Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Pedro Cordeiro]

The bottom line is that the only requisite for contributors is
professionalism. People should keep non-work related issues to themselves
inside the workplace, as well as they should be respectful to each other no
matter what.

However, if someone is professional and has never posted off-topic opinions
or discriminated someone in the workplace (or within the boundaries of the
project, github, mailing lists, forums, etc), the project mantainers have
no business snooping through their personal social accounts to see if they
are against gay marriage.

Also, 'offensive' is always subjective. On a more moderate example,
supporting Edward Snowden might be offensive to someone who lost a child in
a terrorist attack and that thinks the government has the right to protect
the people by using any means necessary.

2016-01-19 16:17 GMT-02:00 Arvids Godjuks :

> 2016-01-19 20:03 GMT+02:00 Arvids Godjuks :
>
> > Hello to everyone.
> >
> > The Draft states:
> >
> > "This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public
> > spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community."
> >
> > TL;DR: Just no.
> >
> > Long version:
> >
> > What is the definition of "representing project or it's community". If I
> > make a single commit that get's accepted to the project, and then I say
> > something 3 years down the line about the project (in this case PHP), do
> I
> > still represent the project or it's community? Or I have added to
> > conversations on this mailing list for years now, does that mean i'm a
> > contributor now and I'm responsible for anything I say about the project
> or
> > it's community going forward?
> > And what is PHP community? It's not like PHP community is a tight group -
> > it's huge, with tens of millions of people at least all over the world.
> >
> > This is especially a worry for me, because I run a PHP conference, and
> > people come to speak to it. I do not want to deal with people dictating
> me
> > "I want you to pull this person because his views on blah are bla bla bla
> > and that is unacceptable". I do not care about the persons views on any
> > subject, unless:
> > a). It breakes the laws of my country (hate speech, harassment, gender
> > discrimination and all that stuff that is actually covered by laws).
> > b). The person goes into issues, that are not the topic of the
> conference.
> > c). Behaves in a way, that is not acceptable in the society (personal
> > insults, unacceptable language, and so on).
> > And what if I actually agree with that person in my own views? And why
> > someone thinks he has the right to dictate what views are acceptable and
> > witch are not? (i'm not talking about issues, that are universally
> > unacceptable to talk about).
> >
> > Regarding c) - you should remember, that in different parts of the world
> > the social norms vary - from slightly to moderate between western
> cultures,
> > to quite a lot for asian/latin american/african/etc. . Every country is
> > different, especially those, that are quite far apart. That means that
> > people will be doing things, that are totally acceptable and are the norm
> > in their country, when they are preforming at the local conference, but
> > will probably trigger a storm somewhere else, and that may result in
> things
> > going horribly wrong.
> >
> > So, as far as my personal opinion goes, CoC has to apply only to project
> > spaces in full, and for the public spaces it has to have a clear
> > definition, when CoC applies. I really do not want to see situation like
> > they happened in other projects, when a person can be booted off the
> > project just because he does not support some trending new thing in
> social
> > areas (pick any social issue in recent 20 years), but is absolutely a
> model
> > member of the project. This is a tech project, not a social gathering to
> > impose social trends and rallying support for social issues.
> >
> > * Any personal opinions on any subject not directly related to the
> project
> > itself should be out of the scope of CoC. This has to be written in from
> > the start, otherwise people will find a way to exploit it to generate
> > controversy and drama on the subjects that are not related to the PHP
> > project.
> > * CoC should clearly state that it is designed only to handle the conduct
> > in project channels and official representation of the project. The
> > representation part should be defined.
> > * Any requests coming in on the issues, that are not directly related to
> > the PHP project itself, should be outright rejected. In case of abuse
> > (trying to re-open the issues) the access should be restricted if that's
> > technically possible.
> >
> > Otherwise, as history shows, the rules are abused sooner or later. And
> the
> > amount of controversy we have around PHP every minor and major release,
> > that's a given.
> >
> > Above written is a rough thought list on the 

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Arvids Godjuks]

2016-01-19 20:03 GMT+02:00 Arvids Godjuks :

> Hello to everyone.
>
> The Draft states:
>
> "This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public
> spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community."
>
> TL;DR: Just no.
>
> Long version:
>
> What is the definition of "representing project or it's community". If I
> make a single commit that get's accepted to the project, and then I say
> something 3 years down the line about the project (in this case PHP), do I
> still represent the project or it's community? Or I have added to
> conversations on this mailing list for years now, does that mean i'm a
> contributor now and I'm responsible for anything I say about the project or
> it's community going forward?
> And what is PHP community? It's not like PHP community is a tight group -
> it's huge, with tens of millions of people at least all over the world.
>
> This is especially a worry for me, because I run a PHP conference, and
> people come to speak to it. I do not want to deal with people dictating me
> "I want you to pull this person because his views on blah are bla bla bla
> and that is unacceptable". I do not care about the persons views on any
> subject, unless:
> a). It breakes the laws of my country (hate speech, harassment, gender
> discrimination and all that stuff that is actually covered by laws).
> b). The person goes into issues, that are not the topic of the conference.
> c). Behaves in a way, that is not acceptable in the society (personal
> insults, unacceptable language, and so on).
> And what if I actually agree with that person in my own views? And why
> someone thinks he has the right to dictate what views are acceptable and
> witch are not? (i'm not talking about issues, that are universally
> unacceptable to talk about).
>
> Regarding c) - you should remember, that in different parts of the world
> the social norms vary - from slightly to moderate between western cultures,
> to quite a lot for asian/latin american/african/etc. . Every country is
> different, especially those, that are quite far apart. That means that
> people will be doing things, that are totally acceptable and are the norm
> in their country, when they are preforming at the local conference, but
> will probably trigger a storm somewhere else, and that may result in things
> going horribly wrong.
>
> So, as far as my personal opinion goes, CoC has to apply only to project
> spaces in full, and for the public spaces it has to have a clear
> definition, when CoC applies. I really do not want to see situation like
> they happened in other projects, when a person can be booted off the
> project just because he does not support some trending new thing in social
> areas (pick any social issue in recent 20 years), but is absolutely a model
> member of the project. This is a tech project, not a social gathering to
> impose social trends and rallying support for social issues.
>
> * Any personal opinions on any subject not directly related to the project
> itself should be out of the scope of CoC. This has to be written in from
> the start, otherwise people will find a way to exploit it to generate
> controversy and drama on the subjects that are not related to the PHP
> project.
> * CoC should clearly state that it is designed only to handle the conduct
> in project channels and official representation of the project. The
> representation part should be defined.
> * Any requests coming in on the issues, that are not directly related to
> the PHP project itself, should be outright rejected. In case of abuse
> (trying to re-open the issues) the access should be restricted if that's
> technically possible.
>
> Otherwise, as history shows, the rules are abused sooner or later. And the
> amount of controversy we have around PHP every minor and major release,
> that's a given.
>
> Above written is a rough thought list on the subject. Proposed CoC is too
> generic and allows for a lot of loopholes. We should really take out time,
> read up on the issues that did happen on other projects (and there are a
> lot of those), and not making a mistake of adopting a general CoC. Personal
> life's have nothing to do with the PHP project. Personal thoughts expressed
> outside of the project are just that - personal. And here in Europe, we
> have quite strict laws about personal stuff too, so even bringing up issues
> like "that person thinks that ... that he said to me in a personal
> conversation" are subject to laws, that prohibit this explicitly.
>
> Thank your for your time,
> Arvids.
>

One more thing: the CoC should really not allow for things to happen like
in this story:
http://blog.randi.io/2015/12/31/the-developer-formerly-known-as-freebsdgirl/
- is it true or not, and is there something else to it - isn't the point.
This is just an example of what CoC should not allow to happen. Ever.

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Arvids Godjuks]

Hello to everyone.

The Draft states:

"This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public
spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community."

TL;DR: Just no.

Long version:

What is the definition of "representing project or it's community". If I
make a single commit that get's accepted to the project, and then I say
something 3 years down the line about the project (in this case PHP), do I
still represent the project or it's community? Or I have added to
conversations on this mailing list for years now, does that mean i'm a
contributor now and I'm responsible for anything I say about the project or
it's community going forward?
And what is PHP community? It's not like PHP community is a tight group -
it's huge, with tens of millions of people at least all over the world.

This is especially a worry for me, because I run a PHP conference, and
people come to speak to it. I do not want to deal with people dictating me
"I want you to pull this person because his views on blah are bla bla bla
and that is unacceptable". I do not care about the persons views on any
subject, unless:
a). It breakes the laws of my country (hate speech, harassment, gender
discrimination and all that stuff that is actually covered by laws).
b). The person goes into issues, that are not the topic of the conference.
c). Behaves in a way, that is not acceptable in the society (personal
insults, unacceptable language, and so on).
And what if I actually agree with that person in my own views? And why
someone thinks he has the right to dictate what views are acceptable and
witch are not? (i'm not talking about issues, that are universally
unacceptable to talk about).

Regarding c) - you should remember, that in different parts of the world
the social norms vary - from slightly to moderate between western cultures,
to quite a lot for asian/latin american/african/etc. . Every country is
different, especially those, that are quite far apart. That means that
people will be doing things, that are totally acceptable and are the norm
in their country, when they are preforming at the local conference, but
will probably trigger a storm somewhere else, and that may result in things
going horribly wrong.

So, as far as my personal opinion goes, CoC has to apply only to project
spaces in full, and for the public spaces it has to have a clear
definition, when CoC applies. I really do not want to see situation like
they happened in other projects, when a person can be booted off the
project just because he does not support some trending new thing in social
areas (pick any social issue in recent 20 years), but is absolutely a model
member of the project. This is a tech project, not a social gathering to
impose social trends and rallying support for social issues.

* Any personal opinions on any subject not directly related to the project
itself should be out of the scope of CoC. This has to be written in from
the start, otherwise people will find a way to exploit it to generate
controversy and drama on the subjects that are not related to the PHP
project.
* CoC should clearly state that it is designed only to handle the conduct
in project channels and official representation of the project. The
representation part should be defined.
* Any requests coming in on the issues, that are not directly related to
the PHP project itself, should be outright rejected. In case of abuse
(trying to re-open the issues) the access should be restricted if that's
technically possible.

Otherwise, as history shows, the rules are abused sooner or later. And the
amount of controversy we have around PHP every minor and major release,
that's a given.

Above written is a rough thought list on the subject. Proposed CoC is too
generic and allows for a lot of loopholes. We should really take out time,
read up on the issues that did happen on other projects (and there are a
lot of those), and not making a mistake of adopting a general CoC. Personal
life's have nothing to do with the PHP project. Personal thoughts expressed
outside of the project are just that - personal. And here in Europe, we
have quite strict laws about personal stuff too, so even bringing up issues
like "that person thinks that ... that he said to me in a personal
conversation" are subject to laws, that prohibit this explicitly.

Thank your for your time,
Arvids.

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Stig Bakken]

Hi Anthony,

Have you looked at the IETF's approach to the same issue?

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-06

- Stig

On Jan 10, 2016 04:48, "Anthony Ferrara"  wrote:

> All,
>
> > I was not hesitant (or, let's maybe call it "intentionally
> procrastinating") to post on this topic because I felt unsafe on this list
> or in the general realm of the PHP community; I simply was in no mood to
> deal with a mob of self-proclaimed-or-not "Social Justice Warriors" and
> their digital pitchforks on twitter or elsewhere - and they're already
> trying: https://twitter.com/drupliconissad/status/685489458934841344
>
> Please, let's stop this rhetoric and propaganda. All of you.
>
> Since day one supporters of a CoC have been attacked. We've been
> called "SJW", "Fascists", "Feminists", and a whole more, and a whole
> lot worse. Have you looked at Reddit? Have you looked at Twitter?
> Hell, David just called us a "mob of self-proclaimed-or-not Social
> Justice Warriors." Outsiders have joined that rally against "SJW" and
> "Fascism" (and that's me being nice as to what they are saying).
>
> Aside from Phil Sturgeon (who used unacceptably harsh language), the
> people who support this have been exceedingly reasonable. We've been
> trying to discuss logic. We've been trying to keep a level head and
> talk compromise. We've been trying to come to a middle ground solution
> that works for everyone. I've personally spent a lot of time talking
> to people 1:1 constructively to try to figure out what the right
> approach. We're reaching out to other projects to try to find a common
> baseline. Not to pass something, but to pass the right thing. I've
> said that in basically every reply to the entire discussion in every
> thread I've been a part of.
>
> Yet time and time again, we're attacked and accused. A perfect example
> here is the obviously troll account cited here that looks like it has
> a feminist agenda, and then call out for digital pitchforks.
>
> This has got to stop. Please, be professionals. This thread is
> currently 207 messages long. Out of that 207, the vast majority *FROM
> EITHER SIDE* is either rhetoric, hyperbole or pure argument.
>
> On a thread discussing a **DRAFT** proposal.
>
> Please stop with the bullshit arguments about "power takeovers" or
> "political crap" or "pitchforks" or the passive-aggressive comments.
> Please stop with all of the distraction.
>
> If you have something constructive to contribute that will help reach
> a meaningful compromise, then by all means, let's discuss it. But
> please keep the tone civil, and the attacks out of it.
>
> But foremost, let's act like professionals.
>
> Anthony
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Zeev Suraski]

> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 12:55 AM
> To: David Zuelke <d...@heroku.com>
> Cc: Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com>; Pierre Joye
> <pierre@gmail.com>; Brandon Savage <bran...@brandonsavage.net>;
> Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com>; PHP internals
> <internals@lists.php.net>
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
> 
> Zeev,
> 
> > What clearly hasn't happened is any proponent of this RFC actually
> answering these questions.
> 
> Because I (and others) believe that none of these questions are actually
> related to the RFC. They are tangential and are distractions from the prime
> point. The prime point is to actually figure out is where we should move the
> proposal towards. Very few of the replies, and none of the ones in the past
> 100 replies discuss this prime point.

That's a way of answering too!  Now that I know that's your position, I can 
tell you what I think about it.  Going back to the questions as you phrased 
them:

>> Some people have
>> questioned what this is a solution to, but most haven't.

Actually, that brings me to one of my main gripes with the RFC - the extremely 
widespread confusion surrounding it.  In this case, the fact people aren't 
questioning what this is a solution to, does not in any way mean they 
understand what it's trying to solve.  In fact, everything I've seen in the 
last few days, and everyone I've spoken to, leads me to believe the exact 
opposite.  For the most part, people think it's supposed to solve the 'toxic 
internals' problem.  While you've since gone on record that's not the case - 
it's buried in a long reply to me;  I think it should be a prominent part of 
the RFC at the very least - and proponents of the RFC should be going out of 
their way to ensure that it's clear to everyone this is not what this RFC is 
aiming to do (as noble a cause as it may be).  This widespread confusion is one 
of the key sources for opposition to this RFC, since people believe its goal 
would be creating a behavior or thought police. 

>> Some have questioned if we have a problem, but most haven't.
 
As I said before I wouldn't assume that just because people asking - they don't 
want to see this answered.

> IMHO answering these meta level questions, and having this meta level
> discussion is a distraction from the entire point of the proposal.

Even if that's your position - when RFC authors see questions coming up 
repeatedly from various people, I believe they must respond to them even if the 
response is that these questions are beside the point, with an explanation as 
to why they're beside the point in their opinion.

I don't believe these questions are meta at all.  Ultimately, I think whether 
or not this RFC is worth the risk it poses has to do with the magnitude of the 
problem it's trying to solve.  A widespread problem, frequently occurring, may 
justify harsher means than a theoretical issue that may or may not happen in 
the future.

> 
> > Asking for proof is not at all the same as denying it exists.
> > Not knowing that something exists, and even finding it difficult to believe 
> > it
> does - is not the same as knowing that it doesn't exist / denying it.
> 
> When one person says something happens, asking for proof may be
> reasonable and backup precisely what you say. However, that's not the case
> here. At least a dozen people have said "something happened".

I don't recall seeing more than a handful of people who said 'Something 
happened', but even if I grossly miscounted - we have to go back to the point I 
made above.  Due to the widespread confusion about what this is trying to fix, 
the fact that people are insisting that 'Something happened', does not at all 
mean they necessarily refer to things that this RFC is supposed to address.  
For instance, when a certain person says "We clearly have a problem", how can I 
know whether he refers to the 'toxic internals' problem, or a true 
violence/sexual harassment allegation?  Based on the fact I've seen more than a 
dozen people talking about how a CoC is about solving the 'toxic internals' 
problem, my educated guess is that most people that said that "there's a 
problem" meant the 'toxic internals' problem, and not safety issues.

That leads to another important issue.  We're a very global project.  Different 
cultures around the world have very different ideas regarding what's considered 
acceptable or even legal.  What may seem completely unreasonable to a 
'reasonable American',  may seem completely fine to the average 'reasonable 
German'.  What may seem completely reasonable to the 'reasonable Israeli', may 
look unacceptable to the 'reasonable Japanese'.  Sometimes, it

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Pádraic Brady]

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

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Anthony Ferrara]

David,

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:05 PM, David Zuelke  wrote:
> On 11.01.2016, at 12:31, Anthony Ferrara  wrote:
>
>> Actually, asking for proof and denying are the same thing. If they
>> weren't, then why would you be asking for proof unless you believed it
>> didn't happen?
>
> They are not the same thing. If you make a claim, then the onus of proof is 
> on you, and you cannot simply turn that reasonable request against them by 
> then implying they're denying. Otherwise, why have proof for anything at all?

Because the claim is tangential to the discussion. We're not talking
about passing an RFC which enumerates which incidents have happened.
The fact that incidents have happened doesn't change this RFC at all.
Some people denied that anything has happened in the first place, and
as a response to that, many (including myself) have stood up and said
"sorry, but things have happened". The burden of proof isn't on
anyone, because the entire line of discussion is off-topic.

And even if it was on-topic, the question wasn't (sic) "can you share
a concrete example so we can learn from it". The question was (sic) "I
haven't seen it happen" which is paramount to "prove it".

> To me, this begs the question: would you handle incidents covered by the CoC 
> in a similar way, with that same attitude? An accuser claims something, and 
> asking for proof will be interpreted as denial?
>
> By extension, will a third party asking for proof for an incident be subject 
> to kafkatrapping - "the fact that you're doubting X happened means you're 
> also guilty of X"? That one has happened to me before on twitter. Didn't 
> stick because of the ridiculousness, but maybe the conjured mob was simply 
> not large enough to spark sufficient outrage.

Which is precisely why asking for evidence and public discussion is
problematic. That's precisely what I was trying to avoid with having a
resolution team that had limited powers. To avoid the "public court"
as much as possible *precisely* because of the mob mentality *in both
directions*.

> I'm pretty uncomfortable that you as the person "in charge" of this RFC hold 
> such biased views. If you can't see that asking for proof and denial are 
> different things then that IMO disqualifies you for that role.

Ok. I'm disqualified then.

> The same applies to your claims of threats of violence. It's fine if you 
> don't want to provide details, but then you can't bring those cases up. It's 
> legitimate for others here to ask you for evidence if you do bring it up. I 
> understand that we're all different personalities and you're maybe more wired 
> in that direction (mentioning something in passing), but you need to 
> understand that once a claim is out there, it's up to you to back it up. If 
> you then refuse to, it raises doubts, and rightfully so.

I never said I don't want to provide details. I said I won't talk
about it publicly. I think that is a reasonable thing. Especially
since we're talking about creating a private channel for this sort of
discussion. To say I need to make it public or it doesn't count is
problematic. Especially since we're talking about a CoC here where
people may not feel comfortable talking publicly about incidents. And
several people have already stood up and said precisely that. So to
discount all of those incidents because people don't feel comfortable
(for whatever reason) talking publicly, isn't good.



Zeev,

> What clearly hasn't happened is any proponent of this RFC actually answering 
> these questions.

Because I (and others) believe that none of these questions are
actually related to the RFC. They are tangential and are distractions
from the prime point. The prime point is to actually figure out is
where we should move the proposal towards. Very few of the replies,
and none of the ones in the past 100 replies discuss this prime point.

IMHO answering these meta level questions, and having this meta level
discussion is a distraction from the entire point of the proposal.

> Is my email being ignored because I used the word 'judicial' to describe the 
> current RFC, and differentiate it from a regular CoC+mediation?
> Is it non constructive or hyperbole in your opinion?

No, I read your email. I haven't responded because I've been trying to
throttle my replies to this post, and had immediately responded to
another thread. Additionally, I don't believe that anything you
brought up hasn't already been discussed at some point in this 300+
reply thread.  But if nobody else covers the points I feel should be
made, I will reply tomorrow to it.

> Asking for proof is not at all the same as denying it exists.
> Not knowing that something exists, and even finding it difficult to believe 
> it does - is not the same as knowing that it doesn't exist / denying it.

When one person says something happens, asking for proof may be
reasonable and backup precisely what you say. However, that's not the
case here. At 

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[François Laupretre]

Le 11/01/2016 23:55, Anthony Ferrara a écrit :


There are two prime reasons people may avoid internals (at least
related to this discussion).

1. Don't want to deal with the aggressive tone of the list
2. Don't want to expose themselves to targeted aggression/negativity


If we want to deal with the reasons why people avoid internals, the 
let's go and analyze the problem first ? I will start asking whether we 
really want to attract newcomers. The question may sound ridiculous but 
I think we don't, mostly because most people here see newcomers as just 
a source of annoyment and silly questions/RFCs. Additional evidence 
shows that we never did much effort to help integrate newcomers.


So, the tone on the list is, IMO, just a small part of the problem. As 
long as there's no consensus on whether we want to attract newcomers and 
the effort we're ready to do to integrate them, discussing about the 
details of a CoC seems a bit prematurate to me.


Regards

François


--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Zeev Suraski]

> > That's because nobody does that. Instead, the question is whether the
> > specific proposal is helpful to fix specific issues. The conversation
> > goes like this:
> >
> > A: here's solution X!
> > B: for what?
> > A: for problem Y
> > B: but do we have problem Y? Also, X does not seem to solve Y and also
> > introduces problem Z
> > A: we can solve Z easily! Also, here's proof problem Q exists.
> > B: but Q is not Y. And we didn't see Y exists so far. And your
> > solution to Z sounds iffy.
> > A: why you keep denying problem Q exists?!
> 
> I don't think that's a fair characterization of this discussion.

Fair or not, there's clearly confusion regarding what this RFC aims to achieve, 
and this confusion is widespread.  More on that below.

> Some people have
> questioned what this is a solution to, but most haven't.
> Some have questioned if we have a problem, but most haven't.

What clearly hasn't happened is any proponent of this RFC actually answering 
these questions.

I wouldn't assume that because most people aren't participating in this 
discussion (and most people aren't), all the silent voice aren't interested in 
getting answers to these questions.  I'm sure some are waiting for these 
questions to be answered, like me.

> Most of the constructive discussion (meaning the discussion not using
> hyperbole or overloaded terms) has been not talking about if we need to do
> something, but if what is proposed is good or not. And the best parts have
> been help molding the proposal to be better overall.

Is my email being ignored because I used the word 'judicial' to describe the 
current RFC, and differentiate it from a regular CoC+mediation? 
Is it non constructive or hyperbole in your opinion?

> Actually, asking for proof and denying are the same thing. If they weren't,
> then why would you be asking for proof unless you believed it didn't
> happen?

Asking for proof is not at all the same as denying it exists. 
Not knowing that something exists, and even finding it difficult to believe it 
does - is not the same as knowing that it doesn't exist / denying it.
 
What I said is that despite numerous  situations I've been involved in 
controversial discussions, I've never once witnessed what I would categorize as 
a threat of violence against me, nor did I witness one against another person.  
So despite having very relevant experience and a very long track record, I 
don't *know* it exists.  I, of course, cannot rule out that it does exist, but 
can certainly not be sure it does - it being statements that I would categorize 
as threats of violence.  Again, my worry here is that hyperbolic interpretation 
of text that perceives reasonable, perhaps ugly criticism as a threat of 
violence.  And since we're seeing zero examples of what constitutes a threat of 
violence - if & when the RFC is in place, some people may find they've gotten a 
lot more than they bargained for.

FWIW for threats of violence, I think I'd be willing to live with the measures 
detailed in the RFC, especially if we had some real world examples to make sure 
we're all on the same page.  But given that it goes much further than that 
(including open ended things like personal attacks, insulting and even 
harassment, given the broad interpretation that seems to be given to this word 
by many on this list) - it's problematic, and is the source of the 'censorship' 
fears.  I'm sure some could consider this letter as a personal attack of sorts. 
 Some may consider a person saying 'That's not true' as a personal attack of 
sorts, since it's the equivalent of calling one a liar.  And the list goes on.

Last but not least, if I understood you correctly on Twitter, the goal of the 
RFC isn't to change the vibes on internals:
Zeev:  "I'm waiting to hear about how the CoC would apply to the 'poison that 
actively hurts the project' with real life examples."
Anthony:  "as I have said before, that is not a goal of the CoC. I said it 
because you (and Stas) said argument was fine and good."

I, for one, haven't seen this mentioned explicitly on list, but more 
importantly - there's clearly a lot of confusion both on the list and on 
Twitter regarding what this RFC aims to achieve.  A lot of people on Twitter 
pinged me (and you) saying how the way internals is discourages them to get 
involved (can provide references if needed), and it's very clear they believe 
the CoC will change that.  Can you send a public message that it won't, or 
explain to all of us how it will?

Thanks,

Zeev

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[David Zuelke]

On 11.01.2016, at 12:31, Anthony Ferrara  wrote:

> Actually, asking for proof and denying are the same thing. If they
> weren't, then why would you be asking for proof unless you believed it
> didn't happen?

They are not the same thing. If you make a claim, then the onus of proof is on 
you, and you cannot simply turn that reasonable request against them by then 
implying they're denying. Otherwise, why have proof for anything at all?

To me, this begs the question: would you handle incidents covered by the CoC in 
a similar way, with that same attitude? An accuser claims something, and asking 
for proof will be interpreted as denial?

By extension, will a third party asking for proof for an incident be subject to 
kafkatrapping - "the fact that you're doubting X happened means you're also 
guilty of X"? That one has happened to me before on twitter. Didn't stick 
because of the ridiculousness, but maybe the conjured mob was simply not large 
enough to spark sufficient outrage.

I'm pretty uncomfortable that you as the person "in charge" of this RFC hold 
such biased views. If you can't see that asking for proof and denial are 
different things then that IMO disqualifies you for that role.

The same applies to your claims of threats of violence. It's fine if you don't 
want to provide details, but then you can't bring those cases up. It's 
legitimate for others here to ask you for evidence if you do bring it up. I 
understand that we're all different personalities and you're maybe more wired 
in that direction (mentioning something in passing), but you need to understand 
that once a claim is out there, it's up to you to back it up. If you then 
refuse to, it raises doubts, and rightfully so.

Otherwise, we "just have to take your word for it", and that's exactly the 
thing many here are afraid of when it comes to this RFC - that in the future, 
anyone can pull accusations out of their hats, and the accusation is enough, 
because "why would you be making that accusation if it didn't happen" (please 
compare that sentence to the quoted section at the beginning of this message to 
understand why it is relevant.

David


--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Lester Caine]

On 11/01/16 22:55, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> There are two prime reasons people may avoid internals (at least
> related to this discussion).
> 
> 1. Don't want to deal with the aggressive tone of the list
> 2. Don't want to expose themselves to targeted aggression/negativity

Sorry, but this is bullshit ...
And I say that as someone who's comments have been shouted down here in
the past, but my views have never been censured and reading the list
regularly I do not recognise EITHER of those statements. No CoC is going
to change the manor my objections to the way PHP is developing are
addressed, but as long as the 1.5+ million lines of PHP code I'm using
remains working I'm not worried and will not waste any time discussing it.

What people talk about on other media such as Twitter, Facebook,
Google+, Linkedin, and so on is not something the PHP project has any
influence over and winging there is not the place to register a problem?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Stanislav Malyshev]

Hi!

> I don't think that's a fair characterization of this discussion. Some
> people have questioned what this is a solution to, but most haven't.
> Some have questioned if we have a problem, but most haven't.

Again, "a problem". You and Pierre are talking as if there's specific
problem you have already identified, and there are people agreeing that
it exists and those that still deny it exists. But it's not the case -
we don't even know what *is* that problem. Is that harassment? On the
list? Off list? Aggressive discussion on list? Reputation of the list
being unfriendly, regardless of what actually happens? What "a problem"
is that you are fixing? I still don't know. It may be crystal clear to
you and Pierre, but so far I don't think you succeeded in explaining it.

> Actually, asking for proof and denying are the same thing. If they
> weren't, then why would you be asking for proof unless you believed it
> didn't happen?

Well, I honestly don't know how to react to this. It's just not. I can't
believe you are seriously saying this. I'm sorry if I'll get a bit to
deep into the woods here, but I honestly never expected reading
something like that. The whole structure of science, mathematics and
logic is built on the concept of proof, moreover, the whole concept
underlying this - that there are facts, knowable laws of nature, that
reason and logic are possible, etc. - are based on these concepts, and
nowhere it is equated with denial. People have been looking for proof
for Fermat's Last Theorem for over 350 years - were they all denying its
veracity for all that time? Of course not. In fact, most of them were
sure it is true. But opinion and proof are not the same.

You seem to be under impression that there can be only two stances with
relation to some claim - either completely and unquestionably
acknowledging it as the holy truth, or completely denying it. This is
actually not so - for most claims, it is rarely one of these, and for
claims that have not been substantiated, the right relation is "we do
not know anything about the validity of this claim". Proof is the one
that helps us move from "no idea" to "it's probably so" or "I'm as sure
in it as I ever been in anything" or "looks very fishy, it's probably
completely bogus", etc.

I now start to think maybe the trouble you have understanding why people
have problems with the structure you propose stems from this
misunderstanding - you seem to think there are only hard obvious facts
which one either accepts or denies, and merely asking for proof is the
same as denial, since it's not acceptance - either it is true, and then
we need no proof, or it's false, and then any "proof" is just lies. Of
course, in reality we would not deal with anything like that - we'd only
deal with claims of unknown veracity, for which we would have to ask for
proof. With your approach, of course, that would be denying the
experience of the person who complained, which is IMO unacceptable - how
you can deny somebody's experience - so I wonder how you imagined a
resolution team would work?

> As far what exactly "these problems" are specifically, that's an
> entirely different discussion than the one we've been having here as
> part of the CoC. Because the vast majority of "these problems" aren't
> the goal of the CoC. The goal of the CoC to me is to help create a
> safe place. To create a mechanism and reinforcement that we should all
> behave appropriately.

But what is a "safe place" we are trying to create (note: that's one of
the reasons I wanted more positive CoC)? I would be glad to help all I
can to do this, but for that I assume I'd need to know what I am trying
to do? How we know if we created this place or utterly failed in it?
Let's say we did create that "safe place" - could you describe any
specific difference with what is happening on the list now? For example,
if somebody were given the archive of the list pre-safe-place and
post-safe-place, they would be able to distinguish which is which using
that criteria? What we would have more of, what we would have less of,
what we would stop seeing here and what would we start seeing here?

> Other issues (such as over aggressiveness on the list, etc) are out of
> scope right now, so aren't worth discussing *in this thread*. Feel
> free to discuss it as much as you want in another thread, but I'd like
> to see this one get back to constructively discussing the proposal.
> Well, not really "get back to", but "start".
> 

I think we started long ago. And the question if style of discussion on
the list would *ever* be in scope for CoC, is very much relevant to it,
especially as the problems with this style was repeatedly pointed to as
the primary reason why we need the CoC.
Once we have created those powers that you require, we can not (at least
not without a lot of drama) un-create them, so I think it is prudent to
know what these powers are to be used for.
Note that I and others - again, very much in scope of 

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Ferenc Kovacs]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Stanislav Malyshev 
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> > Even without that, though, it's clear we *do* have more serious issues
> > than just "rudeness".  When a major contributor is getting death-threats
> > over an RFC, *there is a problem*.  That they're happening off-list
> > doesn't change the fact that *that is a problem*.
>
> OK, so to evaluate solution to a problem we need to see:
> 1. There is a problem
> 2. Solution is possible to implement
> 3. Solution solves the problem.
> 4. Solution does not produce the effects worse than the original problem
>
> Now, do we have the problem that internals is not the nicest place in
> the world? Definitely. Does CoC as solution solve it? Possibly, if we
> apply it really extensively and ban all people that cause anybody to
> feel any discomfort. That would kill any substantial discussion on the
> list.
>
> Do we have a problem with harassment outside internals (taken broadly)?
> We do. Can we make CoC that would prevent it? Nope.
>
> So, we have a situation where we have a mismatch between a problem and a
> solution, and that is what the misunderstanding is based on. You and
> several other people try to prove something we already agree about -
> that certain problems exist - and forget to prove something that needs
> to be proven - that what you propose would solve *these* problems in any
> acceptable way. Instead, the solution (at least part of it) is designed
> to solve *different* problems, which nobody showed we even had. This
> mismatch is an issue.
>
> > with the risk of those tools being abused.  It's not just "it's too
> > dangerous", but "it's so dangerous that we'd rather have the current
> > problem."  That is, that current problems are tolerable.
>
> They are "tolerable" by definition, since we are tolerating them right
> now :) That, of course, does not mean improvement can't be made. But for
> that, we need to actually see the path to improvement, not just "do
> something because something has to be done".
>
> > The other "contra" position is to make a CoC toothless.  The argument
>
> CoC can not have any tooth per se. It's just a promise, as I said.
> Promise does not enforce itself. People can enforce promise, in
> different ways. These ways are completely separate from the promise, and
> I think there's a lot of value in the promise itself. In fact, I think
> it is a much more significant step than figuring out how to punish
> people that break the promise.
>
> > I'll take that a step further: Having a CoC with no teeth has a higher
> > risk of abuse than it having teeth, because those who would abuse it can
> > use that lack of teeth to their advantage.
>
> If you talking about insulting people on twitter and reddit, I do not
> see how any tooth to CoC would change anything. We can't ban people from
> twitter and reddit (thankfully).
>
> > At the same time, though, if someone is being maliciously hostile what
> > great cover!  A private email is not a PHP-Group managed resource, so no
> > rules!  Twitter, ha, no rules!  Reddit?  LOL like they enforce
>
> That's not true. The fact that PHP community does not enforce these
> rules, does not mean there are no rules at all. It just means we do not
> have responsibility to enforce them. We are not Team PHP World Police.
>
> I could be OK with looking into matters directly related to RFCs and
> alike discussions - but phrasing like "PHP business" open to obvious
> trolling like "what do you mean heinous acts of $Person to support
> position $whatever is not your business? Are you $whatever-ist?
> Obviously you are, and I just finished an article for $MajorNewspaper
> declaring PHP Group is a nest of $whatever-ists and I'll click "Send"
> unless you agree to make it your business right this second". So we need
> to be clear we never promised to get into this.
>
> > infrastructure".  It's trivial to circumvent otherwise.  Now, how do we
>
> It is trivial to circumvent anyway. Twitter and reddit as both
> pseudonymous.
>
> > Let's all focus on maximizing the benefit and minimizing the risk.
> > Pretending that the status quo is oh-so-wonderful accomplishes neither
> > goal.
>
> I don't think anybody pretends oh-so-wonderful. But, see the four points
> above. Having *some* solution is not enough. It needs to be *good*
> solution. Going back to the pill analogy, if you're sick, raiding the
> medicine cabinet and trying random pills may not be a good idea. And
> saying that does not mean denying that somebody feels unwell - it just
> means finding the right pill is a good idea before swallowing it.
> --
> Stas Malyshev
> smalys...@gmail.com
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
I think that you are ignoring a bunch of points from those supporting the
CoC.

OK, so to evaluate solution to a problem we need to see:
1. There is a problem

there are more than one problem, currently we have 

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Stanislav Malyshev]

Hi!

> Even without that, though, it's clear we *do* have more serious issues
> than just "rudeness".  When a major contributor is getting death-threats
> over an RFC, *there is a problem*.  That they're happening off-list
> doesn't change the fact that *that is a problem*.

OK, so to evaluate solution to a problem we need to see:
1. There is a problem
2. Solution is possible to implement
3. Solution solves the problem.
4. Solution does not produce the effects worse than the original problem

Now, do we have the problem that internals is not the nicest place in
the world? Definitely. Does CoC as solution solve it? Possibly, if we
apply it really extensively and ban all people that cause anybody to
feel any discomfort. That would kill any substantial discussion on the
list.

Do we have a problem with harassment outside internals (taken broadly)?
We do. Can we make CoC that would prevent it? Nope.

So, we have a situation where we have a mismatch between a problem and a
solution, and that is what the misunderstanding is based on. You and
several other people try to prove something we already agree about -
that certain problems exist - and forget to prove something that needs
to be proven - that what you propose would solve *these* problems in any
acceptable way. Instead, the solution (at least part of it) is designed
to solve *different* problems, which nobody showed we even had. This
mismatch is an issue.

> with the risk of those tools being abused.  It's not just "it's too
> dangerous", but "it's so dangerous that we'd rather have the current
> problem."  That is, that current problems are tolerable.

They are "tolerable" by definition, since we are tolerating them right
now :) That, of course, does not mean improvement can't be made. But for
that, we need to actually see the path to improvement, not just "do
something because something has to be done".

> The other "contra" position is to make a CoC toothless.  The argument

CoC can not have any tooth per se. It's just a promise, as I said.
Promise does not enforce itself. People can enforce promise, in
different ways. These ways are completely separate from the promise, and
I think there's a lot of value in the promise itself. In fact, I think
it is a much more significant step than figuring out how to punish
people that break the promise.

> I'll take that a step further: Having a CoC with no teeth has a higher
> risk of abuse than it having teeth, because those who would abuse it can
> use that lack of teeth to their advantage.

If you talking about insulting people on twitter and reddit, I do not
see how any tooth to CoC would change anything. We can't ban people from
twitter and reddit (thankfully).

> At the same time, though, if someone is being maliciously hostile what
> great cover!  A private email is not a PHP-Group managed resource, so no
> rules!  Twitter, ha, no rules!  Reddit?  LOL like they enforce

That's not true. The fact that PHP community does not enforce these
rules, does not mean there are no rules at all. It just means we do not
have responsibility to enforce them. We are not Team PHP World Police.

I could be OK with looking into matters directly related to RFCs and
alike discussions - but phrasing like "PHP business" open to obvious
trolling like "what do you mean heinous acts of $Person to support
position $whatever is not your business? Are you $whatever-ist?
Obviously you are, and I just finished an article for $MajorNewspaper
declaring PHP Group is a nest of $whatever-ists and I'll click "Send"
unless you agree to make it your business right this second". So we need
to be clear we never promised to get into this.

> infrastructure".  It's trivial to circumvent otherwise.  Now, how do we

It is trivial to circumvent anyway. Twitter and reddit as both
pseudonymous.

> Let's all focus on maximizing the benefit and minimizing the risk.
> Pretending that the status quo is oh-so-wonderful accomplishes neither
> goal.

I don't think anybody pretends oh-so-wonderful. But, see the four points
above. Having *some* solution is not enough. It needs to be *good*
solution. Going back to the pill analogy, if you're sick, raiding the
medicine cabinet and trying random pills may not be a good idea. And
saying that does not mean denying that somebody feels unwell - it just
means finding the right pill is a good idea before swallowing it.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@gmail.com

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Adam Howard]

First and foremost, as PHP is an open source project and the lifeblood of
any open source project is accepting that people do come (and go).  I've
been watching internals for a few years and that is clearly obvious.  So it
seems silly for any open source project to argue against newcomers.

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:46 PM, John Bafford  wrote:

>
> > On Jan 11, 2016, at 19:40, François Laupretre  wrote:
> >
> > If we want to deal with the reasons why people avoid internals, the
> let's go and analyze the problem first ? I will start asking whether we
> really want to attract newcomers. The question may sound ridiculous but I
> think we don't, mostly because most people here see newcomers as just a
> source of annoyment and silly questions/RFCs. Additional evidence shows
> that we never did much effort to help integrate newcomers.
> >
> > So, the tone on the list is, IMO, just a small part of the problem. As
> long as there's no consensus on whether we want to attract newcomers and
> the effort we're ready to do to integrate them, discussing about the
> details of a CoC seems a bit prematurate to me.
>
>
> I agree with this 100%.
>
> This is yet another example of the toxic internals problem. Regardless of
> one's views on the CoC proposal, the conduct of php-internals as a whole
> has been reprehensible.
>
> Whether anyone agrees with that statement or not is almost besides the
> point. Internals has a *reputation* for being toxic, and whether or not
> that reputation is justified, *it exists*, and internals is not doing
> anything to counter that reputation. Certainly not with the CoC discussion.
>
> I have watched internals for probably ten years now. I have *never* gotten
> the impression that internals was actually seriously interested in
> cultivating newcomers. Lip service is paid from time to time, but at the
> end of the day, nothing ever changes.
>
> So let's say, hypothetically, internals actually, seriously, wants
> newcomers.
>
> I've used C since 1997, PHP since 1999, come from a CS background, and PHP
> is my favorite language (well, maybe it's a tie with Objective-C). At
> least, it's the language I use most often, so I have a vested interest in
> helping it get better. I am exactly the sort of person internals should be
> courting to join the "team".
>
> And *every* time I start to think, "ok, I'm finally going to dust off
> those old patches and write some RFCs" this shit happens, and I reconsider
> and go back to lurk mode because I have no interest in participating in
> conversations about facists, whether real or imagined.
>
> I've got one RFC under discussion, and another one in draft that should be
> ready for discussion soon. Hell, I had been collecting emails for a few
> weeks and was just about to start work on (what I had hoped would be an
> ongoing series of) a weekly summary of internals (similar to what Pascal
> Martin had been doing in 2014) as an excuse to actually read all of
> internals to help wrap my head around what was actually going on from a
> tech perspective. Then the CoC thing blows up, and it's all so
> disheartening. Makes me question whether putting in the effort was worth
> it, and well, you can forget about anyone trying to write an impartial
> summary of the CoC discussion.
>
> And that's just internals. There's also apparently twitter and reddit
> flamewars and namecalling going on that I'm just as happy to know nothing
> about.
>
> This is getting a bit ranty. But internals deserves it. You all may be
> great programmers, but in terms of making people *want* to work on php-src,
> you're shitty salespeople.
>
> The reputation for internals being toxic surely bleeds over to everyone
> else who knocks PHP as being a shitty language. Only now, they get to say,
> "what a bunch of amateurs, the language devs can't even discuss a code of
> conduct without calling each other nazis".
>
> Stop the nonsense. Get better, grow up, treat each other with respect, and
> act like the adults you are. I'd like to work with you all, but you make it
> dammned hard to want to.
>
> -John
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[John Bafford]

> On Jan 11, 2016, at 19:40, François Laupretre  wrote:
> 
> If we want to deal with the reasons why people avoid internals, the let's go 
> and analyze the problem first ? I will start asking whether we really want to 
> attract newcomers. The question may sound ridiculous but I think we don't, 
> mostly because most people here see newcomers as just a source of annoyment 
> and silly questions/RFCs. Additional evidence shows that we never did much 
> effort to help integrate newcomers.
> 
> So, the tone on the list is, IMO, just a small part of the problem. As long 
> as there's no consensus on whether we want to attract newcomers and the 
> effort we're ready to do to integrate them, discussing about the details of a 
> CoC seems a bit prematurate to me.


I agree with this 100%.

This is yet another example of the toxic internals problem. Regardless of one's 
views on the CoC proposal, the conduct of php-internals as a whole has been 
reprehensible.

Whether anyone agrees with that statement or not is almost besides the point. 
Internals has a *reputation* for being toxic, and whether or not that 
reputation is justified, *it exists*, and internals is not doing anything to 
counter that reputation. Certainly not with the CoC discussion.

I have watched internals for probably ten years now. I have *never* gotten the 
impression that internals was actually seriously interested in cultivating 
newcomers. Lip service is paid from time to time, but at the end of the day, 
nothing ever changes.

So let's say, hypothetically, internals actually, seriously, wants newcomers.

I've used C since 1997, PHP since 1999, come from a CS background, and PHP is 
my favorite language (well, maybe it's a tie with Objective-C). At least, it's 
the language I use most often, so I have a vested interest in helping it get 
better. I am exactly the sort of person internals should be courting to join 
the "team".

And *every* time I start to think, "ok, I'm finally going to dust off those old 
patches and write some RFCs" this shit happens, and I reconsider and go back to 
lurk mode because I have no interest in participating in conversations about 
facists, whether real or imagined.

I've got one RFC under discussion, and another one in draft that should be 
ready for discussion soon. Hell, I had been collecting emails for a few weeks 
and was just about to start work on (what I had hoped would be an ongoing 
series of) a weekly summary of internals (similar to what Pascal Martin had 
been doing in 2014) as an excuse to actually read all of internals to help wrap 
my head around what was actually going on from a tech perspective. Then the CoC 
thing blows up, and it's all so disheartening. Makes me question whether 
putting in the effort was worth it, and well, you can forget about anyone 
trying to write an impartial summary of the CoC discussion.

And that's just internals. There's also apparently twitter and reddit flamewars 
and namecalling going on that I'm just as happy to know nothing about.

This is getting a bit ranty. But internals deserves it. You all may be great 
programmers, but in terms of making people *want* to work on php-src, you're 
shitty salespeople.

The reputation for internals being toxic surely bleeds over to everyone else 
who knocks PHP as being a shitty language. Only now, they get to say, "what a 
bunch of amateurs, the language devs can't even discuss a code of conduct 
without calling each other nazis".

Stop the nonsense. Get better, grow up, treat each other with respect, and act 
like the adults you are. I'd like to work with you all, but you make it dammned 
hard to want to.

-John


--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Anthony Ferrara]

Stas,

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Stanislav Malyshev  wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I fail to understand how one can think that the CoC could be about
>> censorship  (which is basically what this comment says).
>
> I can explain you that very easily: there are known instances where CoCs
> were used and even more instances where there were attempts to use CoCs
> and CoC-like structures exactly for that. It's not a concern because
> people think it *might* happen, it's a concern because it *already
> happened* elsewhere and people think it also might happen *here*.

Can you cite examples of where this has happened before? Perhaps
studying those incidents will reveal insights we can use to prevent
it.

>> I also fail to understand how one can fail to accept that we already had
>> and have issues, despite numerous people having experienced it.
>
> That's because nobody does that. Instead, the question is whether the
> specific proposal is helpful to fix specific issues. The conversation
> goes like this:
>
> A: here's solution X!
> B: for what?
> A: for problem Y
> B: but do we have problem Y? Also, X does not seem to solve Y and also
> introduces problem Z
> A: we can solve Z easily! Also, here's proof problem Q exists.
> B: but Q is not Y. And we didn't see Y exists so far. And your solution
> to Z sounds iffy.
> A: why you keep denying problem Q exists?!

I don't think that's a fair characterization of this discussion. Some
people have questioned what this is a solution to, but most haven't.
Some have questioned if we have a problem, but most haven't.

Most of the constructive discussion (meaning the discussion not using
hyperbole or overloaded terms) has been not talking about if we need
to do something, but if what is proposed is good or not. And the best
parts have been help molding the proposal to be better overall.

>> create a somehow useful CoC. If we do not see us having problems, there is
>> no point to even discuss a document to solve non existant (for us) problems.
>
> As I note again, talking about abstract "having problems" as an argument
> to do a specific thing is not very useful.
>
>> As a side but important note, it is very disturbing to read so many of us
>> denying the very issues we have. Even if it is denied in a very diplomatic
>> way. I am convinced that this is the first problem we must solve to get a
>> CoC, to accept the very existence of these problems.
>
> First of all, asking for proof and denying is different thing (though
> people often confuse the two, but these *are* different). Second, "very
> issues we have" is, again, very unspecific thing, so it's not even
> possible to deny it. Before I could even deny that "these problems
> exist" - or before you claim I or anybody else does - I'd like to know
> what exactly are "these problems" in specific terms. Because some of the
> problems were almost unanimously recognized, some was not, so it's not
> clear what parts we are talking about.

Actually, asking for proof and denying are the same thing. If they
weren't, then why would you be asking for proof unless you believed it
didn't happen?

As far what exactly "these problems" are specifically, that's an
entirely different discussion than the one we've been having here as
part of the CoC. Because the vast majority of "these problems" aren't
the goal of the CoC. The goal of the CoC to me is to help create a
safe place. To create a mechanism and reinforcement that we should all
behave appropriately.

Other issues (such as over aggressiveness on the list, etc) are out of
scope right now, so aren't worth discussing *in this thread*. Feel
free to discuss it as much as you want in another thread, but I'd like
to see this one get back to constructively discussing the proposal.
Well, not really "get back to", but "start".

Anthony

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Kevin Smith]

> On Jan 11, 2016, at 2:48 AM, Stanislav Malyshev  wrote:

> 
> So, we have a situation where we have a mismatch between a problem and a
> solution, and that is what the misunderstanding is based on. You and
> several other people try to prove something we already agree about -
> that certain problems exist - and forget to prove something that needs
> to be proven - that what you propose would solve *these* problems in any
> acceptable way. Instead, the solution (at least part of it) is designed
> to solve *different* problems, which nobody showed we even had. This
> mismatch is an issue.

This is my chief concern with the proposal. We keep seeing allusions to 
problems of toxicity and tone and the like all the while being assured that the 
proposal does not seek to dictate behavior or punish people for defending their 
position passionately.

If the latter is true, what’s the use in making a case that certain people 
and/or communication channels aren’t friendly enough?
 

Kevin Smith
Hearsay Interactive 

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Adam Howard]

I question if there is a way to keep all communication in PHP Internals on
PHP Internals, which would minimize the risk of someone reaching someone
outside of PHP Internals.  By that I mean, as it stands now, everyone's
email is public and someone meaning to cause or threaten harm could
personally target someone.  Would it not be better if a system was designed
to generate an anonymous email and only official PHP Team Members would
know the true identity.

Thankfully, I have never read or see any abuse within PHP Internals or
among The PHP Development.  I am somewhat surprised to read this and I too
am alarmed.  I've experienced some less than appropriate contact elsewhere,
but never within PHP.  I do not doubt the possibility, though.

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Kevin Smith  wrote:

>
> > On Jan 11, 2016, at 2:48 AM, Stanislav Malyshev 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > So, we have a situation where we have a mismatch between a problem and a
> > solution, and that is what the misunderstanding is based on. You and
> > several other people try to prove something we already agree about -
> > that certain problems exist - and forget to prove something that needs
> > to be proven - that what you propose would solve *these* problems in any
> > acceptable way. Instead, the solution (at least part of it) is designed
> > to solve *different* problems, which nobody showed we even had. This
> > mismatch is an issue.
>
> This is my chief concern with the proposal. We keep seeing allusions to
> problems of toxicity and tone and the like all the while being assured that
> the proposal does not seek to dictate behavior or punish people for
> defending their position passionately.
>
> If the latter is true, what’s the use in making a case that certain people
> and/or communication channels aren’t friendly enough?
>
>
> Kevin Smith
> Hearsay Interactive 
>

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Zeev Suraski]

Larry,

Thanks for your detailed letter.  I think that I'm not that far off from your 
position, but clearly, there are some differences of opinion that lead us to 
different conclusions.
Given the length of your email, I'm going to be very^H^H^H^H selective in what 
I respond to.

> I'm inclined to see the (partial) validity in most arguments, even if I don't
> entirely agree with them.

Same here.  In fact, being able to see things from other people's point of view 
- and being able to articulate it, even if I disagree with it, repeatedly came 
up as feedback for me over the last 20 years (yikes) of my career.

> However, it also means that extreme positions frustrate me to no end,
> because I cannot bring myself to agree with the extreme position even if it
> has valid points to make.

I actually try to understand very extreme positions too, even if I completely 
disagree with them.  Being able to understand how people reach extreme 
positions is extremely important in combating them (in case of any doubts, I'm 
*not* talking about internals at all here).

> To be clear, the "there's a risk of abuse so do nothing" crowd

I haven't seen a crowd that supports the 'do nothing' approach, at least not 
vigorously so.  The way the RFC was presented, the CoC and the ways to enforce 
it came hand in hand as one integrated, inseparable bundle.  I've yet to see 
anybody saying 'we must not do anything', even though some did argue there's no 
real need for change.  I believe most of those will be fine with a CoC that is 
a Mission Statement, or for that matter, a true Code of Conduct (which means it 
does not contain enforcement measures). 

> is saying,
> implicitly, that the known and existing problem of people getting death
> threats

Let me stop you right there.

I don't know that there have been death threats going around here.  I've never 
seen one with my own eyes, or for that matter, heard about one 2nd hand.

I don't know for a fact that there have been threats of ANY kind of violence.   
I know that Anthony reported four threats of violence, but even if he fully 
believes he was threatened with violence, I'm not sure that had we had access 
to the messages sent to him, we'd all agree that these are true threats of 
violence, or just a broad interpretation.

Given that I was presented in numerous forums as a true 'enemy of the state' 
during the STH RFC - and certainly felt that there was a mob with electronic 
pitchforks working in tandem to blame me for all sorts of things I either 
didn't do, or were completely legitimate but presented as illegitimate by 
interested parties (on internals, Twitter and Reddit)  - I now feel almost 
offended that I never once got any threats of violence, let alone death 
threats, in the context of the PHP project.  On a more serious note, yes, I 
find it difficult to believe true threats of violence were made, although I 
believe Anthony may have felt that way.

And that is exactly the problem with the judicial system.  All judicial systems 
are inherently subjective.  That's not something we can fix by working harder 
or spending more time on the RFC in my opinion (although as I told Anthony, I'm 
game for helping out - but think it's fundamentally impossible to fix).  The 
state laws we all live under are subjective, subject to abuse - and they do 
break all the time.  Even when they work out - there are different opinions 
regarding the effectiveness of the penal code, vs. rehabilitation efforts.

World history is full of examples in which certain events - real, staged or 
imaginary - were used as pretext to attack/persecute other groups.  I'm NOT 
saying this is what's happening here, definitely not purposely, but I am saying 
that it's impossible to hold the stick at both hands - if we want to take into 
account that there have been death threats or other threats of violence - which 
is mind-boggingly far-reaching from my point of view, we need to see evidence - 
not just to know whether it's true or not, but also so that we can each form 
our own opinion about them and whether they truly constitute threats or not.  
If people are not willing to present that evidence - which I fully respect and 
is entirely within their rights - I, for one, cannot accept their existence as 
evidence.  At best, it's an uncorroborated testimony - but a more accurate 
description would be 'calling for conclusion'.

> It ignores that the status quo is also subject to abuse; it's just a 
> different kind
> of abuse (taking advantage of the lack of accountability and lack of due
> process we have now), and perhaps easier to abuse by a different type of
> person.

This keeps coming up, but without any substantiated evidence that there's lack 
of accountability or that we're somehow being harmed by lack of due process.  
Not a single case has been presented for public scrutiny as a way to 'test 
drive' the CoC, despite repeated requests from David, Stas and myself (and 
perhaps others).
As 

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Brandon Savage]

>
> At the same time, though, if someone is being maliciously hostile what
> great cover!  A private email is not a PHP-Group managed resource, so no
> rules!  Twitter, ha, no rules!  Reddit?  LOL like they enforce anything.
> If someone wanted to send a death threat to another developer about PHP
> business, I would hope that, as a developer, they are at least smart enough
> then to do so using a chat program that is "out of scope" so that they're
> untouchable.  (If they tried to send someone a death threat on list, we
> should ban them for stupidity. :-) )
>
> That's why the scope needs to cover "involves PHP business, regardless of
> medium" rather than "just on certain pieces of server infrastructure".
> It's trivial to circumvent otherwise.  Now, how do we define "involves PHP
> business" in a way that, for example, forbids someone from harassing a gay
> person about PHP business but doesn't penalize someone for participating in
> an anti-gay-marriage protest in their home town?  That's the question we
> should be discussing: How that balance works to minimize that risk, and
> avoid it being abused to Eich someone.  (Yes, I just used Eich's name as a
> verb.)
> 
>
>
Larry,

This is a great point, and brings up an interesting potential compromise
that might work well for solving this issue.

If the issue is that someone might take an on-list discussion and harass
someone off-list, why not limit the jurisdiction to individuals who have
participated on-list in discussion or voted on the issue?

For example, during the very heated discussion over static type hints, if
someone who had discussed the issue on Internals had then gone out to
Reddit and called Zeev a bunch of terrible things, that could be made
actionable under this code of conduct, reportable to the mediation team.

On the other hand, we have a lot of people with karma who don't always vote
and may not participate in a particular issue on-list. If two people who
have karma have a run-in outside the discussion of an issue related to PHP,
they should have to be adults and hash that out themselves.

And that to me is the crux of the issue. When it comes to making
discussions on internals more civilized, governing a person's conduct *as
it relates to their participation in the discussion* is about as far as PHP
should go. A person who is not a party to the discussion, who does not
vote, but does have karma, who happens to tweet "I think X is a moron for
proposing Y" is entitled to that opinion, *until they bring it here.*

If, on the other hand, the goal of the CoC is not to make Internals a
better place, but to govern what people in the community think, say and do
when they have no direct involvement with this group, that's another matter
entirely. And a much scarier one at that, don't you think?

Brandon

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Ferenc Kovacs]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Stanislav Malyshev 
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> > This particular case isn't what a CoC would protect. So I think that's
> > a bit of a red herring. The CoC doesn't try to enforce itself outside
> > of the scope of project members. Instead, it applies to project
>
> OK, that is clear enough, but I see an issue here - we'd be applying an
> pressure that would very quickly modify behavior towards using
> sockpuppet accounts. In fact, since we're all smart people here, I think
> one instance of enforcement would switch virtually all abuse to
> sockpuppets - why risk CoC complaints if you can make a new account with
> a witty name and vent freely?
> Which would mean if our goal were to reduce abuse, it would fail very
> fast. In fact, sockpuppets probably would be more abusive, since
> Speaking Truth To Power is so much fun.
>
> Of course, if we have clearly understood limits - such as discussion by
> project members in a project-related context - it would not hurt. I'm
> afraid it wouldn't help much either.
> --
> Stas Malyshev
> smalys...@gmail.com
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
while what you are saying it is possible, but
1, the fact that the proposed solution doesn't solve every hypothetical
scenario doesn't mean that the solution is bad, it just means that it isn't
perfect.
2, one of the reasons for the CoC is to send a clear message that the
project doesn't support/endorse some kind of behavior, so if somebody uses
a sockpuppet while that makes it impossible for us to take any measure, but
that already made it clear that he/she doesn't talks for our project.


-- 
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Ferenc Kovacs]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Paul M. Jones  wrote:

>
> > On Jan 11, 2016, at 11:00, Brandon Savage 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Anthony Ferrara 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The CoC doesn't try to enforce itself outside
> >> of the scope of project members. Instead, it applies to project
> >> members wherever they represent the project.
> >>
> >
> > So just to be clear, your intent is for the CoC to apply *only* to those
> > who actively participate in the project.
>
> To be clear, he doesn't say "actively participate." He says only "project
> members when they represent the project."
>
> If that's to be the case, I don't recall seeing explicit definitions of
> "project member" and "represent". Perhaps I have missed them? They're
> needed so as to limit the scope-of-action to what Anthony states above.


I like how the jenkinsci folks covered the in-scope spaces under the
Community Spaces list:
https://jenkins-ci.org/conduct/#community-spaces
and they referred to their pre-existing Governance document for definition
of contributors and maintainers:
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Document
In our case it is a bit easier because I don't think we have anybody who is
part of the project but not listed under http://people.php.net

-- 
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Stanislav Malyshev]

Hi!

> This particular case isn't what a CoC would protect. So I think that's
> a bit of a red herring. The CoC doesn't try to enforce itself outside
> of the scope of project members. Instead, it applies to project

OK, that is clear enough, but I see an issue here - we'd be applying an
pressure that would very quickly modify behavior towards using
sockpuppet accounts. In fact, since we're all smart people here, I think
one instance of enforcement would switch virtually all abuse to
sockpuppets - why risk CoC complaints if you can make a new account with
a witty name and vent freely?
Which would mean if our goal were to reduce abuse, it would fail very
fast. In fact, sockpuppets probably would be more abusive, since
Speaking Truth To Power is so much fun.

Of course, if we have clearly understood limits - such as discussion by
project members in a project-related context - it would not hurt. I'm
afraid it wouldn't help much either.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@gmail.com

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Ferenc Kovacs]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Stanislav Malyshev 
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> > least hold ourselves to a level of mutual respect. Going out and
> > calling someone a moron in public is not constructive nor respectful,
> > and IMHO we as a project shouldn't sit back and blindly say "whatever"
> > if it happens.
>
> OK, so what should we do instead? So far my calls to apply some TDD were
> not heard, maybe this time?
>
> Let's consider an example of twitter user drupliconissad. It may be
> genuine individual or a troll, it doesn't matter either way.
> If you read the feed, you can find much more than "moron". Now, had we
> had CoC, what would we do? We don't know who that is, so private
> moderation is out of the question, even if we did - it's not look like a
> personal conflict that can be amicably reconciled. Should we issue a
> proclamation saying "we think some anonymous account on twitter is being
> bad"? Should we ban that person (or group of persons - we have no idea
> either way), which we have no idea who that is, from our list? Any other
> ideas?
>
>
The previous example was Phil who is a member of the PHP project, and there
is no dispute that his twitter account isn't his, that situation would be
different from this drupliconissad twitter account who is unknown to us and
probably isn't part of our project and "violated" our CoC on non php.net
related place, so you are right that we can't(and shouldn't) do about
his/her activity outside of our venues but that doesn't mean that we can't
do anything about anybody who happens to be known and part of our project.

ps: these are just examples, I'm not suggesting anything about Phil


-- 
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Anthony Ferrara]

Stas,

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Stanislav Malyshev
 wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> least hold ourselves to a level of mutual respect. Going out and
>> calling someone a moron in public is not constructive nor respectful,
>> and IMHO we as a project shouldn't sit back and blindly say "whatever"
>> if it happens.
>
> OK, so what should we do instead? So far my calls to apply some TDD were
> not heard, maybe this time?
>
> Let's consider an example of twitter user drupliconissad. It may be
> genuine individual or a troll, it doesn't matter either way.
> If you read the feed, you can find much more than "moron". Now, had we
> had CoC, what would we do? We don't know who that is, so private
> moderation is out of the question, even if we did - it's not look like a
> personal conflict that can be amicably reconciled. Should we issue a
> proclamation saying "we think some anonymous account on twitter is being
> bad"? Should we ban that person (or group of persons - we have no idea
> either way), which we have no idea who that is, from our list? Any other
> ideas?

This particular case isn't what a CoC would protect. So I think that's
a bit of a red herring. The CoC doesn't try to enforce itself outside
of the scope of project members. Instead, it applies to project
members wherever they represent the project. So unless we learn that
the "drupliconissad" account actually was a internals contributor,
it's beyond the scope of the CoC considering it also happened
off-list.

However, as Ferenc indicates, what Phil Sturgeon has been saying on
twitter would be within the scope of the CoC, since he is a member of
the project and is actively discussing the project and its members in
a project-related context.

Anthony

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Paul M. Jones]

> On Jan 11, 2016, at 11:00, Brandon Savage  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Anthony Ferrara 
> wrote:
> 
>> The CoC doesn't try to enforce itself outside
>> of the scope of project members. Instead, it applies to project
>> members wherever they represent the project.
>> 
> 
> So just to be clear, your intent is for the CoC to apply *only* to those
> who actively participate in the project.

To be clear, he doesn't say "actively participate." He says only "project 
members when they represent the project."

If that's to be the case, I don't recall seeing explicit definitions of 
"project member" and "represent". Perhaps I have missed them? They're needed so 
as to limit the scope-of-action to what Anthony states above.


-- 
Paul M. Jones
pmjone...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Brandon Savage]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Anthony Ferrara 
wrote:

> The CoC doesn't try to enforce itself outside
> of the scope of project members. Instead, it applies to project
> members wherever they represent the project.
>

So just to be clear, your intent is for the CoC to apply *only* to those
who actively participate in the project. Individuals who do not participate
in the project would not be subject to the CoC *or* the mediation team, and
complaints to the mediation team would be rejected as out of
scope/jurisdiction?

I think this is an important point to discuss, because it sets
jurisdictional boundaries for the project, but also sets intent for what
we're achieving here.

I think this is also important because things have a tendency to expand. We
need to have an answer if a conference organizer asks us to use our
mediation team to resolve disputes at their conference. Or an open source
project. Etc. I don't think we want to become the community's police
force/judge/jury.

This has been my chief concern all along: what to do about people who are
NOT a part of the project. I think the RFC ought to make that explicit.

Brandon

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Anthony Ferrara]

Brandon,

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Brandon Savage
 wrote:
>>
>> At the same time, though, if someone is being maliciously hostile what
>> great cover!  A private email is not a PHP-Group managed resource, so no
>> rules!  Twitter, ha, no rules!  Reddit?  LOL like they enforce anything.
>> If someone wanted to send a death threat to another developer about PHP
>> business, I would hope that, as a developer, they are at least smart enough
>> then to do so using a chat program that is "out of scope" so that they're
>> untouchable.  (If they tried to send someone a death threat on list, we
>> should ban them for stupidity. :-) )
>>
>> That's why the scope needs to cover "involves PHP business, regardless of
>> medium" rather than "just on certain pieces of server infrastructure".
>> It's trivial to circumvent otherwise.  Now, how do we define "involves PHP
>> business" in a way that, for example, forbids someone from harassing a gay
>> person about PHP business but doesn't penalize someone for participating in
>> an anti-gay-marriage protest in their home town?  That's the question we
>> should be discussing: How that balance works to minimize that risk, and
>> avoid it being abused to Eich someone.  (Yes, I just used Eich's name as a
>> verb.)
>> 
>>
>>
> Larry,
>
> This is a great point, and brings up an interesting potential compromise
> that might work well for solving this issue.
>
> If the issue is that someone might take an on-list discussion and harass
> someone off-list, why not limit the jurisdiction to individuals who have
> participated on-list in discussion or voted on the issue?

Honestly, this feels like an overly broad hole. It would be easy for
someone to harass off-list, and then just claim "well, I haven't been
part of the discussion for X, so doesn't count". Plus harassment isn't
limited to just discussion on a certain topic.

> And that to me is the crux of the issue. When it comes to making
> discussions on internals more civilized, governing a person's conduct *as
> it relates to their participation in the discussion* is about as far as PHP
> should go. A person who is not a party to the discussion, who does not
> vote, but does have karma, who happens to tweet "I think X is a moron for
> proposing Y" is entitled to that opinion, *until they bring it here.*

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, sharing that opinion is
potentially another story. I think the exact quote you bring here is
one of the things a CoC is designed to prevent. I would absolutely
consider it bad if one karma-holding individual calls another a
"moron" at all in public for proposing an RFC. While we may disagree
with someone, we should hold ourselves to a constructive standard. The
vast majority of people here want to see PHP (as a project) improve.
Even if we don't agree with how someone approaches that, we should at
least hold ourselves to a level of mutual respect. Going out and
calling someone a moron in public is not constructive nor respectful,
and IMHO we as a project shouldn't sit back and blindly say "whatever"
if it happens.

Anthony

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Kevin Smith]

> On Jan 11, 2016, at 9:11 AM, Anthony Ferrara  wrote:
> 
> Brandon,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Brandon Savage
> > wrote:
> 
>> And that to me is the crux of the issue. When it comes to making
>> discussions on internals more civilized, governing a person's conduct *as
>> it relates to their participation in the discussion* is about as far as PHP
>> should go. A person who is not a party to the discussion, who does not
>> vote, but does have karma, who happens to tweet "I think X is a moron for
>> proposing Y" is entitled to that opinion, *until they bring it here.*
> 
> While everyone is entitled to their opinion, sharing that opinion is
> potentially another story. I think the exact quote you bring here is
> one of the things a CoC is designed to prevent. I would absolutely
> consider it bad if one karma-holding individual calls another a
> "moron" at all in public for proposing an RFC. While we may disagree
> with someone, we should hold ourselves to a constructive standard. The
> vast majority of people here want to see PHP (as a project) improve.
> Even if we don't agree with how someone approaches that, we should at
> least hold ourselves to a level of mutual respect. Going out and
> calling someone a moron in public is not constructive nor respectful,
> and IMHO we as a project shouldn't sit back and blindly say "whatever"
> if it happens.


Ok, so given this continued line of reasoning, is this a fair summary: 

The goal of this proposal is to create a code and enforcement body that seeks 
to improve the content and tone of communications by and between members of the 
PHP community regardless of venue using punitive measures if necessary.


Kevin Smith
Hearsay Interactive 

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Stanislav Malyshev]

Hi!

> least hold ourselves to a level of mutual respect. Going out and
> calling someone a moron in public is not constructive nor respectful,
> and IMHO we as a project shouldn't sit back and blindly say "whatever"
> if it happens.

OK, so what should we do instead? So far my calls to apply some TDD were
not heard, maybe this time?

Let's consider an example of twitter user drupliconissad. It may be
genuine individual or a troll, it doesn't matter either way.
If you read the feed, you can find much more than "moron". Now, had we
had CoC, what would we do? We don't know who that is, so private
moderation is out of the question, even if we did - it's not look like a
personal conflict that can be amicably reconciled. Should we issue a
proclamation saying "we think some anonymous account on twitter is being
bad"? Should we ban that person (or group of persons - we have no idea
either way), which we have no idea who that is, from our list? Any other
ideas?
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@gmail.com

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Pierre Joye]

On Jan 11, 2016 8:47 PM, "Brandon Savage"  wrote:
>
> >
> > At the same time, though, if someone is being maliciously hostile what
> > great cover!  A private email is not a PHP-Group managed resource, so no
> > rules!  Twitter, ha, no rules!  Reddit?  LOL like they enforce anything.
> > If someone wanted to send a death threat to another developer about PHP
> > business, I would hope that, as a developer, they are at least smart
enough
> > then to do so using a chat program that is "out of scope" so that
they're
> > untouchable.  (If they tried to send someone a death threat on list, we
> > should ban them for stupidity. :-) )
> >
> > That's why the scope needs to cover "involves PHP business, regardless
of
> > medium" rather than "just on certain pieces of server infrastructure".
> > It's trivial to circumvent otherwise.  Now, how do we define "involves
PHP
> > business" in a way that, for example, forbids someone from harassing a
gay
> > person about PHP business but doesn't penalize someone for
participating in
> > an anti-gay-marriage protest in their home town?  That's the question we
> > should be discussing: How that balance works to minimize that risk, and
> > avoid it being abused to Eich someone.  (Yes, I just used Eich's name
as a
> > verb.)
> > 
> >
> >
> Larry,
>
> This is a great point, and brings up an interesting potential compromise
> that might work well for solving this issue.
>
> If the issue is that someone might take an on-list discussion and harass
> someone off-list, why not limit the jurisdiction to individuals who have
> participated on-list in discussion or voted on the issue?
>
> For example, during the very heated discussion over static type hints, if
> someone who had discussed the issue on Internals had then gone out to
> Reddit and called Zeev a bunch of terrible things, that could be made
> actionable under this code of conduct, reportable to the mediation team.
>
> On the other hand, we have a lot of people with karma who don't always
vote
> and may not participate in a particular issue on-list. If two people who
> have karma have a run-in outside the discussion of an issue related to
PHP,
> they should have to be adults and hash that out themselves.
>
> And that to me is the crux of the issue. When it comes to making
> discussions on internals more civilized, governing a person's conduct *as
> it relates to their participation in the discussion* is about as far as
PHP
> should go. A person who is not a party to the discussion, who does not
> vote, but does have karma, who happens to tweet "I think X is a moron for
> proposing Y" is entitled to that opinion, *until they bring it here.*
>
> If, on the other hand, the goal of the CoC is not to make Internals a
> better place, but to govern what people in the community think, say and do
> when they have no direct involvement with this group, that's another
matter
> entirely. And a much scarier one at that, don't you think?

My main concerns or worries are exactly those.

I fail to understand how one can think that the CoC could be about
censorship  (which is basically what this comment says).

I also fail to understand how one can fail to accept that we already had
and have issues, despite numerous people having experienced it.

I remember a time where we use to say "if you cannot stand the heat, leave
the kitchen" and I was actually supporting this idea. The problem is is
that it went too far. And we have to admit our weakness first to be able to
create a somehow useful CoC. If we do not see us having problems, there is
no point to even discuss a document to solve non existant (for us) problems.

As a side but important note, it is very disturbing to read so many of us
denying the very issues we have. Even if it is denied in a very diplomatic
way. I am convinced that this is the first problem we must solve to get a
CoC, to accept the very existence of these problems.

My apologizes if this is seen as arguing but I feel like it is the only
fundamental difference I can see between the two camps.

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Chase Peeler]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:52 PM Pierre Joye  wrote:

> On Jan 11, 2016 8:47 PM, "Brandon Savage" 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > At the same time, though, if someone is being maliciously hostile what
> > > great cover!  A private email is not a PHP-Group managed resource, so
> no
> > > rules!  Twitter, ha, no rules!  Reddit?  LOL like they enforce
> anything.
> > > If someone wanted to send a death threat to another developer about PHP
> > > business, I would hope that, as a developer, they are at least smart
> enough
> > > then to do so using a chat program that is "out of scope" so that
> they're
> > > untouchable.  (If they tried to send someone a death threat on list, we
> > > should ban them for stupidity. :-) )
> > >
> > > That's why the scope needs to cover "involves PHP business, regardless
> of
> > > medium" rather than "just on certain pieces of server infrastructure".
> > > It's trivial to circumvent otherwise.  Now, how do we define "involves
> PHP
> > > business" in a way that, for example, forbids someone from harassing a
> gay
> > > person about PHP business but doesn't penalize someone for
> participating in
> > > an anti-gay-marriage protest in their home town?  That's the question
> we
> > > should be discussing: How that balance works to minimize that risk, and
> > > avoid it being abused to Eich someone.  (Yes, I just used Eich's name
> as a
> > > verb.)
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > Larry,
> >
> > This is a great point, and brings up an interesting potential compromise
> > that might work well for solving this issue.
> >
> > If the issue is that someone might take an on-list discussion and harass
> > someone off-list, why not limit the jurisdiction to individuals who have
> > participated on-list in discussion or voted on the issue?
> >
> > For example, during the very heated discussion over static type hints, if
> > someone who had discussed the issue on Internals had then gone out to
> > Reddit and called Zeev a bunch of terrible things, that could be made
> > actionable under this code of conduct, reportable to the mediation team.
> >
> > On the other hand, we have a lot of people with karma who don't always
> vote
> > and may not participate in a particular issue on-list. If two people who
> > have karma have a run-in outside the discussion of an issue related to
> PHP,
> > they should have to be adults and hash that out themselves.
> >
> > And that to me is the crux of the issue. When it comes to making
> > discussions on internals more civilized, governing a person's conduct *as
> > it relates to their participation in the discussion* is about as far as
> PHP
> > should go. A person who is not a party to the discussion, who does not
> > vote, but does have karma, who happens to tweet "I think X is a moron for
> > proposing Y" is entitled to that opinion, *until they bring it here.*
> >
> > If, on the other hand, the goal of the CoC is not to make Internals a
> > better place, but to govern what people in the community think, say and
> do
> > when they have no direct involvement with this group, that's another
> matter
> > entirely. And a much scarier one at that, don't you think?
>
> My main concerns or worries are exactly those.
>
> I fail to understand how one can think that the CoC could be about
> censorship  (which is basically what this comment says).
>
> The argument isn't that people are trying to censor the list. The argument
is that such a policy will inherently lead to such actions, no matter how
good the intentions might have been.


> I also fail to understand how one can fail to accept that we already had
> and have issues, despite numerous people having experienced it.
>
> I, for one, have never denied they exist. My point has been even if they
do exist, this isn't the proper means of addressing them.


> I remember a time where we use to say "if you cannot stand the heat, leave
> the kitchen" and I was actually supporting this idea. The problem is is
> that it went too far. And we have to admit our weakness first to be able to
> create a somehow useful CoC. If we do not see us having problems, there is
> no point to even discuss a document to solve non existant (for us)
> problems.
>
> Again, whether problems exist or not is not relevant in my view. Whether
or not the approach will solve such problems if they do exist, is what I
care about. Even if they will, I also care about exploring what the
unintended side effects may be.


> As a side but important note, it is very disturbing to read so many of us
> denying the very issues we have. Even if it is denied in a very diplomatic
> way. I am convinced that this is the first problem we must solve to get a
> CoC, to accept the very existence of these problems.
>
> Again, not denying their existence. I also haven't seen that many people
that have denied their existence either. I've seen a few people asking for
examples, and others stating that we 

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Stanislav Malyshev]

Hi!

> I fail to understand how one can think that the CoC could be about
> censorship  (which is basically what this comment says).

I can explain you that very easily: there are known instances where CoCs
were used and even more instances where there were attempts to use CoCs
and CoC-like structures exactly for that. It's not a concern because
people think it *might* happen, it's a concern because it *already
happened* elsewhere and people think it also might happen *here*.

> I also fail to understand how one can fail to accept that we already had
> and have issues, despite numerous people having experienced it.

That's because nobody does that. Instead, the question is whether the
specific proposal is helpful to fix specific issues. The conversation
goes like this:

A: here's solution X!
B: for what?
A: for problem Y
B: but do we have problem Y? Also, X does not seem to solve Y and also
introduces problem Z
A: we can solve Z easily! Also, here's proof problem Q exists.
B: but Q is not Y. And we didn't see Y exists so far. And your solution
to Z sounds iffy.
A: why you keep denying problem Q exists?!

> create a somehow useful CoC. If we do not see us having problems, there is
> no point to even discuss a document to solve non existant (for us) problems.

As I note again, talking about abstract "having problems" as an argument
to do a specific thing is not very useful.

> As a side but important note, it is very disturbing to read so many of us
> denying the very issues we have. Even if it is denied in a very diplomatic
> way. I am convinced that this is the first problem we must solve to get a
> CoC, to accept the very existence of these problems.

First of all, asking for proof and denying is different thing (though
people often confuse the two, but these *are* different). Second, "very
issues we have" is, again, very unspecific thing, so it's not even
possible to deny it. Before I could even deny that "these problems
exist" - or before you claim I or anybody else does - I'd like to know
what exactly are "these problems" in specific terms. Because some of the
problems were almost unanimously recognized, some was not, so it's not
clear what parts we are talking about.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@gmail.com

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Larry Garfield]

On 01/09/2016 10:03 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:

Hi!


I was not hesitant (or, let's maybe call it "intentionally
procrastinating") to post on this topic because I felt unsafe on this
list or in the general realm of the PHP community; I simply was in no
mood to deal with a mob of self-proclaimed-or-not "Social Justice
Warriors" and their digital pitchforks on twitter or elsewhere - and
they're already trying:
https://twitter.com/drupliconissad/status/685489458934841344

And this is exactly why I don't want us to give opening to such kind of
people to come here and try to abuse our CoC for their means - basically
for "hounding out" people they for some reason disagree with. They
exist, and they are eager and willing to destroy (not physically but
professionally and reputation-wise) everybody who disagrees with them,
and I am not exaggerating. And I don't want them here. So anything that
hints that they are welcome to do their thing here makes me feel uneasy
(having CoC does not, but declaring that we police the behavior outside
the community feels like going into that direction). Here I think
"hounding out" is not our favorite pastime, and I think it should remain
this way.

That is unless, of course, this account is a troll created to destroy
the CoC cause. In which case I envy the power of commitment and the
talent behind it and I wish that talent were applied to a more worthy
goal. But in any case this one is not alone - I've read many comments if
not as explicit, but with same thought and intent, on various forums.
Some of them, surprisingly, even signed by real names.


Disclaimer: I often describe myself as a "fundamentalist moderate", in 
that I'm inclined to see the (partial) validity in most arguments, even 
if I don't entirely agree with them.  This does not always serve me 
well, but meh. :-)  However, it also means that extreme positions 
frustrate me to no end, because I cannot bring myself to agree with the 
extreme position even if it has valid points to make.


That's what is so frustrating to me in this discussion so far. Numerous 
people have pointed out potential for abuse if a CoC has any "teeth" at 
all.  These concerns are valid.  David Zuelke linked to several examples 
earlier in this thread, and others have as well.  I could cite some from 
Drupal, too, where I believe it was over-applied.  The risk of 
encouraging "victim culture" is very very real, and mentioning those 
risks is entirely and completely valid and welcome.


Unfortunately, the response to those risk statements seems to be, 
mostly, "thus we should do nothing."  That is, ignoring the problems 
that do exist.  Internals has a very acute reputation for being a 
dog-eat-dog cesspool of structureless brutality.  Having been on the 
list since 2007, I will say it's definitely not as bad as it was when I 
first joined but it's still not always a nice place to be. Like most 
here, I stick it out because I care about PHP and have over the past 19 
years of working with online communities developed a fairly thick skin.  
But having a calloused hide should not be a prerequisite for 
contributing to Open Source.  By the same token, though, neither should 
walking on eggshells be a prerequisite either.


Even without that, though, it's clear we *do* have more serious issues 
than just "rudeness".  When a major contributor is getting death-threats 
over an RFC, *there is a problem*.  That they're happening off-list 
doesn't change the fact that *that is a problem*.


To be clear, the "there's a risk of abuse so do nothing" crowd is 
saying, implicitly, that the known and existing problem of people 
getting death threats and there being nothing we can do about it is a 
better situation than having the tools to try and do something about it, 
with the risk of those tools being abused.  It's not just "it's too 
dangerous", but "it's so dangerous that we'd rather have the current 
problem."  That is, that current problems are tolerable.


It ignores that the status quo is also subject to abuse; it's just a 
different kind of abuse (taking advantage of the lack of accountability 
and lack of due process we have now), and perhaps easier to abuse by a 
different type of person.


The legitimate argument that there is potential for risk with a formal 
CoC that should be mitigated (with which I 100% agree) is getting lost 
in the hyperbole.  There is a vast difference between "this could be 
abused in these ways" and "zOMG fascist!!1!"  If anything, the repeated 
use of the latter (which is complete hyperbole and belies a total lack 
of political or historical awareness) actively undermines the former, 
and makes trying to address and account for the abuse risk harder, not 
easier.  It is the mirror image of "he offended me so burn him at the 
stake!", a hyperbole that is over-used to the point that it undermines 
those who are trying to deal with actual abuse and harassment.


Extremists are bad, m'kay?  On both sides.

The other 

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Lester Caine]

On 10/01/16 04:20, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> currently 207 messages long. Out of that 207, the vast majority *FROM
>> > EITHER SIDE* is either rhetoric, hyperbole or pure argument.
> What's wrong with rhetoric and argument? That's how discussion is made.
> Hyperbole, of course, can be toned down, though we are all humans, so I
> would expect it to show up from time to time.
> 
>> > But foremost, let's act like professionals.
> Wholeheartedly agree.

I've not read the whole of the thread for the simple reason that it's a
sad reflection on the world today that we need to discuss it at all on a
project that has no political or religious content. My own view on life
is that we would be much better off if both religion and politics were
banned and no one has the right to kill another ... especially in war.

Do we need a Coc ... Nowadays probably since common decency has been
lost? And it should be a lot easier to adopt an 'off the shelf' one than
it is to decide on a stock open source licence agreement?

Do we need a judiciary to enforce it ... NO even when you enforce a
decision on the world stage, the 'looser' simply moves to a higher court
... or ignores the decision altogether.

Do we need a 'Conflict Resolution Team' instead ... Again probably yes,
but who would actually want to take on that hot potato?

Since very few of the external discussion channels effectively police
their traffic for the sort of harassment that is being discussed, all
that can be done is to moderate traffic that IS under PHP control, so
would it not be better initially to better moderate those channels? PHP
has in my opinion always been built on common courtesy and so has not
had to be pro active in policing contributors but that time is long
passed? Which is a shame ...

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Paul M. Jones]

> On Jan 10, 2016, at 11:03, Paul M. Jones  wrote:
> 
> Hi Anthony,
> 
>> On Jan 9, 2016, at 21:48, Anthony Ferrara  wrote:
> 
> [Regarding supported of the COC as presented]
> 
>> We've been trying to discuss logic.
> 
> I think "logic" would apply itself to more measurements of observable 
> reality. For example:
> 
> - Collect observations and apply some sort of measurement to them.
> 
> - Describe a hypothesis about the conditions leading to the measurable 
> observations.
> 
> - Describe (in relation to the hypothesis) a course of action by which the 
> measurable outcomes could be changed, both positively and negatively, to 
> either prove or disprove the hypothesis.
> 
> - After implementing the course of action, continue to collect observations 
> and apply the prior measurements to them, including both confirmatory and 
> disconfirmatory observations.
> 
> - Determine if the course of action succeeded or failed in changing the 
> measureable observations, thus either confirming or disconfirming the 
> hypothesis.

Oh, I forgot: logic would then have to determine if the course of action was 
preferable to "doing nothing" (i.e., the "null hypothesis") given the entirety 
of outcomes from the course of action.


-- 
Paul M. Jones
pmjone...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Paul M. Jones]

Hi Anthony,

> On Jan 9, 2016, at 21:48, Anthony Ferrara  wrote:

[Regarding supported of the COC as presented]

> We've been trying to discuss logic.

I think "logic" would apply itself to more measurements of observable reality. 
For example:

- Collect observations and apply some sort of measurement to them.

- Describe a hypothesis about the conditions leading to the measurable 
observations.

- Describe (in relation to the hypothesis) a course of action by which the 
measurable outcomes could be changed, both positively and negatively, to either 
prove or disprove the hypothesis.

- After implementing the course of action, continue to collect observations and 
apply the prior measurements to them, including both confirmatory and 
disconfirmatory observations.

- Determine if the course of action succeeded or failed in changing the 
measureable observations, thus either confirming or disconfirming the 
hypothesis.

Of course, that's just one approach that "logic" might use. Do you feel the 
approach to the COC has been "logical" in that sense? If not in that sense, 
then in what other sense do you feel it has been "logical" ?



-- 
Paul M. Jones
pmjone...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Paul M. Jones]

> On Jan 9, 2016, at 19:39, Pierre Joye  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Bishop Bettini  wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Paul M. Jones  wrote:
>>> 
 
 On Jan 9, 2016, at 09:43, Pierre Joye  wrote:
 
 
 On Jan 9, 2016 10:16 PM, "Paul M. Jones"  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 23:25, Pierre Joye  wrote:
>> 
>> Paul's early reply in this thread were over aggressive
> 
> You are wrong. At best, it is "your opinion" only.
 
 I am not wrong nor right. You were aggressive. And it is not only me
 saying. that if you check this thread.
>>> 
>>> I've checked it and I don't see the "aggressive" you are talking about.
>>> Can you be more precise? Quoting my actual sentences would be good.
>> 
>> 
>> Within the framework of the alternative PHP Contributor Etiquette, a
>> moderator would jump in about now. The email would go something like this:
...
>> Pierre, when you say "Paul's reply [was] over aggressive", you're presenting
>> an opinion word as a logical truth. Instead, consider phrasing like "I felt
>> Paul's reply was over aggressive". That phrasing signals you're expressing a
>> valid, true feeling you have rather than labeling the reply.

(/me nods) In the interest of improving my communications, I think it would be 
constructive if he quoted verbatim the exact sentences that I wrote that led 
him to apply that label.

Pierre?


-- 
Paul M. Jones
pmjone...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Paul M. Jones]

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 23:25, Pierre Joye  wrote:
> 
> Paul's early reply in this thread were over aggressive

You are wrong. At best, it is "your opinion" only.

I stand by every comment I made, and will reiterate them yet again: the COC 
document as presented is a fascist speech-policing code. It is terrible, 
horrible, no-good, very bad piece of work. You want to ban me now for being 
"aggressive"?


-- 
Paul M. Jones
pmjone...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Pierre Joye]

On Jan 9, 2016 10:16 PM, "Paul M. Jones"  wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 2016, at 23:25, Pierre Joye  wrote:
> >
> > Paul's early reply in this thread were over aggressive
>
> You are wrong. At best, it is "your opinion" only.

I am not wrong nor right. You were aggressive. And it is not only me
saying. that if you check this thread.

> I stand by every comment I made, and will reiterate them yet again: the
COC document as presented is a fascist speech-policing code. It is
terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad piece of work. You want to ban me now
for being "aggressive"?

You have the answer to this question in my other replies. Go read them.

And this is not what I was referring to. For the record. The example you
use is bad taste, at best. That's it.

Cheers,
Pierre

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Paul M. Jones]

> 
> On Jan 9, 2016, at 09:43, Pierre Joye  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Jan 9, 2016 10:16 PM, "Paul M. Jones"  wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 23:25, Pierre Joye  wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul's early reply in this thread were over aggressive
> >
> > You are wrong. At best, it is "your opinion" only.
> 
> I am not wrong nor right. You were aggressive. And it is not only me saying. 
> that if you check this thread.

I've checked it and I don't see the "aggressive" you are talking about. Can you 
be more precise? Quoting my actual sentences would be good.


-- 
Paul M. Jones
pmjone...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Brandon Savage]

All,

Having read all of the RFCs proposed to date, as well as the discussions
around this topic, I have some questions that have yet to be answered, and
that I would like to try and understand the answers to.

Some quick background: I may program for a living, but I hold a degree in
political science with an emphasis in law, government and political
systems.

In every judicial system (and that's essentially what we're creating here),
the rights of the accuser are always balanced against the rights of the
accused. Most western (European/American) cultures have a concept of "due
process of law", along with certain rights reserved for the accused like
the right to confront an accuser, the admissibility of evidence, conduct of
the government and prosecutors, and the right to present a defense. In
addition, there's almost always a standard of proof that must be offered
prior to convicting the accused person of the alleged wrongdoing, along
with an automatic presumption of innocence.

Even in a very basic sense, we are asking a small group to sit in judgement
over members of the community and regulate their conduct. This creates a de
facto court. What we call it (mediation team, conflict resolution team,
etc) doesn't take away from the fact that any group that can impose
punishment on others creates some sort of judicial or legal system.

This RFC does have real consequences for real people (imagine explaining
being banned from the PHP project to a prospective employer), and I think
it's worth noting that by applying the "reasonableness test" we've made
improvements. There are some additional questions that are worth
considering that might help improve this RFC. These are in no particular
order.

1. We are asserting that privacy, for the accused AND the accuser, are a
primary goal. Are we then outright rejecting the premise that the accused
has a right to "confront the witnesses against them"?

2. What standard of proof do we want to use for these issues? Legal burdens
of proof range from "reasonable suspicion" to "beyond a reasonable doubt."
The RFC makes no mention of a standard of proof, and this is important,
because the standard we use will impact what kind of evidence is required.
(For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof)

3. What standard are we using to authenticate evidence? Modifying
documents, emails and tweets on the internet is very easy. Screenshots are
not reliable evidence. Charges of fabrication can taint even the most
legitimate process. How can we be sure that neither party engages in this
type of behavior?

4. Is the accused REQUIRED to provide evidence in their defense? In
American criminal courts (I can't speak to elsewhere), it's the obligation
of the prosecution to make a prima facie case AND prove their case beyond a
reasonable doubt. A legitimate strategy for a defendant is to offer NO
evidence, and poke holes in the prosecution's case, resting immediately
after the prosecution does. Is that an option here?

5. In the same thread of the previous question, can silence or refusal to
participate in the process be used against the accused?

6. What provisions exist for managing conflicts of interest? Examples: what
if the accused is on the mediation team? Best friends with someone on the
team? Married to someone on the team? Brother/sister of someone on the
team? Works with someone on the team? Was somehow involved/observed the
original incident in question and is cited as a witness by the accuser?

At the end of the day, I don't think that the concept, or even the text, of
the code of conduct is that controversial. For me, it's the enforcement
mechanism that needs improvement to get my +1.

Brandon

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Pierre Joye]

On Jan 9, 2016 10:43 PM, "Pierre Joye"  wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 9, 2016 10:16 PM, "Paul M. Jones"  wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 23:25, Pierre Joye  wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul's early reply in this thread were over aggressive
> >
> > You are wrong. At best, it is "your opinion" only.
>
> I am not wrong nor right. You were aggressive. And it is not only me
saying. that if you check this thread.
>
> > I stand by every comment I made, and will reiterate them yet again: the
COC document as presented is a fascist speech-policing code. It is
terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad piece of work. You want to ban me now
for being "aggressive"?
>
> You have the answer to this question in my other replies. Go read them.
>
> And this is not what I was referring to. For the record. The example you
use is bad taste, at best. That's it.

And for the record here to be even more clear.

Your earlier replies to this thread were bad yes. No reason to be banned or
whatever. Eventually a warning when you go down personal. But the way you
communicated your opinion requires way too much energy to filter out the
noises to get what you actually try to say. And also prevented other to
participate or reply due to the feeling  such replies create.

So again, I do not see any of these replies as reason to ban you or anyone
else. But I can only advice you to continue as you did afterwards as it is
by far more constructive and useful than being aggressively provocative and
while walking on the red line. I understand this is part of your style but
it is rather pointless as we lose both your actual feedback and other who
do not join because of that (along other things). Take it as you wish.

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Bishop Bettini]

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Paul M. Jones  wrote:

> >
> > On Jan 9, 2016, at 09:43, Pierre Joye  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jan 9, 2016 10:16 PM, "Paul M. Jones"  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 23:25, Pierre Joye  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul's early reply in this thread were over aggressive
> > >
> > > You are wrong. At best, it is "your opinion" only.
> >
> > I am not wrong nor right. You were aggressive. And it is not only me
> saying. that if you check this thread.
>
> I've checked it and I don't see the "aggressive" you are talking about.
> Can you be more precise? Quoting my actual sentences would be good.


Within the framework of the alternative PHP Contributor Etiquette
, a
moderator would jump in about now. The email would go something like this:

--- BEGIN ---

Hey Pierre and Paul,

I hear what both you guys are saying. You're both making good points. I
think, though, how the words are presented is causing some miscommunication.

Pierre, when you say "Paul's reply [was] over aggressive", you're
presenting an opinion word as a logical truth. Instead, consider phrasing
like "I felt Paul's reply was over aggressive". That phrasing signals
you're expressing a valid, true feeling you have rather than labeling the
reply.

Paul, when you say "You are wrong", you signal you've heard Pierre, but
reject his statement. As the statement is a valid and true feeling Pierre
presents, that is tantamount to rejecting Pierre as a person rather than
refuting his argument. Instead, consider phrasing like. "I'm hearing you
say my tone was aggressive. I mean to convey my passion, not attack anyone
personally."

Pierre, consider that the word "aggressive" connotes unprovoked or militant
attacks: maybe "fiery" or "impassioned" might also fit.

Paul, consider that "fascist" might be interpreted personally by those
whose families lived under fascist rule. Perhaps "authoritarian" or
"imperious" might also fit.

What do you think? Feel free to write back, or chat further on Skype or IRC

--- END ---

The idea is direct, straightforward mediation: listen, validate, guide, and
remain open.

Cheers,
bishop

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Bishop Bettini]

On Jan 9, 2016 12:38 PM, "Bishop Bettini"  wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Paul M. Jones 
wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Jan 9, 2016, at 09:43, Pierre Joye  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jan 9, 2016 10:16 PM, "Paul M. Jones"  wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 23:25, Pierre Joye  wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Paul's early reply in this thread were over aggressive
>> > >
>> > > You are wrong. At best, it is "your opinion" only.
>> >
>> > I am not wrong nor right. You were aggressive. And it is not only me
saying. that if you check this thread.
>>
>> I've checked it and I don't see the "aggressive" you are talking about.
Can you be more precise? Quoting my actual sentences would be good.
>
>
> Within the framework of the alternative PHP Contributor Etiquette, a
moderator would jump in about now. The email would go something like this:
>
... snip ...

And of course this would be sent off list. I sent it on list just to
demonstrate the idea.

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Zeev Suraski]

> -Original Message-
> From: bishop.bett...@gmail.com [mailto:bishop.bett...@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Bishop Bettini
> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 7:38 PM
> To: Paul M. Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com>; PHP internals
> <internals@lists.php.net>; Stas Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
> 
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Paul M. Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > On Jan 9, 2016, at 09:43, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jan 9, 2016 10:16 PM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 23:25, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul's early reply in this thread were over aggressive
> > > >
> > > > You are wrong. At best, it is "your opinion" only.
> > >
> > > I am not wrong nor right. You were aggressive. And it is not only me
> > saying. that if you check this thread.
> >
> > I've checked it and I don't see the "aggressive" you are talking about.
> > Can you be more precise? Quoting my actual sentences would be good.
> 
> 
> Within the framework of the alternative PHP Contributor Etiquette
> <http://cerebriform.blogspot.com/2016/01/php-contributor-
> etiquette.html>, a moderator would jump in about now. The email would go
> something like this:
> 
> --- BEGIN ---
> 
> Hey Pierre and Paul,
> 
> I hear what both you guys are saying. You're both making good points. I
> think, though, how the words are presented is causing some
> miscommunication.
> 
> Pierre, when you say "Paul's reply [was] over aggressive", you're presenting
> an opinion word as a logical truth. Instead, consider phrasing like "I felt 
> Paul's
> reply was over aggressive". That phrasing signals you're expressing a valid,
> true feeling you have rather than labeling the reply.
> 
> Paul, when you say "You are wrong", you signal you've heard Pierre, but
> reject his statement. As the statement is a valid and true feeling Pierre
> presents, that is tantamount to rejecting Pierre as a person rather than
> refuting his argument. Instead, consider phrasing like. "I'm hearing you say
> my tone was aggressive. I mean to convey my passion, not attack anyone
> personally."
> 
> Pierre, consider that the word "aggressive" connotes unprovoked or militant
> attacks: maybe "fiery" or "impassioned" might also fit.
> 
> Paul, consider that "fascist" might be interpreted personally by those whose
> families lived under fascist rule. Perhaps "authoritarian" or "imperious" 
> might
> also fit.
> 
> What do you think? Feel free to write back, or chat further on Skype or IRC
> 
> --- END ---
> 
> The idea is direct, straightforward mediation: listen, validate, guide, and
> remain open.

You have my vote for the mediation team!

Zeev

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Ferenc Kovacs]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Anthony Ferrara 
wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I have created a new RFC for the PHP Project to adopt the Contributor
> Covenant as the official Code of Conduct for the project
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/adopt-code-of-conduct
>
> Let me know what you think or if there are any concerns
>
> Thanks
>
> Anthony
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
just wanted to mention that the jenkins project just adopted a slightly
modified version of the Contributor Covenant version 1.3:
https://jenkins-ci.org/conduct/#code-of-conduct
from what I can tell what seems to be changed that they adjusted the rights
to those who already have them:

"The Jenkins board has the right and responsibility to ban temporarily or
permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem
inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful. Plugin and other
maintainers also have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or
reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions
that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct."
versus
"Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or
reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions
that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or
permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem
inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful."

Adjusted the definition of their maintainers and contributors, explicitly
defined where does the "This code of conduct applies both within project
spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project
or its community." apply.

They also explicitly stated how to report problems and what is the process
handling those reports.
They went with the full privacy path, and used their pre-existing
government body to handle the reports, which is something we don't have
(closest thing we have is the PHP group, but members of that are mostly
inactive and doesn't really have extra governing power over others).

https://jenkins-ci.org/conduct/
https://jenkins-ci.org/blog/2016/01/07/official-code-of-conduct/

ps: I'm not suggesting anything here, just dropping the info so maybe there
is something we can use/learn from it.

-- 
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[David Zuelke]

On 08.01.2016, at 07:09, Anthony Ferrara  wrote:
> 
> I think if the current RFC went to vote, it would come very close to
> passing as-is. But as I've said before, I don't think it's anywhere
> near ready to vote on. Larry has started a discussion with the people
> behind Drupal's CoC, and I hope that leads to significant change and
> clarity in the CoC and CRP that I'm proposing.

I'd like it if we didn't even begin to consider this line of argument ("it 
would probably already pass"), and I'm glad that we're remaining open to debate 
here (and it should kept open for much, much longer).

If this aims to be a ~democratic process, then the approach cannot simply be 
"enough people are in agreement, done". An essential goal of a democracy or a 
process that attempts to emulate/imitate is not to simply assert the interests 
of the majority, but protect the interests of the minorities - or, in this 
case, those in opposition.



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Anthony Ferrara]

All,

> I was not hesitant (or, let's maybe call it "intentionally procrastinating") 
> to post on this topic because I felt unsafe on this list or in the general 
> realm of the PHP community; I simply was in no mood to deal with a mob of 
> self-proclaimed-or-not "Social Justice Warriors" and their digital pitchforks 
> on twitter or elsewhere - and they're already trying: 
> https://twitter.com/drupliconissad/status/685489458934841344

Please, let's stop this rhetoric and propaganda. All of you.

Since day one supporters of a CoC have been attacked. We've been
called "SJW", "Fascists", "Feminists", and a whole more, and a whole
lot worse. Have you looked at Reddit? Have you looked at Twitter?
Hell, David just called us a "mob of self-proclaimed-or-not Social
Justice Warriors." Outsiders have joined that rally against "SJW" and
"Fascism" (and that's me being nice as to what they are saying).

Aside from Phil Sturgeon (who used unacceptably harsh language), the
people who support this have been exceedingly reasonable. We've been
trying to discuss logic. We've been trying to keep a level head and
talk compromise. We've been trying to come to a middle ground solution
that works for everyone. I've personally spent a lot of time talking
to people 1:1 constructively to try to figure out what the right
approach. We're reaching out to other projects to try to find a common
baseline. Not to pass something, but to pass the right thing. I've
said that in basically every reply to the entire discussion in every
thread I've been a part of.

Yet time and time again, we're attacked and accused. A perfect example
here is the obviously troll account cited here that looks like it has
a feminist agenda, and then call out for digital pitchforks.

This has got to stop. Please, be professionals. This thread is
currently 207 messages long. Out of that 207, the vast majority *FROM
EITHER SIDE* is either rhetoric, hyperbole or pure argument.

On a thread discussing a **DRAFT** proposal.

Please stop with the bullshit arguments about "power takeovers" or
"political crap" or "pitchforks" or the passive-aggressive comments.
Please stop with all of the distraction.

If you have something constructive to contribute that will help reach
a meaningful compromise, then by all means, let's discuss it. But
please keep the tone civil, and the attacks out of it.

But foremost, let's act like professionals.

Anthony

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[David Zuelke]

On 09.01.2016, at 19:48, Anthony Ferrara  wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
>> I was not hesitant (or, let's maybe call it "intentionally procrastinating") 
>> to post on this topic because I felt unsafe on this list or in the general 
>> realm of the PHP community; I simply was in no mood to deal with a mob of 
>> self-proclaimed-or-not "Social Justice Warriors" and their digital 
>> pitchforks on twitter or elsewhere - and they're already trying: 
>> https://twitter.com/drupliconissad/status/685489458934841344
> 
> Please, let's stop this rhetoric and propaganda. All of you.
> 
> Since day one supporters of a CoC have been attacked. We've been
> called "SJW", "Fascists", "Feminists", and a whole more, and a whole
> lot worse. Have you looked at Reddit? Have you looked at Twitter?
> Hell, David just called us a "mob of self-proclaimed-or-not Social
> Justice Warriors." Outsiders have joined that rally against "SJW" and
> "Fascism" (and that's me being nice as to what they are saying).

This must be a misunderstanding. I did not call you that. I specifically meant 
people outside this discussion (e.g. that account above, apparently created 
specifically for these, say, attacks).

David

P.S: I have not read reddit on this topic (or any other, as I try to stay away 
from that site unless some NASA folks do an AmA :)), or looked at twitter 
beyond my normal feed, since I've been busy with vacationing and some work 
stuff the last few days. Just catching up with this thread. Sorry if I'm 
repeating points already made and/or refuted.



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Stanislav Malyshev]

Hi!

> I was not hesitant (or, let's maybe call it "intentionally
> procrastinating") to post on this topic because I felt unsafe on this
> list or in the general realm of the PHP community; I simply was in no
> mood to deal with a mob of self-proclaimed-or-not "Social Justice
> Warriors" and their digital pitchforks on twitter or elsewhere - and
> they're already trying:
> https://twitter.com/drupliconissad/status/685489458934841344

And this is exactly why I don't want us to give opening to such kind of
people to come here and try to abuse our CoC for their means - basically
for "hounding out" people they for some reason disagree with. They
exist, and they are eager and willing to destroy (not physically but
professionally and reputation-wise) everybody who disagrees with them,
and I am not exaggerating. And I don't want them here. So anything that
hints that they are welcome to do their thing here makes me feel uneasy
(having CoC does not, but declaring that we police the behavior outside
the community feels like going into that direction). Here I think
"hounding out" is not our favorite pastime, and I think it should remain
this way.

That is unless, of course, this account is a troll created to destroy
the CoC cause. In which case I envy the power of commitment and the
talent behind it and I wish that talent were applied to a more worthy
goal. But in any case this one is not alone - I've read many comments if
not as explicit, but with same thought and intent, on various forums.
Some of them, surprisingly, even signed by real names.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@gmail.com

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Pierre Joye]

On Jan 10, 2016 10:19 AM, "David Zuelke"  wrote:
>
> +1 to all the points below; pretty much my concerns and thoughts exactly.

I am bit confused by your last replies.

On one side you said you don't feel comfortable and on the other you agree
to say that it is not a toxic environment.

I am on the same line than Zeev on this point. I do not see most of the
discussions here as non toxic, at worst passionate and sometimes stubborn.

There is only one problem with that. We are not alone. Most of the oldest
(no offense meant ;) get used to this. And we know each other since years
and get around one or another comment well, filtering the message to get
the actual information.

This is not the case for anyone new, or someone who recently joined us. And
this is what it is all about. To create a better context. And if we have to
give up our little habits to achieve it, then let do it.

I think it would be much easier if we start to accept how we are seen and
how people feel about what we do. Whether we agree or not with it is not
relevant for such things. These are clear signs that we do things in a not
so optimal way, preventing new people or not regular contributors to
actively participate to the development of php.

> > On 08.01.2016, at 08:30, Zeev Suraski  wrote:
>>  Worse - we're hearing - again,
> > implied - that this RFC is actually designed to fix the 'toxic nature'
of
> > internals - or in other words, used quite frequently since if we're
labeling
> > internals as 'toxic', it's probably not a case here and there but more
like
> > a spring cleaning that's in order.  I'll state it right here and now - I
> > don't think internals is toxic, and way too often 'toxic' is used to
> > describe to-the-point scrutiny of or opposition to ideas, by people who
have
> > vested interest in having said ideas pass.

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Pierre Joye]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Bishop Bettini  wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Paul M. Jones  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Jan 9, 2016, at 09:43, Pierre Joye  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jan 9, 2016 10:16 PM, "Paul M. Jones"  wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 23:25, Pierre Joye  wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Paul's early reply in this thread were over aggressive
>> > >
>> > > You are wrong. At best, it is "your opinion" only.
>> >
>> > I am not wrong nor right. You were aggressive. And it is not only me
>> > saying. that if you check this thread.
>>
>> I've checked it and I don't see the "aggressive" you are talking about.
>> Can you be more precise? Quoting my actual sentences would be good.
>
>
> Within the framework of the alternative PHP Contributor Etiquette, a
> moderator would jump in about now. The email would go something like this:
>
> --- BEGIN ---
>
> Hey Pierre and Paul,
>
> I hear what both you guys are saying. You're both making good points. I
> think, though, how the words are presented is causing some miscommunication.
>
> Pierre, when you say "Paul's reply [was] over aggressive", you're presenting
> an opinion word as a logical truth. Instead, consider phrasing like "I felt
> Paul's reply was over aggressive". That phrasing signals you're expressing a
> valid, true feeling you have rather than labeling the reply.
>
> Paul, when you say "You are wrong", you signal you've heard Pierre, but
> reject his statement. As the statement is a valid and true feeling Pierre
> presents, that is tantamount to rejecting Pierre as a person rather than
> refuting his argument. Instead, consider phrasing like. "I'm hearing you say
> my tone was aggressive. I mean to convey my passion, not attack anyone
> personally."
>
> Pierre, consider that the word "aggressive" connotes unprovoked or militant
> attacks: maybe "fiery" or "impassioned" might also fit.
>
> Paul, consider that "fascist" might be interpreted personally by those whose
> families lived under fascist rule. Perhaps "authoritarian" or "imperious"
> might also fit.
>
> What do you think? Feel free to write back, or chat further on Skype or IRC
>
> --- END ---
>
> The idea is direct, straightforward mediation: listen, validate, guide, and
> remain open.

This is exactly what I have in mind with warnings. While the kind of
warning used in this case does not match with the one I would give in
this case. My example (sorry to do not have explicitly mentioned it,
my intention was to test the ground) was about telling Sarah "you have
no clue about..." or something like that (I do not remember the exact
wording but you get the idea). The warning should have started there,
for example.

In any case, this kind of warning is on spot to what I refer as
"warning" in this discussion. It allows people getting too passionate
to go one step back and cool down a little bit. That happens to all of
us at least once or more :)

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[David Zuelke]

On 06.01.2016, at 12:31, Rowan Collins  wrote:
> 
> On 6 January 2016 19:42:29 GMT, Stanislav Malyshev  
> wrote:
>> I love it how The Law spends so much text and yet leaves so much
>> unspecified and open to interpretation.
> 
> Welcome to Common Law. Defining the details is basically the job of judges, 
> applying the intent of the law to individual cases as they come up. This 
> generally turns out to be better than trying to codify every possible 
> scenario in advance and leaving loopholes - as long as you trust your 
> judiciary!

That works for the Common Law, because professionals with specialized education 
and training do this, but it does not work for a CoC, where a bunch of 
well-intentioned amateurs (and no, that's not intended to be offensive, but an 
objective observation; it's quite sad that I have to point that out) are 
expected to perform the ruling that allows "the law" to evolve.



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[David Zuelke]

On 08.01.2016, at 07:47, Anthony Ferrara  wrote:
> 
> I don't think anything in this thread warrants the term "attack" or
> "harassment". While I strongly don't agree with the tone being used
> nor the tactics being used, I don't think they warrant any sort of CoC
> violation.

But who gets to decide that for future instances of... let's call them "heated 
debates"? The person who feels offended in some way, or merely disagrees?

This sheer subjectivity IMO is the biggest issue here.


> Sure. I'm sure there are a lot more that aren't talking that are
> against it. But I think you proved my point here which is that people
> are afraid to share their opinion here. That is a strong indicator
> that something isn't healthy *today*. It says nothing about the
> potential solution, but it should act as a pretty strong heuristic
> that "status quo" isn't really good either.

I was not hesitant (or, let's maybe call it "intentionally procrastinating") to 
post on this topic because I felt unsafe on this list or in the general realm 
of the PHP community; I simply was in no mood to deal with a mob of 
self-proclaimed-or-not "Social Justice Warriors" and their digital pitchforks 
on twitter or elsewhere - and they're already trying: 
https://twitter.com/drupliconissad/status/685489458934841344



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[David Zuelke]

On 06.01.2016, at 07:21, Anthony Ferrara  wrote:
> 
> Stas,
> 
> I wanted to avoid citing personal examples for personal reasons. But
> since you refuse to read between the lines, here it goes:
> 
> I have received no less than 4 direct threats of violence that were
> directly due to my involvement with the Scalar Type Declarations RFC.
> 
> I believe that both Zeev and myself crossed significant lines during
> that discussion as well, to which there should have been some level of
> recourse or moderator that could have stepped in to cool us down and
> help.

But do you think a CoC could or should have intervened here? Simply because two 
grown-up human beings couldn't agree on something and found it difficult to 
take a step back when the argument became to heated?

More to the point, where is that line crossed? Are you confident that Zeev and 
you both think that lines were crossed, and would you mark those lines at the 
same moments during the debate?



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[David Zuelke]

+1 to all the points below; pretty much my concerns and thoughts exactly.

> On 08.01.2016, at 08:30, Zeev Suraski  wrote:
> 
>> We've seen time and time again that the court of public opinion is a
>> horrific
>> judge for these style issues.
> 
> This sentence has me worried in several different ways.  Would you care to
> provide some references how the court of public opinion was a horrific judge
> for these style issues?
> Secondly, it's the first time (I believe, could be wrong) that the word
> 'style' makes an entrance to this thread.  I thought we were dealing with
> truly unacceptable behaviors like personal attacks and harassment, not
> 'style issues'.
> 
> 
>> I'm 100% open to completely rewriting the RFC, to pulling in a different
>> CoC,
>> to rewriting or reusing a different conflict resolution policy. That's all
>> 100% on
>> the table. However, I will not support what many are suggesting here that
>> people will be required (even if just
>> initially) to report issues publicly.
> 
> I for one don't feel strongly about having to report in public.  I don't
> mind having a private mediation team, personally I think it makes more
> sense.  The problem isn't public vs. private per se.  The problem is with
> this team having judicial powers, and with the RFC providing 'structure for
> persecution'.  Once systems are in place, people start using them - and
> since these systems are going to be inherently flawed (I wrote about that in
> my other emails), that's a recipe for disaster.  And I do agree, the
> combination of a private team AND judicial powers is the worst.
> 
> Private mediation team whose sole purpose is trying to diffuse conflicts -
> sure.  Private [anything] team with jurisdiction, plus some sort of pseudo
> ready-to-execute law as a part of the RFC - won't get my support.
> 
>> Simply look at the level of attacks that me and a few other committers
>> have
>> received by making this proposal. I don't feel comfortable making any of
>> those attacks public (drawing more attention to them). In private, to a
>> team
>> that is trusted and has even a baseline set of "powers" to at least report
>> an
>> incident with identifying details redacted would be far better than just
>> requiring people to "come forward with any issue".
> 
> I'm with Kevin here 100%.
> I just saw your reply to him while writing this.  It has me wondering &
> worried in two additional ways:
> Worried:  You say you don't think they constitute CoC violations.  Do you
> see the problem in that statement?  That's exactly the 'open for
> interpretation' issue we're pointing out. Maybe someone else in your
> position would feel differently and file a case, and plead it strongly
> before a non-professional CoC team and sway them his way?  While there were
> certainly some extreme statements made on this thread, I think a more
> accurate description of them is that none of them came even remotely close
> to being unacceptable.  And here's your difference in interpretation -
> "Probably not a CoC violation" vs. "Not even close to being unacceptable
> behavior".
> Wondering:  If you don't think they're CoC violations, how would this CoC
> help?  On one hand you seem to be pointing to them as a reason why the CoC
> is needed, but on the other, you're saying they probably don't violate it.
> In other words, how is it relevant to the discussion?
> 
>> I think many do agree. If you look at this 225+ reply thread, the vast
>> majority
>> of karma holding people have not responded (even many who frequent this
>> list). A few (5+) of them have reached out to me personally to say that
>> they
>> are explicitly staying out of this discussion because of the level of
>> aggression
>> and tone, but would be willing to support a reasonable proposal (some
>> provided meaningful feedback on it, some support the current revision).
>> 
>> Think about that. People who are long standing members of this community
>> and project do not feel that they can safely respond to this very thread.
>> Think of the irony there.
> 
> To be honest, I thought hard before getting involved in this thread, and not
> for the reasons you think.  Opposing this RFC, IMHO, takes a lot more guts
> than supporting it - as it seemingly a "Let's make the world better, who's
> in favor?" RFC.  Who in his right mind doesn't want to make the world
> better?
> Also, most of the positive responses were before a good case against the RFC
> was established.  In fact, what I'm seeing is that some of the early
> supporters of the RFC changing their mind.
> 
>> One active community member (though does not have karma here) is
>> quoted to say "The tone of the 'discussion' is such that I wouldn't dream
>> of
>> throwing in 2 cents, let alone attempt to spearhead real and lasting
>> change".
> 
> If this RFC was accepted, would we be banning or otherwise taking measures
> against anybody based on it?
> If yes, let's discuss it right now because this is very worrisome.

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[David Zuelke]

On 06.01.2016, at 03:58, Kevin Smith  wrote:
> 
>> You state this like some kind of self-evident truth. Understand that not 
>> everybody agrees with you, and scorn is not generally something that wins 
>> people round to your argument.
> 
> If a code of conduct so broad and invasive that it seeks deal with such 
> crimes as the “thoughtless use of pronouns” and “culturally insensitive 
> names” isn’t speech-policing, what is?

Where does it say that though? Did I miss something?


> 
>>> 
>>> The "real and legitimate issues" can be addressed without
>>> one, perhaps with the "conflict resolution" document you referenced. It
>>> is orders of magnitude more reasonable
>> 
>> Ah, some constructive suggestions. More of this please.
> 
> You may not see much of Paul’s engagement in this discussion as constructive, 
> but I would disagree, and it doesn’t look like I’m alone. Many codes of 
> conduct are written by well-intentioned people unskilled in legislation and 
> enforced by tribunals unskilled in investigation and adjudication. Pair that 
> up with the sort of person who earnestly believes they are making the world a 
> better place by controlling what others say and how they say it, who deems 
> any opinion they don’t like “dangerous" and any pushback they receive 
> “harassment"—those sorts of people do exist, and they readily abuse 
> extrajudicial systems—and you’ve got the recipe for gross injustice levied 
> against people with an unpopular opinion. This does not require knowingly bad 
> actors. Everyone involved would be not just cleared but congratulated by 
> their own consciouses for doing what is Right and Good.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"...


> Knowing Paul to some degree, I doubt he’s merely using “fascism” as a 
> general, inflammatory descriptor. Make no mistake, a project is not the same 
> thing as a political nation-state. Still, the Contributor Covenant that was 
> put forward as the original CoC does have some fascistic tendencies, 
> including the fact that it reaches outside the scope of the project and into 
> the way a person speaks or behaves on their own time, and it uses the project 
> maintainer’s own understanding of the project’s ethical values as a basis for 
> determining bad behavior. Everything in the project, nothing outside the 
> project…

I know Paul too, and while I really like him as a person and find his company 
most enjoyable (with or without drinks and good steak!) I usually disagree with 
his political views because I think they're overly simplistic or maybe even 
naive, and I think his generous utilization of the word "fascism" during this 
discussion is not helping because it escalate(d/s) the rhetoric at a way too 
early point in time and cause(d/s) division when unity was/is needed.

However, I very much appreciate how persistently and passionately he is 
participating in this debate, especially because I share many of his concerns.

David


--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[David Zuelke]

(Thank you for this write-up, Brandon. It's good to hear an opinion from 
someone who's a bit closer to that "field". I'll ignore netiquette and top-post 
because it feels like a good point to pick up from and share my general 
thoughts on this)

Personally, I don't disagree with the idea of having a CoC. I think it can be 
greatly beneficial to a community overall.

Adding the "Reasonable Person" test was an important step. I would like to go a 
step further, because there is this section (emphasis mine):

> Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or 
> reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions 
> that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or 
> permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem 
> inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.

IMO, the emphasized portion should be changed to demand "objectively" as a 
requirement (e.g. "objectively offensive"), to ensure that the reasonable 
person test is applied. We've seen time and again in this thread how different 
people's perspectives are when it comes to what constitutes an attack or 
offense, and how "fluid" the lines are in people's subjective perception.

Systems where these things are not well-defined and instead open to subjective 
interpretation have the potential to spiral out of control (at varying 
velocities), and that's my main concern.

As an example, look at the minefield that university campuses in the US have 
become in recent years:

> In a particularly egregious 2008 case, for instance, Indiana 
> University–Purdue University at Indianapolis found a white student guilty of 
> racial harassment for reading a book titled Notre Dame vs. the Klan. The book 
> honored student opposition to the Ku Klux Klan when it marched on Notre Dame 
> in 1924. Nonetheless, the picture of a Klan rally on the book’s cover 
> offended at least one of the student’s co-workers (he was a janitor as well 
> as a student), and that was enough for a guilty finding by the university’s 
> Affirmative Action Office.


This is from 
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
 - I urge everyone to read it, because it's extremely relevant to this debate.

Such so-called "emotional reasoning" (e.g. "I am offended by this, therefore it 
must be offensive and have been intended as an offense"), is becoming more and 
more common. Situations like these are already happening to members of the 
community, see e.g. https://twitter.com/nateabele/status/684135142915452928 
(and like with Paul, I often disagree with Nate, but shout-out to him for his 
input and in particular for 
https://gist.github.com/nateabele/8d156730dc428322fca5)

I would like to cite another section from the article above to underline this 
point, just in case readers are not interested right now to read it whole first 
and then return:

> The thin argument “I’m offended” becomes an unbeatable trump card. This leads 
> to what Jonathan Rauch, a contributing editor at this magazine, calls the 
> “offendedness sweepstakes,” in which opposing parties use claims of offense 
> as cudgels. In the process, the bar for what we consider unacceptable speech 
> is lowered further and further.

> 

> Since 2013, new pressure from the federal government has reinforced this 
> trend. Federal antidiscrimination statutes regulate on-campus harassment and 
> unequal treatment based on sex, race, religion, and national origin. Until 
> recently, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights acknowledged 
> that speech must be “objectively offensive” before it could be deemed 
> actionable as sexual harassment—it would have to pass the “reasonable person” 
> test. To be prohibited, the office wrote in 2003, allegedly harassing speech 
> would have to go “beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or 
> thoughts that some person finds offensive.”
> 
> But in 2013, the Departments of Justice and Education greatly broadened the 
> definition of sexual harassment to include verbal conduct that is simply 
> “unwelcome.” Out of fear of federal investigations, universities are now 
> applying that standard—defining unwelcome speech as harassment—not just to 
> sex, but to race, religion, and veteran status as well. Everyone is supposed 
> to rely upon his or her own subjective feelings to decide whether a comment 
> by a professor or a fellow student is unwelcome, and therefore grounds for a 
> harassment claim. Emotional reasoning is now accepted as evidence.


I fear that as group with (mostly) a programming background (as opposed to a 
legal one), and definitely "armed to the teeth with good intentions", we might 
mess up this crucial aspect of the CoC.

It's become a not-uncommon tendency for people in "modern society" (gah, kids 
these days!) to say "I find this subjectively offensive, therefore it must be 
VERBOTEN", and the threshold for 

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Stanislav Malyshev]

Hi!

> Aside from Phil Sturgeon (who used unacceptably harsh language), the
> people who support this have been exceedingly reasonable. We've been

I could bring some choice quotes (not only from Phil) which nobody would
call reasonable, but that's not the point. I don't want to have a
contest of who suffers more here and whose insults are insultier. Yes,
we should not use words like "fascist" and loaded terms like "SJW" are
not helpful either, because they do not promote anything but inflame
whoever they are applied to and make them more defensive. We do not need
more polarization, we need less. And I am a strong believer that any
disagreement, however powerful, can be expressed without using such labels.

> Yet time and time again, we're attacked and accused. A perfect example

Everybody participating in this discussion meaningfully will be attacked
and accused, especially in places which exist for such things - twitter,
reddit, etc. - if not personally than surely collectively, by virtue of
supporting certain side. It's just inevitable, and we can't do anything
about it except one thing - not doing it ourselves. Please do that,
everybody.

> currently 207 messages long. Out of that 207, the vast majority *FROM
> EITHER SIDE* is either rhetoric, hyperbole or pure argument.

What's wrong with rhetoric and argument? That's how discussion is made.
Hyperbole, of course, can be toned down, though we are all humans, so I
would expect it to show up from time to time.

> But foremost, let's act like professionals.

Wholeheartedly agree.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@gmail.com

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Paul M. Jones]

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 12:16, Larry Garfield  wrote:
> 
> On 1/8/16 11:28 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust to 
>>> make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that are 
>>> fair) that don't fall too far into "thought policing", in *any* direction?  
>>> If not, then the community is already lost beyond all hope and we should 
>>> all just give up now.  I do not believe that to be the case, at all.
>> Too long spent in a position of power, and even the most fair can become 
>> unfair.
>> 
>> As I have suggested before: *if* there is to be a response team, let it be 
>> randomly selected on per-reported-incident basis from the pool of voters. 
>> Then there is no possibility of a charge of continuing bias, and it 
>> distributes power among the pool, instead of concentrating it into a few 
>> members.
>> 
>> Proponents of the response team: thoughts?
> 
> Randomly selected: Absolutely not.  I wouldn't randomly select someone to 
> make Ultimate Decision(tm) on a technical RFC, either. But if a question 
> about, say, a parser bug came up there are absolutely certain people that I 
> would trust with that question more than others, and defer to their 
> analysis/opinion more readily.

Certain people *you* would trust more than others, but that *others* would not 
trust more.

Also, this is a social/political realm, and not a technical realm; would you 
not trust, say, a randomly-selected jury to hear and decide on a case? If not, 
why not?



-- 
Paul M. Jones
pmjone...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Ryan Pallas]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Paul M. Jones  wrote:

>
> > On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield  wrote:
> >
> > Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust
> to make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that are
> fair) that don't fall too far into "thought policing", in *any* direction?
> If not, then the community is already lost beyond all hope and we should
> all just give up now.  I do not believe that to be the case, at all.
>
> Too long spent in a position of power, and even the most fair can become
> unfair.
>
> As I have suggested before: *if* there is to be a response team, let it be
> randomly selected on per-reported-incident basis from the pool of voters.
> Then there is no possibility of a charge of continuing bias, and it
> distributes power among the pool, instead of concentrating it into a few
> members.
>
> Proponents of the response team: thoughts?
>

I would prefer to see the team picked for the next occurence immediately
after one happens. This way, if the resolution can be handled by just
having a calm conversation with the interested parties, then there is no
need to make it public. Instead, the mediators would say "A conflict has
occurred and a new team needs to be in place".

Or maybe something like 1 month duty at a time, but team membership may
last beyond a month, if no conflicts were had during that month. IE, you
get put on the team, you may "serve" for a year if no conflicts arise. Or
you may only server for a month, if a conflict does arrive (I think an
upper bounds when no conflicts may not be required, but should be
considered if this suggestion is taken to heart at all).


>
>
> --
> Paul M. Jones
> pmjone...@gmail.com
> http://paul-m-jones.com
>
> Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
> https://leanpub.com/mlaphp
>
> Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
> https://leanpub.com/sn1php
>
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Ryan Pallas]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Paul M. Jones  wrote:

>
> > On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:51, Ryan Pallas  wrote:
> >
> > I would prefer to see the team picked for the next occurence immediately
> after one happens.
>
> (/me ponders)
>
> That leads to an interesting hypothetical situation: if you know in
> advance that there's a particular team in place, you can (if a malfeasor)
> send bogus reports until a team you like is in place, then send your
> intended report.
>
>
> > Or maybe something like 1 month duty at a time, but team membership may
> last beyond a month, if no conflicts were had during that month. IE, you
> get put on the team, you may "serve" for a year if no conflicts arise. Or
> you may only server for a month, if a conflict does arrive (I think an
> upper bounds when no conflicts may not be required, but should be
> considered if this suggestion is taken to heart at all).
>
> (/me nods)
>
> I think it leads to a similar situation: if you know the team that's in
> place, and you are a malfeasor, you can time your false-accusation to a
> team that is friendly.
>
> Granted, I am paying attention to ways to game the system, but since we
> can be sure it will be gamed, I think it's prudent to do so.
>
> Overall, I still assert that a reporter should not know in advance who
> will handle their report, other than "5 randomly chosen voting members"
> (similar to a jury pool).
>
>
These are good points, and I fully agree - which brings back the idea of a
dispatcher. Someone who receives a request, and press a button that
forwards it to 5 random people (preferably with mixed powers as mentioned
before).

OTOH, I don't really want to ever be randomly selected (but would fulfill
the duties required if selected, as I hope anyone on this list would).

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Paul M. Jones]

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:51, Ryan Pallas  wrote:
> 
> I would prefer to see the team picked for the next occurence immediately 
> after one happens.

(/me ponders)

That leads to an interesting hypothetical situation: if you know in advance 
that there's a particular team in place, you can (if a malfeasor) send bogus 
reports until a team you like is in place, then send your intended report.


> Or maybe something like 1 month duty at a time, but team membership may last 
> beyond a month, if no conflicts were had during that month. IE, you get put 
> on the team, you may "serve" for a year if no conflicts arise. Or you may 
> only server for a month, if a conflict does arrive (I think an upper bounds 
> when no conflicts may not be required, but should be considered if this 
> suggestion is taken to heart at all).

(/me nods)

I think it leads to a similar situation: if you know the team that's in place, 
and you are a malfeasor, you can time your false-accusation to a team that is 
friendly.

Granted, I am paying attention to ways to game the system, but since we can be 
sure it will be gamed, I think it's prudent to do so.

Overall, I still assert that a reporter should not know in advance who will 
handle their report, other than "5 randomly chosen voting members" (similar to 
a jury pool).


-- 
Paul M. Jones
pmjone...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Zeev Suraski]

> -Original Message-
> From: Paul M. Jones [mailto:pmjone...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 7:28 PM
> To: Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com>
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can
trust
> to make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that
are
> fair) that don't fall too far into "thought policing", in *any*
direction?  If not,
> then the community is already lost beyond all hope and we should all
just
> give up now.  I do not believe that to be the case, at all.
>
> Too long spent in a position of power, and even the most fair can become
> unfair.
>
> As I have suggested before: *if* there is to be a response team, let it
be
> randomly selected on per-reported-incident basis from the pool of
voters.
> Then there is no possibility of a charge of continuing bias, and it
distributes
> power among the pool, instead of concentrating it into a few members.
>
> Proponents of the response team: thoughts?

I think that depends on the nature of the response team.

If it's a mediation team, with the sole purpose to mediate - but otherwise
cannot impose a solution - it's actually better to have a 'professional'
one, rather than a random one.  I'd still have them voted on and changed
every so often (2 years that Larry proposed sounds reasonable), but given
the almost nonexistent risk of abuse, it's not much of a concern.

If it's a judicial body of any sort - then it's a lot more complicated.
I'm not sold on a randomly chosen team - but I think it is superior to a
voted team.  FWIW, it's quite different from a jury - as there's no judge
to guide things through, and there is no law to refer to.

Zeev

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Paul M. Jones]

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 13:07, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote:
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Paul M. Jones [mailto:pmjone...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 7:28 PM
>> To: Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com>
>> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com>
> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can
> trust
>> to make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that
> are
>> fair) that don't fall too far into "thought policing", in *any*
> direction?  If not,
>> then the community is already lost beyond all hope and we should all
> just
>> give up now.  I do not believe that to be the case, at all.
>> 
>> Too long spent in a position of power, and even the most fair can become
>> unfair.
>> 
>> As I have suggested before: *if* there is to be a response team, let it
> be
>> randomly selected on per-reported-incident basis from the pool of
> voters.
>> Then there is no possibility of a charge of continuing bias, and it
> distributes
>> power among the pool, instead of concentrating it into a few members.
>> 
>> Proponents of the response team: thoughts?
> 
> I think that depends on the nature of the response team.
> 
> If it's a mediation team, with the sole purpose to mediate - but otherwise
> cannot impose a solution - it's actually better to have a 'professional'
> one, rather than a random one.  I'd still have them voted on and changed
> every so often (2 years that Larry proposed sounds reasonable), but given
> the almost nonexistent risk of abuse, it's not much of a concern.
> 
> If it's a judicial body of any sort - then it's a lot more complicated.
> I'm not sold on a randomly chosen team - but I think it is superior to a
> voted team.  FWIW, it's quite different from a jury - as there's no judge
> to guide things through, and there is no law to refer to.

Both fair points. (FWIW I'm not in favor of a judicial response team at all, 
but *if* there is to be one, randomly-selected is less-bad than a standing 
team.)


-- 
Paul M. Jones
pmjone...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Larry Garfield]

On 1/8/16 12:31 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote:

On Jan 8, 2016, at 12:16, Larry Garfield  wrote:

On 1/8/16 11:28 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote:

On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield  wrote:

Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust to make fair 
decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that are fair) that don't fall too 
far into "thought policing", in *any* direction?  If not, then the community is 
already lost beyond all hope and we should all just give up now.  I do not believe that 
to be the case, at all.

Too long spent in a position of power, and even the most fair can become unfair.

As I have suggested before: *if* there is to be a response team, let it be 
randomly selected on per-reported-incident basis from the pool of voters. Then 
there is no possibility of a charge of continuing bias, and it distributes 
power among the pool, instead of concentrating it into a few members.

Proponents of the response team: thoughts?

Randomly selected: Absolutely not.  I wouldn't randomly select someone to make 
Ultimate Decision(tm) on a technical RFC, either. But if a question about, say, 
a parser bug came up there are absolutely certain people that I would trust 
with that question more than others, and defer to their analysis/opinion more 
readily.

Certain people *you* would trust more than others, but that *others* would not 
trust more.

Also, this is a social/political realm, and not a technical realm; would you 
not trust, say, a randomly-selected jury to hear and decide on a case? If not, 
why not?


As many people, including both you and I, have said, we don't want to 
focus on the "jury" aspect.  Rather, we want to focus on conflict 
resolution and mediation, not on hammer dropping.  And conflict 
resolution and mediation is not even remotely a universal skill. No, I 
would not trust a "select a person at random" as a "defuse a situation" 
role, not even a little.


--
--Larry Garfield


--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Paul M. Jones]

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 13:50, Larry Garfield  wrote:
> 
> On 1/8/16 12:31 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 12:16, Larry Garfield  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 1/8/16 11:28 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield  wrote:
> 
> Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust 
> to make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that are 
> fair) that don't fall too far into "thought policing", in *any* 
> direction?  If not, then the community is already lost beyond all hope 
> and we should all just give up now.  I do not believe that to be the 
> case, at all.
 Too long spent in a position of power, and even the most fair can become 
 unfair.
 
 As I have suggested before: *if* there is to be a response team, let it be 
 randomly selected on per-reported-incident basis from the pool of voters. 
 Then there is no possibility of a charge of continuing bias, and it 
 distributes power among the pool, instead of concentrating it into a few 
 members.
 
 Proponents of the response team: thoughts?
>>> Randomly selected: Absolutely not.  I wouldn't randomly select someone to 
>>> make Ultimate Decision(tm) on a technical RFC, either. But if a question 
>>> about, say, a parser bug came up there are absolutely certain people that I 
>>> would trust with that question more than others, and defer to their 
>>> analysis/opinion more readily.
>> Certain people *you* would trust more than others, but that *others* would 
>> not trust more.
>> 
>> Also, this is a social/political realm, and not a technical realm; would you 
>> not trust, say, a randomly-selected jury to hear and decide on a case? If 
>> not, why not?
> 
> As many people, including both you and I, have said, we don't want to focus 
> on the "jury" aspect.

(/me nods)

If there must be a response team, I would prefer the "mediator" approach, as 
you note.

However, the RFC as I last saw it is not a "mediator" approach, but a 
"judicial" one. If it is to be a "judicial" approach, my suggestion stands. 
If/when the RFC changes to a "mediator" approach, I will change my suggestions 
to fit the modified RFC.


-- 
Paul M. Jones
pmjone...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Ryan Pallas]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Paul M. Jones  wrote:

>
> > On Jan 8, 2016, at 13:50, Larry Garfield  wrote:
> >
> > On 1/8/16 12:31 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote:
> >>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 12:16, Larry Garfield 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 1/8/16 11:28 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield 
> wrote:
> >
> > Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can
> trust to make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that
> are fair) that don't fall too far into "thought policing", in *any*
> direction?  If not, then the community is already lost beyond all hope and
> we should all just give up now.  I do not believe that to be the case, at
> all.
>  Too long spent in a position of power, and even the most fair can
> become unfair.
> 
>  As I have suggested before: *if* there is to be a response team, let
> it be randomly selected on per-reported-incident basis from the pool of
> voters. Then there is no possibility of a charge of continuing bias, and it
> distributes power among the pool, instead of concentrating it into a few
> members.
> 
>  Proponents of the response team: thoughts?
> >>> Randomly selected: Absolutely not.  I wouldn't randomly select someone
> to make Ultimate Decision(tm) on a technical RFC, either. But if a question
> about, say, a parser bug came up there are absolutely certain people that I
> would trust with that question more than others, and defer to their
> analysis/opinion more readily.
> >> Certain people *you* would trust more than others, but that *others*
> would not trust more.
> >>
> >> Also, this is a social/political realm, and not a technical realm;
> would you not trust, say, a randomly-selected jury to hear and decide on a
> case? If not, why not?
> >
> > As many people, including both you and I, have said, we don't want to
> focus on the "jury" aspect.
>
> (/me nods)
>
> If there must be a response team, I would prefer the "mediator" approach,
> as you note.
>
> However, the RFC as I last saw it is not a "mediator" approach, but a
> "judicial" one. If it is to be a "judicial" approach, my suggestion stands.
> If/when the RFC changes to a "mediator" approach, I will change my
> suggestions to fit the modified RFC.
>

Agreed, I think a mediator approach works best.  I also agree with Zeev,
that said mediator(s) should be picked not at random but for their ability
to diffuse a situation. If a situation requires a "judicial" process, then
I think at that point it should be a community decision.

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Zeev Suraski]

> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Garfield [mailto:la...@garfieldtech.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 9:51 PM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
>
> On 1/8/16 12:31 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote:
> >> On Jan 8, 2016, at 12:16, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/8/16 11:28 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com>
wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can
> trust to make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but
that
> are fair) that don't fall too far into "thought policing", in *any*
direction?  If
> not, then the community is already lost beyond all hope and we should
all
> just give up now.  I do not believe that to be the case, at all.
> >>> Too long spent in a position of power, and even the most fair can
> become unfair.
> >>>
> >>> As I have suggested before: *if* there is to be a response team, let
it be
> randomly selected on per-reported-incident basis from the pool of
voters.
> Then there is no possibility of a charge of continuing bias, and it
distributes
> power among the pool, instead of concentrating it into a few members.
> >>>
> >>> Proponents of the response team: thoughts?
> >> Randomly selected: Absolutely not.  I wouldn't randomly select
someone
> to make Ultimate Decision(tm) on a technical RFC, either. But if a
question
> about, say, a parser bug came up there are absolutely certain people
that I
> would trust with that question more than others, and defer to their
> analysis/opinion more readily.
> > Certain people *you* would trust more than others, but that *others*
> would not trust more.
> >
> > Also, this is a social/political realm, and not a technical realm;
would you not
> trust, say, a randomly-selected jury to hear and decide on a case? If
not, why
> not?
>
> As many people, including both you and I, have said, we don't want to
focus
> on the "jury" aspect.  Rather, we want to focus on conflict resolution
and
> mediation, not on hammer dropping.  And conflict resolution and
mediation
> is not even remotely a universal skill. No, I would not trust a "select
a person
> at random" as a "defuse a situation"
> role, not even a little.

As I said in my other note, I agree 100%.

I think the problem is that the RFC right now goes well beyond mediation,
and so far, I haven't heard willingness to let go of these extra elements
or break them into a separate RFC.
So we're, in effect, discussing several things at the same time, with this
fundamental issue remaining undetermined.

If it's a mediation team and not a judicial/jury one, then everything
happening in private becomes a non-issue and very natural.  Having the
most skilled people to mediate becomes a no brainer, as there's no real
risk for abuse of power.

Deciding how these people get elected and where discussion happens should
only happen after we establish what jurisdiction they have in the first
place, otherwise, we're discussing it backwards IMHO.

Zeev

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Larry Garfield]

On 1/8/16 11:28 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote:

On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield  wrote:

Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust to make fair 
decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that are fair) that don't fall too 
far into "thought policing", in *any* direction?  If not, then the community is 
already lost beyond all hope and we should all just give up now.  I do not believe that 
to be the case, at all.

Too long spent in a position of power, and even the most fair can become unfair.

As I have suggested before: *if* there is to be a response team, let it be 
randomly selected on per-reported-incident basis from the pool of voters. Then 
there is no possibility of a charge of continuing bias, and it distributes 
power among the pool, instead of concentrating it into a few members.

Proponents of the response team: thoughts?


Randomly selected: Absolutely not.  I wouldn't randomly select someone 
to make Ultimate Decision(tm) on a technical RFC, either. But if a 
question about, say, a parser bug came up there are absolutely certain 
people that I would trust with that question more than others, and defer 
to their analysis/opinion more readily.


Related:

http://www.garfieldtech.com/blog/experts-opinions

rather, I would suggest non-indefinite membership.  As with the new FIG 
secretaries, and as I've setup in similar bodies before, a rotating set 
of "terms" is good as it maintains continuity without having the same 
people always there forever.  It also means that people can "roll off" 
the group gracefully without being either fired or actively resigning.  
A 2-3 year term makes the most sense to me for a team of 5.  I don't see 
a reason to have a term limit, though. If someone is doing well (as 
defined by the voting public) and is willing to continue doing well, let 
them keep doing well.


This would be a question to bring up with George, I think.

--
--Larry Garfield


--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Anthony Ferrara]

Keith,

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:38 AM, D Keith Casey  wrote:
> On 1/7/16 11:52 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
>>
>> On 01/07/2016 10:08 PM, Brian Moon wrote:

 Why not? The harassment has been nullified.
>>>
>>> I agree with your position on most of this, Paul. However, free email,
>>> and thus, Twitter and other social media accounts are nearly
>>> unlimited. It becomes an arms race to try and block someone.
>>>
>>> Brian.
>>
>>
>> Simply cutting off contact (either by the receiver of harassment or
>> otherwise) isn't the entire goal.  There are least 2 others:
>>
>> 1) Harassment does not need to be direct.  If I were to start tweeting
>> up a hostile, insulting storm about someone else on this list, by name
>> and talking about PHP Internals business, but not tweeting @ that
>> person, them blocking me isn't going to accomplish anything.  The harm
>> isn't that they are seeing the message necessarily, it's that everyone
>> else I know is seeing it, many of whom that person may not even know.
>> That's still an attack on a person's reputation, and damaging to the
>> person.
>
>
> Good scenario but we don't have to be hypothetical. Let's apply it to the
> real world of this week:
>
>
> Throughout this discussion, Paul Jones has been active and - despite vocally
> attacking the proposal - I have yet to see him attack anyone in general.
>
> And then Phil Sturgeon else used a sexualized term to insult Paul to his
> ~16k followers but didn't name him:  https://archive.is/oeekT
>
> While Phil claims this is not sexualized, Urban Dictionary disagrees but
> then he follows it up with a claim that he doesn't represent the project
> anyway: https://archive.is/TA2YP
>
> According to the definition including attending conferences that use the PHP
> logo and active in PHP channels, he does.
>
> And then Phil follows it up with another more potentially damaging attack -
> again, without naming Paul - https://archive.is/Z3zNy
>
> And finally, it turns out it's all Phil is blocking Paul anyway -
> https://archive.is/6iZQY - so Paul wouldn't even have see the attacks to
> defend himself or report to the PHP Code of Conduct group.
>
> So my questions:
> -  In his day to day interactions, would Phil be considered a representative
> of the PHP team?

In normal day-to-day interactions? No, I don't think so. In this case,
considering he's directly discussing the project at the time, I think
that it would be fair to say he is representing the project in
context.

> -  If not, why not?
> -  If so, do his personal attacks using sexualized terms constitute a breach
> of the Code of Conduct?

I think a strong argument could be made for that. Either way, I don't
think it's the level of comment or discussion we want to encourage, so
whether or not it's a "violation", it's definitely something that's
bad.

> -  If not, why not?
> -  If so, what would the consequences be for Phil?

Depends on the precise version we adopt. I think having someone step
in and say "Phil, cut it out" would be enough. Though if he continues
to do it, then we may want to escalate further.

In general, I think the fact that we tolerate that sort of behavior is
insane. The fact that many in this thread are suggesting that "it
didn't happen on list, so we shouldn't care" is extremely narrow. We
should hold ourselves to a higher standard. We should commit ourselves
to treating each other fairly and with respect, even if we disagree
with that person. I know I have crossed that line before. I've also
apologized each time, and am honestly working hard to not do that
again. None of us are perfect in this regard.

What we're talking about isn't a "if you're not perfect, get out".
It's a "we know you won't be perfect, but that doesn't mean we should
tolerate bad behavior either".

Anthony

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Chase Peeler]

Let's look at this from the perspective of a conflict mediation standpoint

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:55 AM Anthony Ferrara  wrote:

> Keith,
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:38 AM, D Keith Casey 
> wrote:
> > On 1/7/16 11:52 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> >>
> >> On 01/07/2016 10:08 PM, Brian Moon wrote:
> 
>  Why not? The harassment has been nullified.
> >>>
> >>> I agree with your position on most of this, Paul. However, free email,
> >>> and thus, Twitter and other social media accounts are nearly
> >>> unlimited. It becomes an arms race to try and block someone.
> >>>
> >>> Brian.
> >>
> >>
> >> Simply cutting off contact (either by the receiver of harassment or
> >> otherwise) isn't the entire goal.  There are least 2 others:
> >>
> >> 1) Harassment does not need to be direct.  If I were to start tweeting
> >> up a hostile, insulting storm about someone else on this list, by name
> >> and talking about PHP Internals business, but not tweeting @ that
> >> person, them blocking me isn't going to accomplish anything.  The harm
> >> isn't that they are seeing the message necessarily, it's that everyone
> >> else I know is seeing it, many of whom that person may not even know.
> >> That's still an attack on a person's reputation, and damaging to the
> >> person.
> >
> >
> > Good scenario but we don't have to be hypothetical. Let's apply it to the
> > real world of this week:
> >
> >
> > Throughout this discussion, Paul Jones has been active and - despite
> vocally
> > attacking the proposal - I have yet to see him attack anyone in general.
> >
> > And then Phil Sturgeon else used a sexualized term to insult Paul to his
> > ~16k followers but didn't name him:  https://archive.is/oeekT
> >
> > While Phil claims this is not sexualized, Urban Dictionary disagrees but
> > then he follows it up with a claim that he doesn't represent the project
> > anyway: https://archive.is/TA2YP
> >
> > According to the definition including attending conferences that use the
> PHP
> > logo and active in PHP channels, he does.
> >
> > And then Phil follows it up with another more potentially damaging
> attack -
> > again, without naming Paul - https://archive.is/Z3zNy
> >
> > And finally, it turns out it's all Phil is blocking Paul anyway -
> > https://archive.is/6iZQY - so Paul wouldn't even have see the attacks to
> > defend himself or report to the PHP Code of Conduct group.
> >
> > So my questions:
> > -  In his day to day interactions, would Phil be considered a
> representative
> > of the PHP team?
>
> In normal day-to-day interactions? No, I don't think so. In this case,
> considering he's directly discussing the project at the time, I think
> that it would be fair to say he is representing the project in
> context.
>
> Conflict mediation is a tool for any members of the community to attempt
to resolve their conflicts. In this case, both Phil and whatever party or
parties were harmed by his tweets would be eligible to utilize the service.
Conflict mediation isn't about telling anyone how to act, and there isn't
any restrictions on where behavior took place. It's a way of supporting
other members of the community.


> > -  If not, why not?
> > -  If so, do his personal attacks using sexualized terms constitute a
> breach
> > of the Code of Conduct?
>
> I think a strong argument could be made for that. Either way, I don't
> think it's the level of comment or discussion we want to encourage, so
> whether or not it's a "violation", it's definitely something that's
> bad.
>
> Again, we do need to even talk about encouraging or discouraging anything.
If someone feels they were harmed in some way by his post, they are free to
seek mediation.


> > -  If not, why not?
> > -  If so, what would the consequences be for Phil?
>
> Depends on the precise version we adopt. I think having someone step
> in and say "Phil, cut it out" would be enough. Though if he continues
> to do it, then we may want to escalate further.
>
> Again, no need for the community to decide right and wrong/civil and
uncivil.


> In general, I think the fact that we tolerate that sort of behavior is
> insane. The fact that many in this thread are suggesting that "it
> didn't happen on list, so we shouldn't care" is extremely narrow. We
> should hold ourselves to a higher standard. We should commit ourselves
> to treating each other fairly and with respect, even if we disagree
> with that person. I know I have crossed that line before. I've also
> apologized each time, and am honestly working hard to not do that
> again. None of us are perfect in this regard.
>
> I agree, on a personal level. I don't think we should personally accept
such behavior. However, I don't believe it's right for a few members to
decide what the community as a whole does and does not accept.


> What we're talking about isn't a "if you're not perfect, get out".
> It's a "we know you won't be perfect, but that doesn't mean we should
> 

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Paul M. Jones]

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield  wrote:
> 
> Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust to 
> make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that are fair) 
> that don't fall too far into "thought policing", in *any* direction?  If not, 
> then the community is already lost beyond all hope and we should all just 
> give up now.  I do not believe that to be the case, at all.

Too long spent in a position of power, and even the most fair can become unfair.

As I have suggested before: *if* there is to be a response team, let it be 
randomly selected on per-reported-incident basis from the pool of voters. Then 
there is no possibility of a charge of continuing bias, and it distributes 
power among the pool, instead of concentrating it into a few members.

Proponents of the response team: thoughts?


-- 
Paul M. Jones
pmjone...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Larry Garfield]

On 1/8/16 1:20 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:

Hi!


And yes, I am aware that a large part of the concern is the definition
of "malicious jackass who hurts people" and "hostile, insulting storm".

Not only that. But that even if we have the definition, nobody walks
around with a convenient label of "malicious jackass who hurts people"
on their foreheads. That's not where the problem lies. What we'd be
dealing with is people coming to us complaining said something offensive
to them (or to somebody) at resource X, which may not even be public,
conveniently providing only evidence that supports it, and we'd have to
decide whether it's true or not, knowing no context, no prior history,
no full information about what happened, etc. And since we declared
universal jurisdiction, not taking sides is no longer an option.


Sure, and the CRT would be fully within their rights to say "this is not 
a real issue" or "this is too unrelated to the project".


In practice, based on my experience elsewhere I think we're likely to 
see two broad categories of issue:


1) This conversation is getting too aggressive, why don't you both go 
outside for a while to cool down then come back and hug it out.


2) Seriously, that's not even remotely OK by any stretch of the 
imagination, get the heck out.


And by nipping the first one in the bud more often, the second becomes 
less acceptable and therefore less common.


I'd also say that the first one can be handled more or less privately in 
most cases, and I'm fine with that.  It's category two where the public 
review would be more needed.  Although in both cases the accuser and 
accused (or the issue reporter and the other parties involved, if we 
want to be less draconian in the wording) will know who each other are.  
It's inappropriate for them not to, and in practice impossible for them 
not to either so let's not even pretend.



There *is* a risk of that turning into a "morality clause".  That's
true. But it could go either direction on such matters, not necessarily
just in the "evil PC witch hunt" direction.  That's where, as has been

That's not exactly encouraging phrase - it's like saying "take this
pill, it would not *necessarily* kill you, it could go both ways". Would
you take it?


A pill is an excellent analogy.  Pick up any medication off the shelf at 
your local drugstore.  Take too little of it and it does nothing.  Take 
too much and you'll get sick, possibly die.  Take an appropriate amount 
and it helps cure what ails you.


We acknowledge the potential dangers of over-doing it, even put it on 
the label, and yet we all use medication on a regular basis for all 
sorts of things and are generally much healthier for it.


The Goldilocks Rule applies here, as in most places.


Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust
to make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that
are fair) that don't fall too far into "thought policing", in *any*
direction?  If not, then the community is already lost beyond all hope

Again, as I explained already before, it's not a matter of people being
"corrupt" or "unfair". It's the matter of dealing with uncertain
information and also - unfortunately - potentially some dishonest
players trying to abuse the system. People can be misled and manipulated
- that happens routinely to much more robust systems than ours, such as
courts - so ignoring it and not having security against it besides "we
are all good people, we can do no wrong" looks naive to me.


Feel free to swap "unfair" for "mislead".  We're not perfect 
(obviously), and no conflict resolution team will be either.  But I am 
confident that we can find 5 people in PHP who are fair enough, 
insightful enough, and impartial enough to get the job done.


Judges are human and subject to bias, but we still have laws and courts 
and are a better society for it.  Honestly the point you're making 
sounds close to "perfect or nothing", which if applied generally would 
preclude PHP from existing. :-)


--
--Larry Garfield


--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Kevin Smith]

Anthony,

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Anthony Ferrara  wrote:
> 
> Keith,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:38 AM, D Keith Casey  > wrote:
>> 
>> -  If so, do his personal attacks using sexualized terms constitute a breach
>> of the Code of Conduct?
> 
> I think a strong argument could be made for that. Either way, I don't
> think it's the level of comment or discussion we want to encourage, so
> whether or not it's a "violation", it's definitely something that's
> bad.
> 
>> -  If not, why not?
>> -  If so, what would the consequences be for Phil?
> 
> Depends on the precise version we adopt. I think having someone step
> in and say "Phil, cut it out" would be enough. Though if he continues
> to do it, then we may want to escalate further.
> 
> In general, I think the fact that we tolerate that sort of behavior is
> insane. The fact that many in this thread are suggesting that "it
> didn't happen on list, so we shouldn't care" is extremely narrow. We
> should hold ourselves to a higher standard. We should commit ourselves
> to treating each other fairly and with respect, even if we disagree
> with that person.

Let me make sure to say I appreciate you honestly answering the questions posed 
here. And I agree that we should each hold ourselves to a standard of respect 
and professional conduct. But is that sort of regulation of behavior outside a 
software project the business of that project?

Further, doesn’t your answer reveal just how blurry the goals of this proposal 
have become? Is the point to provide specific relief for someone being attacked 
or to enforce general regulation of behavior?

The latter is what’s got so many of us up in arms. So if the point of this 
proposal isn’t to regulate people’s behavior, why does the subject of behavior 
that isn’t good but wouldn’t constitute an action under the CoC keep coming up?


Kevin Smith
Hearsay Interactive 

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Paul M. Jones]

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 22:08, Brian Moon  wrote:
> 
>> Why not? The harassment has been nullified.
> 
> I agree with your position on most of this, Paul. However, free email, and 
> thus, Twitter and other social media accounts are nearly unlimited. It 
> becomes an arms race to try and block someone.

(/me nods)

I think that sounds like valuable criteria to include under "determining if 
it's harassment or not". If someone is so dedicated to coming after their 
target that they start creating multiple accounts, then I think that's at least 
a relatively objective measure. Likewise, if you block someone in two or three 
outside-project channels, and the same messages start showing up in even more 
outside-project channels, that too becomes something close to an objective 
measure of harassment.

Even so, there's a flip side. If someone want to make a false accusation as an 
attack to get their target banned, the false accuser can create those accounts 
themselves and start projecting a harassment campaign where none exists. So 
even the existence of alternative accounts used to continue otherwise-blocked 
communications is not a certain measure.


-- 
Paul M. Jones
pmjone...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Stanislav Malyshev]

Hi!

> And then Phil Sturgeon else used a sexualized term to insult Paul to his
> ~16k followers but didn't name him:  https://archive.is/oeekT

I think that is a clear example of something that would be prohibited by
CoC. We do not need to split hairs here about what each exact word
means, it is a clear personal attack. Now, I wonder, what supporters of
CoC propose to do here? It's a genuine question. Before we put code in
production, we make test cases. So here's test case. Anybody wants to do
some TDD?
Of course, since we have no CoC and CRT now, it would be purely
theoretical. But it would illustrate what would happen if we did and
would allow to decide if it's better or worse.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@gmail.com

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Paul M. Jones]

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 10:53, Anthony Ferrara  wrote:
> 
> The fact that many in this thread are suggesting that "it didn't happen on 
> list, so we shouldn't care" is extremely narrow.

To be clear, my position is not "we shouldn't care". For the record: care all 
you like, about whatever you like.

No, my position is: "the project should not be taking inside-project actions 
against people based on their outside-project activity."  That's a very 
different thing.

I agree that it is narrow. It is intentionally so, to limit the action of this 
project to its proper scope.

Now, just because the *project* doesn't do something, does not mean *interested 
individuals* cannot do something.  If you personally, or you and a group of 
like-minded, want to go after someone for what you consider to be bad behavior 
on outside-project channels, be my guest, and you can enjoy the results (good 
or bad) for yourselves.


-- 
Paul M. Jones
pmjone...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Chase Peeler]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:28 PM Paul M. Jones  wrote:

>
> > On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield  wrote:
> >
> > Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust
> to make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that are
> fair) that don't fall too far into "thought policing", in *any* direction?
> If not, then the community is already lost beyond all hope and we should
> all just give up now.  I do not believe that to be the case, at all.
>
> Too long spent in a position of power, and even the most fair can become
> unfair.
>
> As I have suggested before: *if* there is to be a response team, let it be
> randomly selected on per-reported-incident basis from the pool of voters.
> Then there is no possibility of a charge of continuing bias, and it
> distributes power among the pool, instead of concentrating it into a few
> members.
>
> Proponents of the response team: thoughts?
>
>
>
I think it's the least bad way of doing something that is inherently bad,
at least among what has been proposed so far.


> --
> Paul M. Jones
> pmjone...@gmail.com
> http://paul-m-jones.com
>
> Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
> https://leanpub.com/mlaphp
>
> Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
> https://leanpub.com/sn1php
>
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
> --
-- Chase
chasepee...@gmail.com

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[D Keith Casey]

On 1/7/16 11:52 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:

On 01/07/2016 10:08 PM, Brian Moon wrote:

Why not? The harassment has been nullified.

I agree with your position on most of this, Paul. However, free email,
and thus, Twitter and other social media accounts are nearly
unlimited. It becomes an arms race to try and block someone.

Brian.


Simply cutting off contact (either by the receiver of harassment or
otherwise) isn't the entire goal.  There are least 2 others:

1) Harassment does not need to be direct.  If I were to start tweeting
up a hostile, insulting storm about someone else on this list, by name
and talking about PHP Internals business, but not tweeting @ that
person, them blocking me isn't going to accomplish anything.  The harm
isn't that they are seeing the message necessarily, it's that everyone
else I know is seeing it, many of whom that person may not even know.
That's still an attack on a person's reputation, and damaging to the
person.


Good scenario but we don't have to be hypothetical. Let's apply it to 
the real world of this week:



Throughout this discussion, Paul Jones has been active and - despite 
vocally attacking the proposal - I have yet to see him attack anyone in 
general.


And then Phil Sturgeon else used a sexualized term to insult Paul to his 
~16k followers but didn't name him:  https://archive.is/oeekT


While Phil claims this is not sexualized, Urban Dictionary disagrees but 
then he follows it up with a claim that he doesn't represent the project 
anyway: https://archive.is/TA2YP


According to the definition including attending conferences that use the 
PHP logo and active in PHP channels, he does.


And then Phil follows it up with another more potentially damaging 
attack - again, without naming Paul - https://archive.is/Z3zNy


And finally, it turns out it's all Phil is blocking Paul anyway - 
https://archive.is/6iZQY - so Paul wouldn't even have see the attacks to 
defend himself or report to the PHP Code of Conduct group.


So my questions:
-  In his day to day interactions, would Phil be considered a 
representative of the PHP team?

-  If not, why not?
-  If so, do his personal attacks using sexualized terms constitute a 
breach of the Code of Conduct?

-  If not, why not?
-  If so, what would the consequences be for Phil?

Thanks,
keith


--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Stanislav Malyshev]

Hi!

> It is not what I am referring to but harassment, insults, attacks or
> similar events. I do not think we need to discuss endlessly that we

Proposed CoC says "insulting/derogatory comments" and "[o]ther unethical
or unprofessional conduct". And that can be (and in some cases has been)
treated very broadly - from "how can an ethical person support that
fraud of a politician X" to "your statement in support of policy Y is
offensive to group Z and therefore is insulting and derogatory". I want
to avoid that as much as possible upfront.

> It is not about taking actions now blindly but to create a structure
> that allows to create action when necessary, after investigations,
> discussions and decisions, with common sense in mind during all these
> processes. Is it not obvious? I feel like you keep come back to

What I am trying to say is that supporting doing something with argument
"we don't know if this is needed or if it would help, but since we can't
conclusively prove it would not we must do it" - is a very bad argument.

> extreme cases where common sense should apply. I agree that we have
> seen cases where it happened. So let try to prevent them here. But not
> at the price of creating a CoC with no power to actually ban someone
> if necessary (even if I am sure it will happen extremely rarely).

We already have power to ban someone, that doesn't need to be created.
The question is how this power is to be applied.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@gmail.com

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Zeev Suraski]

> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 10:48 PM
> To: François Laupretre <franc...@php.net>
> Cc: Ryan Pallas <derokor...@gmail.com>; Paul M. Jones
> <pmjone...@gmail.com>; Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me>;
> internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
>
> All,
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:43 PM, François Laupretre <franc...@php.net>
> wrote:
> > Le 06/01/2016 20:38, Ryan Pallas a écrit :
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree, a conflict resolution document *and team* seems infinitely
> >> better.
> >> This team's job is to resolve things quietly and without further
> >> incident, however if action may be required - its an open vote (as
> >> previously suggested).
> >
> >
> > Agreed. 'Don't be evil' is sufficient as a CoC. Anything we add to
> > this will be redundant, ambiguous, and subject to interpretations.
> >
> > A small set of conflict resolution rules and a team of
> > community-approved mediators is everything we need, IMHO.
>
> I would like to hear from people who've had incidents before or have been
> marginalized or harassed as to what is sufficient.

Anthony,

As someone who's been on the receiving end of countless personal attacks in
the context of STH, marginalized and harassed -  I still find the operative
part of the RFC quite questionable (even though as I said, a lot less so
than the original draft - mainly because the much reduced power of the
team).  Ultimately, I think that just having guidelines would be a lot
better than trying to model any sort of committee and bylaws regarding what
can or cannot be done.

In addition, I've been on the receiving end of numerous false accusations -
including very recently - which, with the wrong people in power - might have
resulted in extreme outcomes.

Last, I'm truly surprised by the four direct threats of violence you've been
exposed to in the context of STH.  I, personally, was presented by many
community members as the equivalent of the Enemy of the State, ridiculed,
crowned as a member of the 'Old Guard' and many other personal attacks, but
I'm still not aware of any threats of violence against me (in the context of
PHP, at least).  Could there be a definition gap here?  I would find a true
threat of violence as something that is *completely* unacceptable;  But I
want to make sure we're all perceiving 'threats of violence' in the same
way, more or less.  If there's a definition gap, we should iron it out now.

I think we're better off dividing this RFC into two separate RFCs:
1. Adopting a CoC
2. Adopting a response team/bylaws/mechanism on that CoC (assuming #1 gets
accepted).

Personally, I will almost definitely vote in favor of #1 (provided it's a
reasonable CoC which I think shouldn't be an issue), but I'll most likely
vote against #2.  #2 is where the controversy is, and I think it would be a
shame not to get the part that's mostly in consensus accepted independently
of it.

Thanks,

Zeev

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Brian Moon]

> Why not? The harassment has been nullified.

I agree with your position on most of this, Paul. However, free email, and 
thus, Twitter and other social media accounts are nearly unlimited. It becomes 
an arms race to try and block someone.

Brian.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Kevin Smith]

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Paul M. Jones  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> As I have stated previously, I find the Contributor Covenant text 
> objectionable, in that it couples person, project, and politics, so that the 
> person becomes answerable to the project for their politics.
> 
> If there simply must be a code of conduct, they should be decoupled. To that 
> end, I propose that the entire "Code Of Conduct Text" in the RFC be removed, 
> and replaced with this single sentence:
> 
>We are committed to evaluating contributions within project
>channels without regard to the contributor's experience,
>ability, identity, body, religion, politics, or activity
>outside of project channels.
> 
> Alternatively, if that's not specific enough, use this single sentence 
> instead:
> 
>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.
> 
> Both of these use language cribbed from the Contributor Covenant, and add 
> explicit protections for politics and other activity outside the project. 
> This decouples person, politics, and project from each other, leaving each 
> with its own separate sphere of influence. It also removes the scope of 
> resulting actions-to-be-taken from the expectations of conduct, and leaves it 
> to the conflict resolution language.
> 
> The replacement is restricted to project channels only. I predict, based on 
> earlier comments, that some will object to this. I opine that it is beyond 
> the scope of the project to either reward or punish members for their 
> activity outside channels owned by the project. Even so, conflict in 
> non-project channels does occur. As such, I suggest adding the following text 
> (or substantially similar text) to the conflict resolution language:
> 
>Q: What about conflict outside of project channels?
> 
>A: If you feel conflict via a non-project channel is
>unbearable, you should handle the incident(s) using the
>means provided by that channel. For example:
> 
>- If you feel you are being abused via Twitter, you
>might block or mute the person(s) you feel are abusing
>you, and/or report the abuse to Twitter.
> 
>- If you feel you are being harassed via email, you
>could set up a rule to delete or junk emails from the
>person(s) you feel are harassing you.
> 
>- If you feel you are subject to a credible threat of
>physical harm, you should report it to law enforcement.
> 
> Finally, although the original RFC text does not define "project spaces", I 
> think that "project channels" should be defined; for example, the official 
> PHP accounts on Github, Twitter, and Facebook, as well as all php.net mailing 
> lists, and perhaps even all php.net email accounts.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Paul M. Jones
> pmjone...@gmail.com
> http://paul-m-jones.com
> 
> Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
> https://leanpub.com/mlaphp
> 
> Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
> https://leanpub.com/sn1php
> 
> 
> 
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> 

I like this a lot. If the goal is to send a clear message that all are welcome 
to contribute, this does it. And it promises that the project itself will never 
target you just because others in the community find you or your opinions 
objectionable (and as has been made clear several times in this discussion, 
whether someone finds you objectionable is an entirely subjective judgement on 
their part).

What worries several of us in this discussion is very real possibility that the 
CoC and/or the tribunal would encourage or enable that kind of targeting.

Kevin Smith
http://gohearsay.com

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Paul M. Jones]

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:17, Pierre Joye  wrote:
> 
> If someone starts to put bad pressure on another person (harassment,
> insults, personal attacks, etc) trying to make this person either
> abandon an idea, RFC or even to force this person to leave the
> project, the attacker will most likely use non php.net's channel.

In which case there are existing means at their disposal: blocking, muting, 
junk-foldering, reporting to the channel owner for abuse, etc.  If the harasser 
cannot actually reach their target, does that not have the same effect?


-- 
Paul M. Jones
pmjone...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Pierre Joye]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Paul M. Jones  wrote:
>
>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:17, Pierre Joye  wrote:
>>
>> If someone starts to put bad pressure on another person (harassment,
>> insults, personal attacks, etc) trying to make this person either
>> abandon an idea, RFC or even to force this person to leave the
>> project, the attacker will most likely use non php.net's channel.
>
> In which case there are existing means at their disposal: blocking, muting, 
> junk-foldering, reporting to the channel owner for abuse, etc.

Indeed. And it is also obvious that we cannot take actions to block
the harasser on non php.net's channels. However this was not my point.

> If the harasser cannot actually reach their target, does that not have the 
> same effect?

No, it does not have the same effect.

My point is that the harasser has no place in this project, to begin
with. It is obvious that we cannot take action in any non php.net
channels but we must take actions against the harasser.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Dan Ackroyd]

On 7 January 2016 at 17:14, Stanislav Malyshev  wrote:
>
> If somebody harasses the other person on Twitter, how exactly banning
> this person from internals list is going to make that stop?

It doesn't.

What it means is the other person can open their PHP-DEV email folder
and know that there's not going to be any subtle crap from the person
that is harassing waiting for them when they want to contribute to
PHP.


> I'm growing tired of this argument. We also do not know how many
> contributors we may have lost because we do not sacrifice a goat monthly
> to the Flying Spaghetti Monster,

We can't know for sure.

But what we can do is compare the ratio of women vs men who contribute
to PHP internals, and think that maybe, just maybe, if a project is
almost solely comprised of one gender, then possibly we've
accidentally done some stuff that drives 50% of the population away.

cheers
Dan

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Paul M. Jones]

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 11:25, Dan Ackroyd  wrote:
> 
> What it means is the other person can open their PHP-DEV email folder
> and know that there's not going to be any subtle crap from the person
> that is harassing waiting for them when they want to contribute to
> PHP.

Once they have blocked/muted/junk-foldered the person-that-is-harassing, there 
will have been little for them to see in the first place.


-- 
Paul M. Jones
pmjone...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Kevin Smith]

> Saying that we "do not care" because it does not happen inside php.net 
> 
> would be very hypocrite and makes the CoC totally useless.

Recognizing that it is irresponsible (and indeed impossible) for an official 
PHP body to try to control behavior that takes place outside the PHP project’s 
jurisdiction does not mean those of us who make up the PHP community do not 
care about others and how they are treated. It is simply a recognition of the 
project’s legitimate spheres of responsibility.

> I agree it
> makes the task harder but I do not see how some channels are under the
> CoC and for other we should ignore the issue.

Because those channels are *actually* official PHP channels and the others are 
owned and operated by entirely separate third-parties.


Kevin Smith

Hearsay Interactive 
ke...@gohearsay.com 
615.829.6356

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Pierre Joye  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Paul M. Jones  > wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> As I have stated previously, I find the Contributor Covenant text 
>> objectionable, in that it couples person, project, and politics, so that the 
>> person becomes answerable to the project for their politics.
>> 
>> If there simply must be a code of conduct, they should be decoupled. To that 
>> end, I propose that the entire "Code Of Conduct Text" in the RFC be removed, 
>> and replaced with this single sentence:
>> 
>>We are committed to evaluating contributions within project
>>channels without regard to the contributor's experience,
>>ability, identity, body, religion, politics, or activity
>>outside of project channels.
>> 
>> Alternatively, if that's not specific enough, use this single sentence 
>> instead:
>> 
>>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.
>> 
>> Both of these use language cribbed from the Contributor Covenant, and add 
>> explicit protections for politics and other activity outside the project. 
>> This decouples person, politics, and project from each other, leaving each 
>> with its own separate sphere of influence. It also removes the scope of 
>> resulting actions-to-be-taken from the expectations of conduct, and leaves 
>> it to the conflict resolution language.
>> 
>> The replacement is restricted to project channels only. I predict, based on 
>> earlier comments, that some will object to this. I opine that it is beyond 
>> the scope of the project to either reward or punish members for their 
>> activity outside channels owned by the project. Even so, conflict in 
>> non-project channels does occur. As such, I suggest adding the following 
>> text (or substantially similar text) to the conflict resolution language:
>> 
>>Q: What about conflict outside of project channels?
>> 
>>A: If you feel conflict via a non-project channel is
>>unbearable, you should handle the incident(s) using the
>>means provided by that channel. For example:
>> 
>>- If you feel you are being abused via Twitter, you
>>might block or mute the person(s) you feel are abusing
>>you, and/or report the abuse to Twitter.
>> 
>>- If you feel you are being harassed via email, you
>>could set up a rule to delete or junk emails from the
>>person(s) you feel are harassing you.
>> 
>>- If you feel you are subject to a credible threat of
>>physical harm, you should report it to law enforcement.
>> 
>> Finally, although the original RFC text does not define "project spaces", I 
>> think that "project channels" should be defined; for example, the official 
>> PHP accounts on Github, Twitter, and Facebook, as well as all php.net 
>> mailing lists, and perhaps even all php.net email accounts.
> 
> The problem with the concept you describe here is to consider that if
> someone is harrassed/insulted/etc outside php.net 's 
> channels but still
> related to php.net , we should look to the other direction. 
> It is
> wrong.
> 
> If someone starts to put bad pressure on another person (harassment,
> insults, personal attacks, etc) trying to make this person either
> abandon an idea, RFC or even to force this person to leave the
> project, the attacker will most likely use non php.net 's 
> channel.
> Saying that we "do not care" because it does not happen inside php.net 
> 
> would be very 

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Paul M. Jones]

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:37, Pierre Joye  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Paul M. Jones  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:17, Pierre Joye  wrote:
>>> 
>>> If someone starts to put bad pressure on another person (harassment,
>>> insults, personal attacks, etc) trying to make this person either
>>> abandon an idea, RFC or even to force this person to leave the
>>> project, the attacker will most likely use non php.net's channel.
>> 
>> In which case there are existing means at their disposal: blocking, muting, 
>> junk-foldering, reporting to the channel owner for abuse, etc.
> 
> Indeed. And it is also obvious that we cannot take actions to block
> the harasser on non php.net's channels. However this was not my point.
> 
>> If the harasser cannot actually reach their target, does that not have the 
>> same effect?
> 
> No, it does not have the same effect.

Why not? The harassment has been nullified.



-- 
Paul M. Jones
pmjone...@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php



--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Dan Ackroyd]

On 7 January 2016 at 16:50, Kevin Smith  wrote:
>
> Would an RFC to ban that person from official channels not suffice here?
>

You're missing the basic point. If someone makes a complaint with a
complaints process that handles everything in the open, i.e. with your
suggestion of the standard RFC process:

* if the outcome is most people think they were over-reacting to
something, then they are going to get a load of crap from people in
the community.

* if the outcome is a majority of people think it is a legititmate
complaint, then they are still going to get a load of crap from i) the
minority of people who think that any restriction of freedom of speech
is a commie plot ii) the revenge brigade who go round and harass
people

i.e. any process that airs all complaint in the open is going to be
shit for anyone who makes a complaint regardless of whether it was
justified or not. Which just leads to people not making complaints and
instead just not being part of the community.

cheers
Dan

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Larry Garfield]

On 01/07/2016 10:08 PM, Brian Moon wrote:

Why not? The harassment has been nullified.

I agree with your position on most of this, Paul. However, free email, and 
thus, Twitter and other social media accounts are nearly unlimited. It becomes 
an arms race to try and block someone.

Brian.


Simply cutting off contact (either by the receiver of harassment or 
otherwise) isn't the entire goal.  There are least 2 others:


1) Harassment does not need to be direct.  If I were to start tweeting 
up a hostile, insulting storm about someone else on this list, by name 
and talking about PHP Internals business, but not tweeting @ that 
person, them blocking me isn't going to accomplish anything.  The harm 
isn't that they are seeing the message necessarily, it's that everyone 
else I know is seeing it, many of whom that person may not even know.  
That's still an attack on a person's reputation, and damaging to the person.


And before anyone says "well report it", Twitter's track record in 
dealing with such matters is somewhat worse than pathetically abysmal.  
If you're not a rich white guy it's somewhat worse than that.  The same 
is true of Reddit, and in many places the police department, too.


2) It's not simply a matter of the two (or however many) people 
involved.  It's a statement of what we as a community are willing to 
tolerate.  "You're a malicious jackass who hurts people, bt you 
don't do it in a place we can ban you, technically, so *shrug*" tells 
everyone else (both on the list and off) that we are OK with members of 
our community being malicious jackasses who hurt people. That does harm 
to the whole community.


Conversely, if we do make it clear (through communication, mediation, 
and if necessary punitive measures) that we don't welcome malicious 
jackasses who hurt people, even if they happen to be good coders, that's 
signaling the opposite: That we will favor non-jackasses in this 
community, even at the expense of people who happen to be good coders.  
We still can't take care of Twitter, but we can make it clear that we do 
not accept such behavior amongst our inner-circle.  And that in turn 
influences the kind of people who show up and stick around, and creates 
a virtuous cycle.


It's about the audience as much as the actors.


And yes, I am aware that a large part of the concern is the definition 
of "malicious jackass who hurts people" and "hostile, insulting storm".  
There *is* a risk of that turning into a "morality clause".  That's 
true. But it could go either direction on such matters, not necessarily 
just in the "evil PC witch hunt" direction.  That's where, as has been 
repeated, 1) A well-defined code of conduct that takes a positive tone 
and is neither too prescriptive nor too vague is needed and 2) we have 
to trust the members of the conflict resolution team to not let it turn 
into that, and be as objective and sound as humanly possible.


Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust 
to make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that 
are fair) that don't fall too far into "thought policing", in *any* 
direction?  If not, then the community is already lost beyond all hope 
and we should all just give up now.  I do not believe that to be the 
case, at all.


--Larry Garfield

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Stanislav Malyshev]

Hi!

> A code of conduct without an enforcement mechanism is useless. It's very
> nice to be able to say that we don't condone harassment or abuse, or
> that personal attacks or publishing personal information are not
> acceptable, but if we can't enforce it, then it falls down the moment

But we can. We can enforce it - and have enforced it, as it was
conveniently pointed out - already. The question is do we need
*additional* enforcement mechanism because one we had so far is not enough.

> someone actually does one of these things. In fact, it becomes worse
> than useless: you have a big, shining banner that says you have to be
> civil, yet people actually aren't.

Aren't they? So far, despite the examples brought forward, I thought in
general they (we) are keeping within bounds of civility, and while
discussion here, under our banner, can at times get extremely
frustrating and annoying, it does not transform into harassment. Of
course, it very well may not be the case outside the banner, but CoC
enforcement is not going to do much about that.
Am I wrong about this?

> The point isn't to be 'punitive' anyway. You don't strip people of their
> contribution privileges to make them suffer. You do so because you
> either want to force them to think about their actions for a bit, or

It is very dangerous path when you try to control what other people are
thinking about. The only reason to remove somebody from the community,
in my opinion, is if it is not possible to preserve/restore environment
that we want to have in the community otherwise. "Make them think" is
not a valid reason - first, they won't, and second, it's not our
business to control who's thinking what.

> Now, the statement that 'the value of a CoC lies exclusively in its
> punitive power' is, to an extent, true. A CoC is useful in and of
> itself, in that it tells people you care about creating a civil
> community. But if you don't actually do the work to keep the community
> to that standard, that value very quickly disappears.

If the community is not willing to uphold values in CoC, then no
enforcement can happen - there would be nobody to enforce it. CoC is not
some magic entity that is going to hold us accountable, it's just
something we promise to ourselves to do. If we do not keep that promise,
how making another promise to keep it "and this time we mean it" is
going to help?
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@gmail.com

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Stanislav Malyshev]

Hi!

> And yes, I am aware that a large part of the concern is the definition
> of "malicious jackass who hurts people" and "hostile, insulting storm". 

Not only that. But that even if we have the definition, nobody walks
around with a convenient label of "malicious jackass who hurts people"
on their foreheads. That's not where the problem lies. What we'd be
dealing with is people coming to us complaining said something offensive
to them (or to somebody) at resource X, which may not even be public,
conveniently providing only evidence that supports it, and we'd have to
decide whether it's true or not, knowing no context, no prior history,
no full information about what happened, etc. And since we declared
universal jurisdiction, not taking sides is no longer an option.

> There *is* a risk of that turning into a "morality clause".  That's
> true. But it could go either direction on such matters, not necessarily
> just in the "evil PC witch hunt" direction.  That's where, as has been

That's not exactly encouraging phrase - it's like saying "take this
pill, it would not *necessarily* kill you, it could go both ways". Would
you take it?

> Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust
> to make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that
> are fair) that don't fall too far into "thought policing", in *any*
> direction?  If not, then the community is already lost beyond all hope

Again, as I explained already before, it's not a matter of people being
"corrupt" or "unfair". It's the matter of dealing with uncertain
information and also - unfortunately - potentially some dishonest
players trying to abuse the system. People can be misled and manipulated
- that happens routinely to much more robust systems than ours, such as
courts - so ignoring it and not having security against it besides "we
are all good people, we can do no wrong" looks naive to me.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@gmail.com

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Dan Ackroyd]

On 7 January 2016 at 20:12, Paul M. Jones  wrote:
>
>  If the activity in question rises to the level of filing a petition for *and 
> being granted* a restraining order, *then and only then* might the project 
> have some responsibility to help enforce that order, since the project itself 
> may become subject to a lawsuit or other legal actions.  (I am satisfied to 
> read "employee" as "contributor/participant" and "employer" as "the project" 
> in this case.)
>
> But anything less? No, the project's responsibility is only to enforce its 
> policies on its own communication channels.

So you're saying, any harassment that failed to meet a criminal
criteria, wouldn't be acted upon.

Any harassment where the person being harassed decides to just leave
the project rather than seek a court order, wouldn't be acted upon.

Fun-fact*, if I went round to someone's house, took some photos of it,
maybe took some pictures of their family as well, and then sent them
those pictures with the message "Hey, are you going to fix that bug
that's important to me, or shall I come round to your house to discuss
it in person?", none of that would reach a criminal matter, and so
there would be nothing the PHP project could do about it.

Don't get me wrong, that behaviour would be creepy as heck - but not
anything the police or a court could do anything about.

And you're suggesting that this is an acceptable situation. I think
I'm done listening to you.

cheers
Dan

*actual amounts of fun may vary.

--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Chase Peeler]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Pierre Joye  wrote:

>
> On Jan 8, 2016 3:14 AM, "Chase Peeler"  wrote:
>
> >
> > And none of those caveats exist in the definition you provided.
>
> Hmmm. Which one did you read?
>
> "the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of
> one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary,
> including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone
> to ..."
>
> If I asked him to stop and he continues, aggressively, then it matches the
> "unwanted", "annoying" and "to force".
>
> > That is a prime example of one of the main concerns we all have - the
> ability for anyone to reshape definitions as they please. Even if you
> assume they will do so in a way they believe is in everyone's best
> interest, we all know that won't always happen
> >
> > --
> > Chase Peeler
> > chasepee...@gmail.com
>

Where is the requirement in the definition that you have to ask him to
stop? I don't see the word "aggressive" in there either. As far as the "to
force" part, that's part of the phrase preceded by "The purposes may vary,
including..." which means that it is not a requirement to meet the
definition.

Again, you might call this nitpicking, but I'm trying to show how a simple
definition for a term that we all think we know the meaning of can be
twisted and reinterpreted. All it takes is one person in a position of
power to abuse that.
-- 
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Pierre Joye]

On Jan 8, 2016 3:34 AM, "Chase Peeler"  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Pierre Joye  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jan 8, 2016 3:14 AM, "Chase Peeler"  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > And none of those caveats exist in the definition you provided.
>>
>> Hmmm. Which one did you read?
>>
>> "the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of
one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary,
including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone
to ..."
>>
>> If I asked him to stop and he continues, aggressively, then it matches
the "unwanted", "annoying" and "to force".
>>
>> > That is a prime example of one of the main concerns we all have - the
ability for anyone to reshape definitions as they please. Even if you
assume they will do so in a way they believe is in everyone's best
interest, we all know that won't always happen
>> >
>> > --
>> > Chase Peeler
>> > chasepee...@gmail.com
>
>
> Where is the requirement in the definition that you have to ask him to
stop? I don't see the word "aggressive" in there either. As far as the "to
force" part, that's part of the phrase preceded by "The purposes may vary,
including..." which means that it is not a requirement to meet the
definition.
>
> Again, you might call this nitpicking, but I'm trying to show how a
simple definition for a term that we all think we know the meaning of can
be twisted and reinterpreted. All it takes is one person in a position of
power to abuse that.

Let make it crystal clear:

"Stop message me privately, no matter the channel"

The person continues. It starts here. Got it?

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

[Pierre Joye]

On Jan 8, 2016 3:12 AM, "Paul M. Jones"  wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:51, Pierre Joye  wrote:
> >
> > It is not. To me to distinguish harassment vs hot discussions (public
or private) is part of common sense and I trust us to have this common
sense when this group will be created.
>
> I opine that if "common sense" were enough, then no COC would be under
discussion now. We're in a different realm now.
>
>
> > Also the very definition of harassment is pretty clear. Read
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment for the reference.
If it is not clear for you then yes, I cannot make it clearer. Sorry.
>
> Now we're getting somewhere. Quoting that definition:
>
> """The act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions
of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may
vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force
someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to
collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone
fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due
to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory
limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be
shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to
bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away"
(restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A
systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may
subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker."""
>
> So, that's both rather vague (the opening sentence) and rather specific
(the latter portions). If the activity in question rises to the level of
filing a petition for *and being granted* a restraining order, *then and
only then* might the project have some responsibility to help enforce that
order, since the project itself may become subject to a lawsuit or other
legal actions.  (I am satisfied to read "employee" as
"contributor/participant" and "employer" as "the project" in this case.)
>
> But anything less? No, the project's responsibility is only to enforce
its policies on its own communication channels.
>
> Do you feel otherwise?

As I said, if someone is clearly behaving with harassment, insult, etc to
fulfil his goal (f.e. to kick someone out, or stop/force someone to do
something ), then he has no place here. No matter where the acts happen.

I am slowly giving up on getting an answer from you about accepting such
people afterwards.