ABSOLUTELY DOES fix the vast majority of situations where people act outside the rules. I highly recommend watching a few episodes of Super Nanny, or otherwise taking some educational courses for parents. They're inspiring - and not just for parents. And from personal experience - they work remarkably well, almost like magic. > Or, basically, I think it's sort of derailing, though I realise > that is not what you intend. A set of positive values doesn't constitute a > "code". Actually, that's almost exactly what it is. Not only do a set of positive values and desired behaviors constitute a code of conduct - it's almost the definition of what a code of conduct is. In fact, it is the RFC that we have on the table that is not a CoC, but rather, a law+judicial system (and an amateur one at that, with no offense meant - nobody here is a professional legislator to the best of my knowledge). I brought it up numerous times here already, but the Ten Commandments, the Hippocratic Oath and the Golden Rule - arguably three of the most influential CoCs that shaped humanity for the better, are all exactly that - a set of positive values and desired behaviors. No penalties. No judicial systems. No 'what happens if' (with one exception - one of the commandments actually tells people to respect their parents so that they would live longer - which incidentally is positive encouragement and not a negative one). Please see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct > That said, laying down what our values are might be a worthwhile project Might? It's orders of magnitude more important than anything we've discussed so far on this thread - in my humble opinion, of course. >, it > should just be in a separate discussion. Having a slightly more definitive > idea > of what PHP and its community is and it stands for would be nice. It should, and it should preface any sort of law & order RFC the kind of which we're currently dealing with. Unlike this RFC, I believe it actually can easily gain consensus. Thanks, Zeev