On 5 January 2016 at 19:42, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > It's interesting to note how few people in this thread consider the
> > perspective of potential harassed or abused people - instead only
> > focusing on how to protect the accused.
>
> We do not discuss it much because it is a) covered in the RFC thus
> forming context of the discussion and b) most of it is non-controversial
> - we know hurting people is bad, we should not do it, and we should not
> accept such behavior in our community. It is *how* we achieve that which
> is the question for discussion.
>
>
That is the problem: you cannot discuss how to protect the accused without
having the context of the abused. As you have yourself pointed out with
examples, it is a tradeoff.
> > Quick check: how many times in the history of PHP has someone been
> > called out, wrongly, for being abusive or harassing others? If, as seems
>
> There was some amount of "meta" discussions, in which all kinds of
> complaints and counter-complaints were voiced, many times. But since we
> have no formal mechanism for "accusing" or for determining "wrong", we
> can't really know how many of such cases there were.
>
> > to the argument ("we're such a great and tolerant community, we don't
> > need this"), this hasn't happened - what's with the paranoia behind
> > assuming it will suddenly happen constantly and that people will be
> > banned left and right for no reason?
>
> Because unfortunately we have witnessed, in other communities, how
> applying such things too hastily and without due consideration can cause
> damage. While abuse is undeniably damaging, doing more damage, this time
> by ourselves, is not the right way to fix it.
>
>
That is a truism: doing more damage is not fixing anything. However, unless
I am mistaken, you yourself put forward the lack of explicit problems as an
argument in favour of not doing anything.
A middle way could be - like we're doing now - discuss options that amount
to more than doing nothing (status quo) and less than voting in the worst
possible option.
> > voting is allowed. Even in the most clearcut case where someone is being
> > a complete asshole, you're then either allowing them to continue the
> > harassment or ignoring your own point. It's hard to see how either
> > option benefits PHP, let alone the abused person.
>
> In most clearcut case where somebody is obviously misbehaving, we have
> plenty of people that can revert commits or remove people from ML. That
> happened in the past. We do not need a special troika for that.
>
Ah, I mistook the idea of using the RFC to handle problems with conduct to
be a general way to deal with things.
--
<hype>
WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk
CV: careers.stackoverflow.com/peterlind
LinkedIn: plind
Twitter: kafe15
</hype>
