Hi,
Le 05/01/2016 10:32, Zeev Suraski a écrit :
One thing I really like about the covenant Anthony is proposing (besides
it
being the same as the one a bunch of other projects are
using) is that it actually is pretty short, considering what it is.
The English version fits on one screen on my laptop.
I actually find that a bad thing. As I think the Voting RFC proved (IMHO
beyond a reasonable doubt) - what's not clearly defined in the text, may
evolve in unpredictable directions in the future.
Specifically, the Contributor Covenant has text which in my opinion, is
either too open for interpretation or needs to be narrowed down - e.g.
'Personal Attacks' and even more so 'Other unethical or unprofessional
conduct'. What one may find a legitimate part of a heated discussion -
another may find as a personal attack. What one may consider perfectly
fine - another may find completely unethical. These are subjective matters
and giving a group of five (or seven, or nine) people judicial power over
them is very problematic.
While I understand the position that even though it's "a solution waiting
for a problem" - proactively providing such a CoC makes sense - I think the
open-endedness and the risk of bad things happening as a result of it are
far greater than any positives.
I would focus on creating as-clear-cut-as-possible CoC (probably a trimmed
down version of the Contributor Covenant), but would leave the 'teeth' part
(i.e. the council part and any sanctions) out.
In the very extreme situations where someone truly needs to be banned or
otherwise sanctioned, any one of us can propose an RFC to do it. I would
require a 2/3 majority and probably no less than X voters voting in favor of
the ban, given the far-reaching implications (X being at least several dozen
people IMHO). Personally, I would advise to never issue permanent bans -
people do sometimes change. People get second chances for doing much worse
things; I'd go for a 1yr or at most 2yr bans (again, in exceptional cases
only).
My 2c.
Zeev
+1. The proposed CoC is too vague for a multi-cultural environment like
ours. Reference to ethics, for example, is subjective by nature. But I'm
OK for a more precise text that everybody must explicitely approve
before getting any karma.
But I am opposed to any form of law enforcement board. I understand it
ensures privacy but my feeling is that we don't need privacy here, and
we never needed such a mechanism during 20 years. Most questionable
messages are published on the mailing list. If someone receives an
offending private mail or is victim of harassment in any other way, he
can just publish it on the list and everyone will judge if it is
offending or not. Then, if we need to consider banning someone, anybody
can create a specific RFC for this, but it is an extreme case that,
fortunately, has a very low probability..
Regards
François
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
