On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Paul M. Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 6, 2016, at 13:13, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > > > Furthermore, if people think the CoC enforcement team have been too > heavy-handed with their application of the code, the team can be replaced. > > Easiest way to avoid that is not to have a continuing team. Instead, > randomly select of a response group on a per-incident basis should be > sufficient. Nobody gets selected for a second incident until everyone has > been selected once. > How would I bring to attention of someone a situation, if there is no one picked to take those requests until after its been made? This goes back to, if I had a problem because someone is being belligerent, I don't want to share those belligerent comments publicly, but if there is no one responsible for that there is no way to do that. OTOH, if we select 5 people and one of them resolve an incident, they could then immediately be replaced. Similarly, if it requires more than one to handle the situation whoever is involved may be replaced (including the whole team if need be). I expect, 99% of complaints will only require a conversation with the accused and accuser (possibly separately) getting tempers and words calmed down. > > Of course, even better than that is not to have a COC in the first place. > The conflict-resolution document is an infinitely better starting place. > I agree, a conflict resolution document *and team* seems infinitely better. This team's job is to resolve things quietly and without further incident, however if action may be required - its an open vote (as previously suggested). > > > -- > Paul M. Jones > pmjone...@gmail.com > http://paul-m-jones.com > > Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP > https://leanpub.com/mlaphp > > Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP > https://leanpub.com/sn1php > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
