On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! > > >> True, but as Larry said, either side is problematic. Too loose of a > >> CoC with no enforcement and nothing really was changed from today > >> considering we already have the post that Rasmus made 6-7 years ago. > > That implies we do *need* change from situation today. But so far I > didn't see anybody claiming situation today is problematic (not in terms > "not having CoC makes us look uncool and we want to be cool" but in > terms of "something bad is happening right now and we need to take > action to stop it".). Now, I have nothing against looking cool, and if > we can make the community look cooler/safer/warmer/welcomer/more > unicorns and hellokitties with no downsides - sure, why not? The part > that is worrysome for me is the one with downsides, namely "enforcement". > > having a CoC is not just a cool shiny thing, it is like having an emergency plan, it doesn't matter much until you need one, and some people are more comfortable knowing that there is one ready. everybody start without one, and usually it is better to prepare it beforehand than after the first real need for it, and coming up with one while going through the emergency is asking for trouble. currently we also have no way of knowing how many people are actually uncomfortable/leaving because we don't have one. > > Perhaps there's a path to compromise here though. A CoC plus a > > Response Team *without* authority for any punitive action would be a > > step forward. We don't have to solve every problem right up front, we > > can start with: > > that something which resonates with what Sara said and similar in nature what we do with security@, point of contact, with trustworthy people experienced on the topic and without any additional privileges apart of being able to seeing the reports and being able to discuss the reported problem and escalate if necessary. > I think if we would talk about moderation/mediation team that would try > to resolve a conflict and in a complicated cases - like irresolvable > conflict which makes collaboration impossible - prepare an impartial > summary of the issue and let the community take an action, and maybe be > able to alert necessary people (or even have such people as members) in > case urgent action - like emergency block to stop publishing sensitive > information, etc. - is needed, I would have no problem with that. > that could be a good compromise, I suppose we could cover most of the stuff which could have immediate actions with having somebody with web/* karma, somebody with php-src(preferable also including Zend/*) and somebody from the systems@ team. > I had numerous instances in the past where skillful third-party > mediation allowed resolving differences and pave way for cooperation. So > having people that can do that and are publicly known address for doing > this is a good thing to me. If we lose the punitive focus and have more > "what we want to do and what should happen" and less "what should not > happen and how badly we'll punish you", it would be much better. agree, and this was also mentioned previously my others, so I can't add much to it. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
