The way I see this, and I believe others do as well based on the previous
recommendation to split this into two RFCs, is there are two goals:
1.) Making it clear that the community welcomes all individuals
2.) A means for handling conflict resolution.
To me, #1 doesn't really fall into a "Code of Conduct" as much as it does a
"Mission Statement." I would also question the need for such a statement
beyond making us feel all warm and fuzzy. Do we fear people that aren't
joining the community because they don't know if they would be welcome are
suddenly going to change their minds just because we have a sentence or two
saying so? Either way, I think Paul's suggestion works wonderfully for this.
In terms of the conflict resolution/mediation, I would say that we should
be open to resolving any conflict between members of the community. Since
it is about mediation to help the parties reach a solution, instead of
enacting punishments, the "well, this happened on twitter, and we can't
control someone's twitter account" isn't an issue.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 12:32 PM Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> >> 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.
>
> This makes sense. I would not object to adding the positive values
> stuff, like in examples already cited, too. Except for the part where we
> talk about experience - this is just not true, when evaluating
> contribution we would definitely treat code from somebody who spent last
> 5 years digging into the engine and code from somebody who never
> contributed before at least somewhat differently (the latter would
> probably get more scrutiny). That's just a fact. That does not mean we
> would reject new contributors outright or subject them to different code
> standards, for example - but promising blanket "without regard" seems
> promising something we have no capability or intent to deliver.
> "Ability" is also ambiguous - I *think* I know what you mean there, but
> it may be also read as a promise that we will evaluate contributions
> regardless of contributor's ability to actually produce good
> code/text/whatever it is, which is obviously not true.
>
> >> Alternatively, if that's not specific enough, use this single sentence
> instead:
>
> I don't think we need to over-specify, that only leads to more rule
> lawyering ("I called her X, which is not on the list, so she has no
> right to feel insulted!").
>
> --
> Stas Malyshev
> smalys...@gmail.com
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
> --
-- Chase
chasepee...@gmail.com
