Hi All. Am 23.01.16 um 18:43 schrieb Brandon Savage: > All, > > It's encouraging to see people working hard to improve and expand on the > proposed Code of Conduct for PHP. The strenuous and passionate debates > aside, I'm pleased to see so many people working on this together. > > I want to propose a scenario that I came across this morning, that might > work well as a thought exercise for us as a group in considering how we > would APPLY the Code of Conduct to specific members. > > This morning, Gary Hockin posted a pull request to the Doctrine project, > proposing a rename from "Doctrine" to "Shitty". The full pull request is > here: https://github.com/doctrine/doctrine2/pull/5626 He then tagged one of > the maintainers personally. It was a master stroke of humor and trolling > between two friends. The PR was closed as "Cant Fix" due to "licensing > issues" and "namespace conflicts." > > There are several things at issue here:
Just to illustrate the Problems that might arise with any CoC-issue: > > 1. This was an obvious attempt at trolling the Doctrine maintainers, a > masterful stroke by a master (and well-known) troll who had no ill-intent. > But it was still trolling, violating the CoC. I couldn't find a CoC or a reference to it on the Doctrine-Homepage or in the doctrine/doctrine2-Repo. So no, It's not been a violation of a CoC and therefore not been an attempt in trolling. As the Doctrine-Project is a separate project from PHP-Internals they are comletely free to have their own ideas of having (or not having) a CoC and we can not measure things happening there with a CoC we'd like to have for PHP-Internals. > 2. The vulgarity used to rename the project would generally be considered > in most circles to be "unprofessional behavior." "Generaly" and "most" are generalizations I wouldn't want to see especially when handling CoC-Issues. > 3. Tagging the maintainer could be construed as a "personal attack" on that > person's work. Reading through the PR, I (Yes, it's my personal view) can not see a personal attack, as the poerson opening the PR asks the maintainer whether the PR is considered helpfull for the project. So we could discuss whether a hint that this is "Work in Progress" would have been appropriate. > > GeeH is well-known and well-respected in the community. There's no doubt > that in some capacity, he represents the community, especially since he > speaks regularly at conferences and events. In addition, by reading the > comments, it's clear that not everyone got the joke at first (see comments > by "nuxwin" on the thread). As I know the two persons in question it was clear at first sight what the intention of the PR was. So those that didn't get the joke at first sight might not know the two. Which brings me to how to reposnd to something like that (if it happened on PHP-Internals). > > If someone came to the mediation team with a complaint that this pull > request made them feel "unsafe", how would we as a community respond? THe person in question (as anyone on the internals and all other php-mailinglists) should have read these documents as they are the mailinglist-posting guidelines! http://php.net/mailing-lists.php http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=blob_plain;f=README.MAILINGLIST_RULES;hb=HEAD http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html And one of the advices I always hear in regard to posting to a mailing-list is "get to know the mailinglist" - meaning know about the tone and about the people that are posting there. The same would apply to the PR in question. Anyone who knows @geeh and @ocramius knows that they have a very special sense of humour that might sprout such a PR. So instead of making a call to the CommunityMediationTeam wouldn't it be easier to make a call to some people that know the two and ask "what's up there"? (Note that this is entirely focusing on the given example!) > [...] > > Finally, the current Code of Conduct permits any person to complain, even > if they weren't a party to the original incident. It permits this by not > explicitly restricting it. Even though it should be (and is to the > reasonable person) clear that this was a joke, any person in the community > could complain and have an argument. Yes, and that is good, as one of the paries might not even recognize a violation of the CoC so for protection of those it is good that that is possible. (now I'm not talking about the example in question) > > I think these are fixable problems. I propose the following: > > * The Code of Conduct should specifically state that a person who is not a > direct party to the alleged incident is not permitted to make a complaint. I'm against that for the above stated reason. > * We should require that any person who is accused of violating the Code of > Conduct clearly have intent to do so. This is a harder standard to prove, > but one that should help us from having to deal with edge cases. A death > threat is a clear-cut case of intent, for example. Proving that will become very hard and I wouldn't want any pseudo-legal stuff going on. > * The Code of Conduct should be modified so that abiding or not abiding by > it is demonstrable with evidence, taking "feelings" out of it entirely. For > example, a person shouldn't be in violation of the code because someone > "feels harassed/trolled/etc", it should be because they're ACTUALLY > harassed/trolled/etc. But that's entirely what it's all about! Feelings! Or how do you define ACTUALL harrasment/trolling/etc? We need a safe space for members of thius community that FEEL unhappy. A place they can come to whenever they FEEL something is going wrong to talk to someone to see whether the feeling might be accurat or not! And that's the point that is entirely missing in the whole CoC-Debate. > [...] > > Open to suggestions/comments on this. I'll work on pull requests to > Derrick's repo over the next couple of days to let folks share their > thoughts. My Suggestions is: * everyone read the three documents stated above and * let's think about how to provide safe spaces where people with bad feelings can turn to to find open ears that are willing to listen without prejudice. Just my 0.02€ Cheers Andreas -- ,,, (o o) +---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+ | Andreas Heigl | | mailto:andr...@heigl.org N 50°22'59.5" E 08°23'58" | | http://andreas.heigl.org http://hei.gl/wiFKy7 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | http://hei.gl/root-ca | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
