Hi,
Pádraic Brady <mailto:padraic.br...@gmail.com>
January 21, 2016 at 10:59 AM
Hi,
On 21 January 2016 at 14:33, Allan MacGregor
<amacgre...@allanmacgregor.com> wrote:
Padraic,
Taking a step back, instead taking a knee-jerk reaction; I think Kevin
brought up a valid point. Is very clear that there are certain actors that
are pushing for a specific version of this code of conduct to use it as a
political tool.
The RFC has actual text, which can be read, examined and discussed.
There is no need whatsoever to drag in anything beyond unless directly
relevant to the text at hand. Personal attacks on people who support a
COC, or do not support a COC, aren't productive. If there is a
political plot to undermine whatever in PHP, then please do support
this by quoting from the RFC.
Let's discuss the CoC at hand. Is my opinion that the current text based
on the Contributors Covenant 1.3 is too broad on its scope and the
punitive actions. What do I mean too broad? well I think the CoC needs
to define what a project channel/space is; as well there should be a
clarification that contributors are entitled to their political views
and opinions outside of these channels.
With that in mind I'm attaching the following draft that extends the
definition of the second paragraph and attempts to define that the
official project channels are
https://gist.github.com/amacgregor/16c62908ff39f51604e2 in short:
We are committed to evaluating contributions within project channels
(such as reporting issues, posting feature requests, updating
documentation, submitting pull requests or patches, and other project
activities) without regard to the contributor's level of experience,
gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability,
personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion,
nationality, politics, or activity outside of project channels.
The following are considered the official project channels:
* PHP Mailing list
* PHP Official IRC Channel
* PHP Official repositories
* PHP Official social media accounts
Based on paul's earlier post http://news.php.net/php.internals/90259
This is it what concerns most people regarding this specific CoC; you want
to debate the CoC proposed, fine. Personally here are my issues with it:
- Language is vague and open to interpretation
Propose specific text which also addresses harassment and the other
not vague words. I’m sure people will happily read and review it.
> - There is no mechanism or ability for one to confront ones accuser
Any evidence being used against an individual will be made available
to them. In fact, it’s explicitly required. However, it’s also clear
that confidentiality will be adhered to. This is par for the course,
at least in my experience, of any such process. The COC is also not a
criminal proceeding – there is no legal court involved – so the
emphasis is on protecting the potential complainant from additional
targeted action.
That might be the case, but we are talking about applying sanctions with
real world repercussions and as such having a confrontation clause or at
least the right to cross examination and face my accuser.
– so the emphasis is on protecting the potential complainant from
additional targeted action.
If the emphasis is on fairness, equality and justice, then you have to
protect the rights of the accused and the accuser.
- The CoC seems to be more concern with punitive action rather than
establishing the values of the community.
Derick added a second section of more relevance to collaborative
values. Also, I’m on record as believing that while punitive action
need not be the central theme in a COC, it has to clear somewhere that
it CAN be employed when absolutely necessary. Hopefully never! But I
left my crystal ball at home…so I can’t rule it out.
Paddy
--
Pádraic Brady
Allan MacGregor <mailto:amacgre...@allanmacgregor.com>
January 21, 2016 at 9:33 AM
Padraic,
Taking a step back, instead taking a knee-jerk reaction; I think Kevin
brought up a valid point. Is very clear that there are certain actors
that are pushing for a specific version of this code of conduct to use
it as a political tool.
This is it what concerns most people regarding this specific CoC; you
want to debate the CoC proposed, fine. Personally here are my issues
with it:
- Language is vague and open to interpretation
- There is no mechanism or ability for one to confront ones accuser
- The CoC seems to be more concern with punitive action rather than
establishing the values of the community.
Allan.
Pádraic Brady wrote:
Pádraic Brady <mailto:padraic.br...@gmail.com>
January 21, 2016 at 7:19 AM
Hi,
On 21 January 2016 at 04:37, Kevin Smith<ke...@gohearsay.com> wrote:
I noticed you were contacted by Randi Lee Harper [https://archive.is/b8RDW],
the ironically abusive founder of the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative
[https://archive.is/eqco9][http://archive.is/A1Azz] known for attacking and
attempting to eject from projects/employment people she associates with groups
she doesn’t approve of [http://archive.is/1A8SQ], wherein she suggested that
you ignore the Code of Merit that Pavel recommended for consideration because
she associates the author of said code with a group that—though entirely
unrelated to his Open Source contributions—she finds undesirable and then
proceeded to make general derogatory comments about him [again,
https://archive.is/b8RDW].
Are you here to debate the proposed COC, or to mount personal attacks
on someone outside of the PHP community?
(My deepest apologies for such a tremendous run-on sentence.)
I certainly hope this isn’t indicative of the spirit of this proposal. This
exchange really seems to suggest the goal of these codes in general, and now
possibly this one in particular, is what so many of us have feared: to exclude
people with wrong ideas and associations, as defined by the in-group.
Is that what the RFC actually states though? As it's a code of
conduct, it's directed at specific actions not whatever is running
through your, or my, head.
Paddy
Kevin Smith <mailto:ke...@gohearsay.com>
January 20, 2016 at 11:37 PM
Hi Derick,
I noticed you were contacted by Randi Lee Harper
[https://archive.is/b8RDW], the ironically abusive founder of the
Online Abuse Prevention Initiative
[https://archive.is/eqco9][http://archive.is/A1Azz] known for
attacking and attempting to eject from projects/employment people she
associates with groups she doesn’t approve of
[http://archive.is/1A8SQ], wherein she suggested that you ignore the
Code of Merit that Pavel recommended for consideration because she
associates the author of said code with a group that—though entirely
unrelated to his Open Source contributions—she finds undesirable and
then proceeded to make general derogatory comments about him [again,
https://archive.is/b8RDW].
(My deepest apologies for such a tremendous run-on sentence.)
I certainly hope this isn’t indicative of the spirit of this proposal.
This exchange really seems to suggest the goal of these codes in
general, and now possibly this one in particular, is what so many of
us have feared: to exclude people with wrong ideas and associations,
as defined by the in-group.
Kevin Smith
Hearsay Interactive <http://gohearsay.com/>
Derick Rethans <mailto:der...@php.net>
January 20, 2016 at 4:20 PM
Sure - I would very much appreciate a list of things to look at. Would
you have time to suggest a list with C of C's? It is unlikely that one
will cover it all anyway. Something that (stolen the idea from twitter)
has a good list of *positive* core values is also in my opinion
important to have.
cheers,
Derick
--
Allan MacGregor
coderoncode.com <http://coderoncode.com>
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
