Everything
php
Learn Community Releases The PHP Project
Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct »

Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

php.internals

Nate Abele

10 years ago
Hi Rowan, I don’t presume to speak for Paul, but I don’t think the point is that any particular person involved in this discussion is presumed to have a political intent, rather that CoCs themselves (the Contributor Covenant in particular), and the people typically agitating for them, come from a place of hyper-politicization. Exhibit A: https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/commit/0e927bc01614d6b0de021a314dbe95e7dfcc7bb9#diff-eacf331f0ffc35d4b482f1d15a887d3bL17 Exhibit B: https://archive.is/dgilk (the threatening language at the end is particularly chilling) I think most reasonable people can agree that these kinds of derailing conversations are far more toxic than any knock-on effects of not having a CoC in the first place. - Nate

Paul M Jones

10 years ago
> On Jan 5, 2016, at 16:21, Nate Abele <nate.abele@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Rowan, > > I don’t presume to speak for Paul, but I don’t think the point is that any particular person involved in this discussion is presumed to have a political intent, rather that CoCs themselves (the Contributor Covenant in particular), and the people typically agitating for them, come from a place of hyper-politicization.
Yes, that is an accurate summary of my position.
-- Paul M. Jones pmjones88@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

Larry Garfield

10 years ago
On 1/5/16 4:30 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2016, at 16:21, Nate Abele <nate.abele@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Rowan, >> >> I don’t presume to speak for Paul, but I don’t think the point is that any particular person involved in this discussion is presumed to have a political intent, rather that CoCs themselves (the Contributor Covenant in particular), and the people typically agitating for them, come from a place of hyper-politicization. > Yes, that is an accurate summary of my position.
It is also an inaccurate summary of your statements on this list to date, as well as elsewhere, which have been accusatory, vitriolic, insulting, and hyperbolic. Yes, there are hyper-politicized people who push CoCs and use "if you sneeze around me I'm mortally offended and will have you fired" type arguments. I do not dispute the presence and existence of such people. I also do not dispute the presence and existence of CoCs, and enforcements thereof, that are "guilty until proven innocent, which you're not allowed to do". That does not imply that all CoCs are inherently such documents or that all who support the concept of a CoC are hyper-politicized crusaders hell-bent on world baby-ification. I also do not dispute that there is an awful lot of really terrible PHP code in the wild that is riddled with more security holes than swiss cheese, written by people who, in the interests of public safety, should probably not be allowed to use a computer. Does it therefore follow that all PHP code is inherently insecure and PHP developers are all intrinsically incompetent? Of course not. Not even remotely. Most of us on this list, you included Paul, have been in a position to point that out, probably repeatedly. I dislike and would just as soon stamp out the "guilty until proven innocent" model of political correctness as much as you. But that doesn't mean the world is all rainbows and ponies if we just didn't have CoCs. There are real and legitimate issues in the IT world that need to be addressed, and a good CoC, fairly-enforced, is one useful tool in doing so. In fact, I would go as far as saying that if you want to stomp out the "guilty until proven innocent" CoC movement, then a major project (like PHP) adopting a CoC that *does* strike a softer tone, focuses on conflict resolution, has teeth but rarely needs them, and otherwise shows that *a CoC needn't be a tool of social control* is the best argument that can be made. Taking a balanced approach and showing that it can work is the best way to undermine and de-fang the extremists. (Both the "CoC as political weapon" crowd and the "I want the right to piss in your cheerios" crowd.) Modeling the behavior of an extremist, however, is the best way to reinforce and embolden the counter-extremist.
-- --Larry Garfield

Paul M Jones

10 years ago
> On Jan 5, 2016, at 17:37, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > >> Yes, that is an accurate summary of my position. > > It is also an inaccurate summary of your statements on this list to date, as well as elsewhere, which have been accusatory, vitriolic, insulting, and hyperbolic.
When speech-policing is proposed without irony, and welcomed with applause, I respond correctly: with scorn and contempt, as is deserved.
> There are real and legitimate issues in the IT world that need to be addressed, and a good CoC, fairly-enforced, is one useful tool in doing so.
Like rainbows and ponies, "a good CoC, fairly-enforced" is an imaginary creature. 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, and observably less fascist in its binding-together of the personal, political, and project. It still needs work but it's a better starting point than the horrific Contributor Covenant.
-- Paul M. Jones pmjones88@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

Rowan Collins

10 years ago
On 6 January 2016 02:13:53 GMT, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 5, 2016, at 17:37, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> >wrote: >> >>> Yes, that is an accurate summary of my position. >> >> It is also an inaccurate summary of your statements on this list to >date, as well as elsewhere, which have been accusatory, vitriolic, >insulting, and hyperbolic. > >When speech-policing is proposed without irony, and welcomed with >applause, I respond correctly: with scorn and contempt, as is deserved.
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.
> 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.
>and observably less fascist
And, we're immediately back to the unnecessarily combative language. Calling the proposal "fascist" and "horrific" is really unnecessary, and just undermines your position by making you seem like an extremist rather than a concerned party with a contribution to make. Regards,
-- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]

Kevin Smith

10 years ago
> On Jan 6, 2016, at 3:28 AM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 6 January 2016 02:13:53 GMT, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> When speech-policing is proposed without irony, and welcomed with >> applause, I respond correctly: with scorn and contempt, as is deserved. > > 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?
>> >> 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. When the creation of such a machine for injustice is formally recommended and begins to receive rubber-stamp approval, I’d hope someone would stand up and speak against it. Leaders in the civil rights movement in the United States could have been accused of using extreme or hyperbolic language too, but that is no argument against the rightness of their position. And on a related note, let’s not forget that complete opposition to a proposal is still meaningful feedback.
> >> and observably less fascist > > And, we're immediately back to the unnecessarily combative language. Calling the proposal "fascist" and "horrific" is really unnecessary, and just undermines your position by making you seem like an extremist rather than a concerned party with a contribution to make.
Who gets to determine that the manner of expressing an opinion is unnecessary? While “fascism” has certainly become a general pejorative, it does have an actual meaning. According to the founder, Benito Mussolini[1]: "The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.” And later: “The state is the guarantor of security both internal and external, but it is also the custodian and transmitter of the spirit of the people.” 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… [1] http://www.pauladaunt.com/books/Banned%20books%20and%20conspiracy%20theories/The%20Doctrine%20of%20Fascism%20-%20by%20Benito%20Mussolini%20%28Printed%201933%29.pdf Kevin Smith http://gohearsay.com

Rowan Collins

10 years ago
Kevin Smith wrote on 06/01/2016 11:58:
>> On Jan 6, 2016, at 3:28 AM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 6 January 2016 02:13:53 GMT, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> When speech-policing is proposed without irony, and welcomed with >>> applause, I respond correctly: with scorn and contempt, as is deserved. >> 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?
That is not the point I was making. I've never heard the term "speech-policing" before, and "scorn and contempt" is not a helpful way of teaching me what it is.
> the sort of person who [...] deems any opinion they don’t like “dangerous"
Paul does not like the proposed wording, so he brands it "fascist", "horrific", and other pejorative and subjective terms; this feels very much like branding "any opinion they don't like" to me.
> When the creation of such a machine for injustice is formally recommended and begins to receive rubber-stamp approval, I’d hope someone would stand up and speak against it. Leaders in the civil rights movement in the United States could have been accused of using extreme or hyperbolic language too, but that is no argument against the rightness of their position.
This proposal is definitely not getting rubber-stamp approval. Concerns have been raised and are being discussed. We're beyond the "make some noise to make sure people sit up" stage now, and need to start looking at what we *do* want to happen. Shouting across the room gets people's attention; shouting in their face after they ask you for more details just makes them want to shout back.
>>> and observably less fascist >> And, we're immediately back to the unnecessarily combative language. Calling the proposal "fascist" and "horrific" is really unnecessary, and just undermines your position by making you seem like an extremist rather than a concerned party with a contribution to make. > Who gets to determine that the manner of expressing an opinion is unnecessary? While “fascism” has certainly become a general pejorative, it does have an actual meaning.
If you brand a proposal as fascist, there is the strong implication that it is deliberately so; read that way, you are accusing anyone who supports it of having fascist views; it's not rocket science to realise that some people will object to that accusation. If you don't think it's deliberately so, then avoiding such emotionally loaded language is just going to make everyone's life easier, by making it clear that you don't intend such an accusation. Sure, you have a right to say it however you want, but if you want to persuade people round to your point of view, then surely it's pragmatically sensible to say it in a way likely to make people agree with you, rather than a way likely to make them feel attacked. Regards,
-- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]

David Zuelke

10 years ago
On 06.01.2016, at 03:58, Kevin Smith <kevin@gohearsay.com> 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

Joe Watkins

10 years ago
Morning internalz, I'm going to keep it simple, because I'm sure everybody is getting a bit bored ... I object to the idea that we should try to limit "offence" ... it's not quantifiable, and it doesn't matter whatever, I'm offended by all sorts of things ... so what ... I can see nothing that is disagreeable in the idea other than this. If this sentence were changed:
> 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. To
> Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove,
edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues and other contributions, as well as imposing temporary or permanent bans on any contributor that
> persistently violates our code of conduct.
And, the final code of conduct were more detailed about unacceptable behaviour, rather than trying to use blanket terms like "inappropriate" or "offensive", then I'd be happy to +1 it ... I will not +1 it while it tries to limit offence, because that's silly, or uses blanket terms that make it unenforceable. So that's me, +1 on the idea, not so much on the text for the code of conduct ... Cheers Joe On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew Faulds

10 years ago
Hi Joe, Joe Watkins wrote:
> Morning internalz, > > I'm going to keep it simple, because I'm sure everybody is getting a > bit bored ... > > I object to the idea that we should try to limit "offence" ... it's not > quantifiable, and it doesn't matter whatever, I'm offended by all sorts of > things ... so what ...
"Offensive" can be problematic in that it's a blanket term that can cover many things. Someone insinuating that someone else is wrong might be found offensive, yet on the other hand "offensive" also covers the use of more serious things like racial slurs, or making demeaning or hateful comments about people from less privileged groups. I'm not sure this ambiguity is avoidable, though. Any code of conduct is inherently somewhat vague, and requires a degree of trust in whoever enforces it to act reasonably. If you don't trust the enforcers to have reasonable interpretations, this is a rather pointless exercise. Also, I think it's worth bearing in mind that unintentional offence which is not persistent is unlikely to fall under this rule. Consider that this is roughly the standard that actual law follows, e.g. Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 in the UK:
> (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a > person harassment, alarm or distress, he— > (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or > disorderly behaviour, or > (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which > is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or > another person harassment, alarm or distress.
The key part of that is "intent". I do note that it doesn't include the word "offensive", but I'm not sure that's important, since anything covered by "offensive" is would also be covered by at least one of "threatening", "abusive" or "insulting". Plus, we're not dealing with setting up a legal system here, just guidelines for conduct. We are never going to have, nor need, the precision and complexities of a legal system. If you break the code of conduct, you aren't going to be fined and spend a few weeks in jail. At worst you might get a one-week ban from the mailing list, or have someone petitioning to ban you from the project. And that's at *worst*. Furthermore, if people think the CoC enforcement team have been too heavy-handed with their application of the code, the team can be replaced.
> > I can see nothing that is disagreeable in the idea other than this. > > If this sentence were changed: > > > 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. > > To > > > Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, > edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues and other > contributions, as well as imposing temporary or permanent bans on any > contributor that > > persistently violates our code of conduct.
Your suggested new wording appears to remove the requirement for removed/edited/rejected contributions to have not aligned to the code of conduct. I assume that's not intentional, but the "on any contributor that persistently violates [...]" part appears to only apply to "imposing temporary or permanent bans", and not the preceding part. Thanks.
-- Andrea Faulds https://ajf.me/

Paul M Jones

10 years ago
> On Jan 6, 2016, at 13:13, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: > > Furthermore, if people think the CoC enforcement team have been too heavy-handed with their application of the code, the team can be replaced.
Easiest way to avoid that is not to have a continuing team. Instead, randomly select of a response group on a per-incident basis should be sufficient. Nobody gets selected for a second incident until everyone has been selected once. Of course, even better than that is not to have a COC in the first place. The conflict-resolution document is an infinitely better starting place.
-- Paul M. Jones pmjones88@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

Ryan Pallas

10 years ago
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 6, 2016, at 13:13, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: > > > > Furthermore, if people think the CoC enforcement team have been too > heavy-handed with their application of the code, the team can be replaced. > > Easiest way to avoid that is not to have a continuing team. Instead, > randomly select of a response group on a per-incident basis should be > sufficient. Nobody gets selected for a second incident until everyone has > been selected once. >
How would I bring to attention of someone a situation, if there is no one picked to take those requests until after its been made? This goes back to, if I had a problem because someone is being belligerent, I don't want to share those belligerent comments publicly, but if there is no one responsible for that there is no way to do that. OTOH, if we select 5 people and one of them resolve an incident, they could then immediately be replaced. Similarly, if it requires more than one to handle the situation whoever is involved may be replaced (including the whole team if need be). I expect, 99% of complaints will only require a conversation with the accused and accuser (possibly separately) getting tempers and words calmed down.
> > Of course, even better than that is not to have a COC in the first place. > The conflict-resolution document is an infinitely better starting place. >
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).

Paul M Jones

10 years ago
> On Jan 6, 2016, at 13:38, Ryan Pallas <derokorian@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 6, 2016, at 13:13, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: > > > > Furthermore, if people think the CoC enforcement team have been too heavy-handed with their application of the code, the team can be replaced. > > Easiest way to avoid that is not to have a continuing team. Instead, randomly select of a response group on a per-incident basis should be sufficient. Nobody gets selected for a second incident until everyone has been selected once. > > How would I bring to attention of someone a situation, if there is no one picked to take those requests until after its been made?
An excellent point. My first thought is to appoint or elect a continuing "secretary" (probably a better name for that) to receive requests, and then run the random-selection tool on each incoming notice. The secretary position itself is not responsible for reviewing or resolving, only receiving and assigning. This introduces some possibility of picking favored assignees to particular responses, but even that might be automated by having a bot respond to emails to a particular address. Again, not in favor of a COC at all in the first place, as noted in the next quote:
>> Of course, even better than that is not to have a COC in the first place. The conflict-resolution document is an infinitely better starting place. > > 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).
Right on.
-- Paul M. Jones pmjones88@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

François Laupretre

10 years ago
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. Regards François

Anthony Ferrara

10 years ago
All, On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:43 PM, François Laupretre <francois@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

Zeev Suraski

10 years ago
> -----Original Message----- > From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmaxell@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 10:48 PM > To: François Laupretre <francois@php.net> > Cc: Ryan Pallas <derokorian@gmail.com>; Paul M. Jones > <pmjones88@gmail.com>; Andrea Faulds <ajf@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 <francois@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

Pierre Joye

10 years ago
Hi Zeev, On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
> As someone who's been on the receiving end of countless personal attacks in > the context of STH, marginalized and harassed
Same here, along personal vendetta along many other similar things. - 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.
I totally agree on focusing on a problem resolution strategy. This is a good thing and gives a good signal too.
> 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.
The key point about people in power is to make them not in power but in charge. The power should and must remain in the hands of the core community, for the extreme measures.
> 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.
To me and to my understanding, to many other, violence begins with insults. At the very least I would put direct actions in response to insults, soft warning for 1st timer followed by bans, temporary or permanently for cases of recidivism. I agree to split the RFC in two steps allowing to learn in the process. However I do think that we should include a clear action path when it comes to insult on the mailing list, IRC or other channels. Now we can indeed argue about what is an insult but common sense may apply here (like to consider direct insult like "you are a <put your fav bird name here or body part>). This is something we must consider as unacceptable.
> 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.
I tend to agree on a two steps if we define a clear timeline for the 2nd step. Also a too soft CoC may just as useless as no CoC at all. Cheers,
-- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org

Peter Lind

10 years ago
On 6 January 2016 at 21:43, François Laupretre <francois@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. > >
If you had but an inkling of the irony in that sentence ...
-- <hype> WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk CV: careers.stackoverflow.com/peterlind LinkedIn: plind Twitter: kafe15 </hype>

Andrew Faulds

10 years ago
Hi François, François Laupretre 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.
'Don't be evil' is not sufficient because 'evil' is incredibly subjective. Is harassment evil? Are personal attacks evil? Is trolling evil? Is publishing someone's personal information evil? Is using sexualised language evil? Worse, 'Evil' is particularly bad because it concerns morality; personally, I'm not sure if I'd consider everything convered by a code of conduct as necessarily evil. And the job of a code of conduct *is not to act as a moral code*. A code of conduct states what is socially acceptable, not what will send you to hell. Not even the law has that job. And that's just concerning how something like 'don't be evil' can be too narow in scope. It can also be far too broad: evil, of course, extends beyond the realm of the PHP community. And there are perhaps 'evil' actions which we would consider acceptable behaviour. In some religions the consumption of alcohol is forbidden, and yet consuming alcohol as a member of the PHP community is completely acceptable, indeed some PHP meetups take place in establishments dedicated to serving alcoholic drinks. An actual code of conduct, like the Contributor Covenant, is much more useful. Though, as with any code, it does contain ambiguities, it is clearer as to what is unacceptable. It doesn't leave everything open to the multitude of possible interpretations of a single concept. Furthermore, I would posit that redundancy is subjective and not necessarily bad. While you might consider everything in a hypothetical code of conduct to be redundant if the first line is just "Don't be evil", as I have already discussed, other people may not consider all of the following behaviours to be covered by that first line. Replacing the code of conduct with those three words wouldn't leave it less open to interpretation. It would make there be no code at all, and the only enforcement be that of the personal perceptions of the moderators as to what 'evil' constitutes. Thanks.
-- Andrea Faulds https://ajf.me/

Stas Malyshev

10 years ago
Hi!
> Also, I think it's worth bearing in mind that unintentional offence > which is not persistent is unlikely to fall under this rule. Consider > that this is roughly the standard that actual law follows, e.g. Section > 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 in the UK: > >> (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a >> person harassment, alarm or distress, he— >> (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or >> disorderly behaviour, or >> (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which >> is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or >> another person harassment, alarm or distress.
I love it how The Law spends so much text and yet leaves so much unspecified and open to interpretation. Basically it says "offense is being threatening, abusive or insulting". But what is "abusive"? What is "insulting"? Even "threatening" is unclear - is "if you do this, you'll regret it very soon" a threat or mere prediction of the unintended consequences? "Causing another person distress" is unbelievably open to abuse - I can say STH RFC caused me much distress, so would somebody publishing it be harasser now? It's basically "if I disagree with you a lot, you are guilty" kind of clause.
> The key part of that is "intent". I do note that it doesn't include the
The problem with "intent" that knowing it for sure is requires telepathy and time travel to work, and both are still very much TBD ;)
-- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com

Andrew Faulds

10 years ago
Hi Stas, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi! > >> Also, I think it's worth bearing in mind that unintentional offence >> which is not persistent is unlikely to fall under this rule. Consider >> that this is roughly the standard that actual law follows, e.g. Section >> 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 in the UK: >> >>> (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a >>> person harassment, alarm or distress, he— >>> (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or >>> disorderly behaviour, or >>> (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which >>> is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or >>> another person harassment, alarm or distress. > > I love it how The Law spends so much text and yet leaves so much > unspecified and open to interpretation. Basically it says "offense is > being threatening, abusive or insulting". But what is "abusive"? What is > "insulting"? Even "threatening" is unclear - is "if you do this, you'll > regret it very soon" a threat or mere prediction of the unintended > consequences? > "Causing another person distress" is unbelievably open to abuse - I can > say STH RFC caused me much distress, so would somebody publishing it be > harasser now? It's basically "if I disagree with you a lot, you are > guilty" kind of clause. > >> The key part of that is "intent". I do note that it doesn't include the > > The problem with "intent" that knowing it for sure is requires telepathy > and time travel to work, and both are still very much TBD ;)
Sure. Again, inevitably any code of conduct is somewhat vague and requires trust in the maintainers to be reasonable. Thanks.
-- Andrea Faulds https://ajf.me/

Rowan Collins

10 years ago
On 6 January 2016 19:42:29 GMT, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> 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! Regards,
-- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]

David Zuelke

10 years ago
On 06.01.2016, at 12:31, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6 January 2016 19:42:29 GMT, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> 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.

Joe Watkins

10 years ago
Hi Andrea,
> The key part of that is "intent". I do note that it doesn't include the
word "offensive", but I'm not sure that's important, since anything covered by "offensive" is would also be covered by at least one of "threatening", "abusive" or "insulting". That it is omitted from the letter of the law is more important than you think, it is omitted precisely because it is a blanket term. Those things that the law prohibits have definitions either in law, or in morality, it is those things that we should be trying to protect contributors from. I accept that there has to be a level of trust in the council enforcing the code, I have to trust them to determine if something is intentional, or malicious. The definition of intent and malice should not vary much between individuals, however the definition of offence does. I cannot trust someone else's sensibilities. The aim of the thing is laudable, but the word offence doesn't belong. Cheers Joe On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

Stas Malyshev

10 years ago
Hi!
> Exhibit A: > https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/commit/0e927bc01614d6b0de021a314dbe95e7dfcc7bb9#diff-eacf331f0ffc35d4b482f1d15a887d3bL17 > > Exhibit B: https://archive.is/dgilk (the threatening language at the > end is particularly chilling) >
I think this kind of clearly polarizing and politicizing language and this kind of threats and abuse of process which is designed to protect people from abuse to bully them into accepting specific point is something we want to steer clear from. Fortunately, our community seems to have a blessing of being able to rationally discuss this topic without getting into such extremes, so it is not true in our case that people that support CoC come from the place of politics and not just want to improve the community.
-- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com

Andrew Faulds

10 years ago
Hi Nate, Nate Abele wrote:
> Hi Rowan,
It looks like you're replying to someone here, yet your email isn't threaded as part of the main discussion by my newsgroup client (SeaMonkey). Is this intentional?
-- Andrea Faulds https://ajf.me/