> On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Paul M. Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > As I have stated previously, I find the Contributor Covenant text > objectionable, in that it couples person, project, and politics, so that the > person becomes answerable to the project for their politics. > > If there simply must be a code of conduct, they should be decoupled. To that > end, I propose that the entire "Code Of Conduct Text" in the RFC be removed, > and replaced with this single sentence: > > We are committed to evaluating contributions within project > channels without regard to the contributor's experience, > ability, identity, body, religion, politics, or activity > outside of project channels. > > Alternatively, if that's not specific enough, use this single sentence > instead: > > We are committed to evaluating contributions within project > channels (such as reporting issues, posting feature requests, > updating documentation, submitting pull requests or patches, > and other project activities) without regard to the > contributor's level of experience, gender, gender identity > and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal > appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, > nationality, politics, or activity outside of project > channels. > > Both of these use language cribbed from the Contributor Covenant, and add > explicit protections for politics and other activity outside the project. > This decouples person, politics, and project from each other, leaving each > with its own separate sphere of influence. It also removes the scope of > resulting actions-to-be-taken from the expectations of conduct, and leaves it > to the conflict resolution language. > > The replacement is restricted to project channels only. I predict, based on > earlier comments, that some will object to this. I opine that it is beyond > the scope of the project to either reward or punish members for their > activity outside channels owned by the project. Even so, conflict in > non-project channels does occur. As such, I suggest adding the following text > (or substantially similar text) to the conflict resolution language: > > Q: What about conflict outside of project channels? > > A: If you feel conflict via a non-project channel is > unbearable, you should handle the incident(s) using the > means provided by that channel. For example: > > - If you feel you are being abused via Twitter, you > might block or mute the person(s) you feel are abusing > you, and/or report the abuse to Twitter. > > - If you feel you are being harassed via email, you > could set up a rule to delete or junk emails from the > person(s) you feel are harassing you. > > - If you feel you are subject to a credible threat of > physical harm, you should report it to law enforcement. > > Finally, although the original RFC text does not define "project spaces", I > think that "project channels" should be defined; for example, the official > PHP accounts on Github, Twitter, and Facebook, as well as all php.net mailing > lists, and perhaps even all php.net email accounts. > > > -- > 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 >
I like this a lot. If the goal is to send a clear message that all are welcome to contribute, this does it. And it promises that the project itself will never target you just because others in the community find you or your opinions objectionable (and as has been made clear several times in this discussion, whether someone finds you objectionable is an entirely subjective judgement on their part). What worries several of us in this discussion is very real possibility that the CoC and/or the tribunal would encourage or enable that kind of targeting. Kevin Smith http://gohearsay.com
