Hi,
Zeev Suraski wrote:
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.
Why? Misconduct is simply the inversion of 'conduct', and a code of
conduct, necessarily, primarily deals with misconduct. Good conduct is
supposed to be what normally happens. It's the exceptions to that -
misconduct - that you need a code to manage.
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.
What do you consider to constitute consensus? Absolute unanimity, or
large majority support?
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.
Yes, that's true, but withdrawing an RFC isn't failing a vote. It
doesn't say anything about whether the community is against the
proposal, it only means the person proposing it is no longer able and/or
willing to carry it forward personally.
Maybe I'm a cynic, but when I saw that the RFC was withdrawn, I was (almost)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.
Sure, because it's a proposal that a lot of people support. Again, think
back to the Scalar Type Declarations discussion. The moment I left,
Anthony picked up the tab. I never asked him to, and in fact I was
scared that me leaving would doom the project. Also, Stas picked up the
spaceship RFC, and I never asked him to do that.
It's pretty much democracy in action. If some popular proposal is
abandoned, inevitably someone in the community will want to pick it up.
I suppose it means people should just plan to properly hand things over
rather than quit, given how fairly inevitable someone else picks these
things up again, but nobody is acting in bad faith here.
Also, it's not actually inevitable that things are picked up. When I
quit in February 2015, some of my proposals died then and there. Nobody
rode in with shining armour on their glorious battle elePHPant to "save"
them.
Maybe I'm a cynic #2, but to me, it's an attempt to make a point in an undue
manner.
It's not a terribly nice way to make a point, for sure, but I don't
think that's really the intent in most cases. After the uh, controversy,
that things like this RFC and the Scalar Types saga provoke, I couldn't
personally blame anyone for getting sick of it and being unable to go on.
> 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.
Fair enough.
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.
Well, I, personally, do not feel entirely safe in this discussion.
Safety is subjective, sure, but nobody can say whether someone else
feels unsafe, only they themselves.
Seeing what has happened to countless people that have spoken up online
about harassment, and knowing that I contribute under my actual
real-life name, has made me self-censor to some extent. I decided not to
revive the CoC RFC myself for a reason. Seeing certain participants in
the code of conduct discussion openly retweet messages by leaders of
organised harassment campaigns, campaigns targeting people like me, is
absolutely terrifying.
Unlike some people, I have the misfortune of having been on the Internet
when I was very young. I've said enough silly things online that if
someone wants to make my life absolute hell, they definitely can.
Now, so far I've been okay. But maybe that's because I've only made
relatively mild criticisms of the code of conduct on this mailing list,
and been mostly quiet on the more public platform of Twitter. Maybe
that's because I've refrained from naming certain people during discussions.
My fear here does not come from the PHP mailing list. PHP internals, for
all its "toxic kindergarten"-ness, is mostly civil. We're not the Linux
Kernel Mailing List, and I think that's something we can all be proud
of. The broader PHP community, however, is not always quite so friendly.
The mailing list is not isolated from this: anyone can join at any time.
Indeed, the code of conduct discussion has already brought new members.
We don't exist in a vacuum.
--
Andrea Faulds
https://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
