Huge +1 to this for the reasons stated both by Eli about why it should exist, and the reasons mentioned by Ferenc in that it's not giving out new powers, but adding accountability to the use of those powers. I do think however there is some fine tuning that could be done.
1) When a summary report is posted, the offender should be given the opportunity to comment on it and defend themselves although ideally this would be incorporated into the process before the summary report. It might also be worth adding some sort of appeal process (Suggested on reddit). As noted previously, if a ban is in place then they cannot comment directly as they might be banned from commenting on the mailing list. Although a certain part of this does come down to the trust vested in the response team by those who select them that they'll produce unbiased reports 2) Another point raised on reddit by Andrew Carter is that something should be included in the RFC with regards to the voting policy of the response team (3 or 4 members to agree, and a note if quorum cannot be reached [one member might be away or ill]). Also to cover a bit more depth, it could cover things such as what standard of proof should be used (balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt for example, otherwise it becomes subjective to those on the response team, which may or may not be intentional) 3) A lot of people have questioned the secrecy or integrity/objectivity of the summary reports delivered by the response team. Ultimately, for things of this sort of nature, especially if it's decided that claims are not well founded, they can be incredibly damaging to people's reputations and even careers so there has to be some element of secrecy and in the same vein there has to be some level of trust vested in a few to hold that secrecy. To produce a report that is significantly biased I can imagine would be difficult as it would be unlikely that 5 people would all be 'corrupt' in the same fashion compared to one where lots of individuals hold that power and can exercise it on their own. 4) What voting method would be used to choose the 5 people? Single Transferable Vote is a much better system for this kind of thing, especially considering the nature of ensuring a balance of opinion on the committee. The one issue with this being it's not supported on the wiki I assume? 5) Huge +1 to ensuring that permanent bans require votes from the larger pool. -- Michael C On 5 January 2016 at 01:48, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi! > > > It's really not much more than Wheaton's Law in a form that > > (hopefully) is just detailed enough to stop someone from being able to > > say "but you didn't explicitly say I couldn't abuse someone because > > $X". > > That assumes we told somebody that anything goes unless it's explicitly > prohibited in writing. Which we never did and nobody would honestly > expect, so who whoever says it is surely trolling. > > -- > Stas Malyshev > smalys...@gmail.com > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
