Hi Stas,
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Also, I think it's worth bearing in mind that unintentional offence
which is not persistent is unlikely to fall under this rule. Consider
that this is roughly the standard that actual law follows, e.g. Section
4A of the Public Order Act 1986 in the UK:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a
person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which
is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or
another person harassment, alarm or distress.
I love it how The Law spends so much text and yet leaves so much
unspecified and open to interpretation. Basically it says "offense is
being threatening, abusive or insulting". But what is "abusive"? What is
"insulting"? Even "threatening" is unclear - is "if you do this, you'll
regret it very soon" a threat or mere prediction of the unintended
consequences?
"Causing another person distress" is unbelievably open to abuse - I can
say STH RFC caused me much distress, so would somebody publishing it be
harasser now? It's basically "if I disagree with you a lot, you are
guilty" kind of clause.
The key part of that is "intent". I do note that it doesn't include the
The problem with "intent" that knowing it for sure is requires telepathy
and time travel to work, and both are still very much TBD ;)
Sure. Again, inevitably any code of conduct is somewhat vague and
requires trust in the maintainers to be reasonable.
Thanks.
--
Andrea Faulds
https://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
