Hi! > 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.
But that is exactly what I want - to have full(er) context! The secret procedure makes that harder. Of course, there are tradeoffs and some details must be withheld - but the first version of RFC (did not read the new one yet) was "maximum confidentiality", and that's not good IMO. I think the default should be "maximum disclosure, unless it's obviously damaging (personal data, etc.) or no-content (insults, slurs, etc.)". I.e. I recognize there's no absolute, I just want the balance be different. > 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. Right. So that's one point of discussion - should we do anything at all or not. But if we *are* doing something - that's the second point of discussion - namely, institute new structure with broad powers in the community - we should do it in a way that is least likely to cause damage. -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
