Sara, On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Sara Golemon <poll...@php.net> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: >> Having a CoC which is wider in scope and ratified by a voted RFC rather >> than an email on some mailing list sends a strong message. Having it in >> our contributor guidelines would also go a long way. >> >> I guess here we fundamentally disagree - it seems that sending the message >> that 'we take this seriously' - by placing strong emphasis on reporting and >> penalties - is more important to some than agreeing about the values >> themselves. For me, the values themselves and communicating them properly >> and prominently are infinitely more important than the policing mechanism, >> as I believe that stating them clearly would go a very long way and is >> anything but useless. >> > And maybe this RFC is trying to do too much at once. Code diffs > should be scoped to "one change per diff", and RFCs should as well. > > Anthony, would you be amenable to reducing this first RFC to just a > code of conduct. This is; Define expectations from members of the > community. No response team, no penalities (expressed or implied), no > language about "accused/accused/offender/etc...". Just: "all > contributors and participants in the PHP project shall endeavor to be > nice (list example ways of being nice) and avoid being mean (list > example ways of being mean)".
No. I will be willing to cut scope overall to cut how much it tackles in the first swing, but I strongly believe that there needs to be some sort of non-public resolution process defined. We've seen time and time again that the court of public opinion is a horrific judge for these style issues. Just saying "these are the things we believe in" without actually showing and providing a method for people to feel safe in reporting if one of those beliefs are violated is not good IMHO. I'm 100% open to completely rewriting the RFC, to pulling in a different CoC, to rewriting or reusing a different conflict resolution policy. That's all 100% on the table. However, I will not support what many are suggesting here that people will be required (even if just initially) to report issues publicly. Simply look at the level of attacks that me and a few other committers have received by making this proposal. I don't feel comfortable making any of those attacks public (drawing more attention to them). In private, to a team that is trusted and has even a baseline set of "powers" to at least report an incident with identifying details redacted would be far better than just requiring people to "come forward with any issue". > Further evolution of that can come in later RFCs. Or not if the > community doesn't think we need an official point of contact and/or > enumerated punitive actions. Feeling the temperature in the room, I'd > lay money that the third leg of that proposal wouldn't ever fly. Even > the second is questionable given concerns of confidentiality (or > secretiveness, depending on your position). I'd hope the first, > simply stating expectations in a formalized way, will only have > limited pushback (due to concerns of over/under-specific language), > and we can take our time in reaching consensus on that one item. > > If we can't even agree on that first stage, setting expectations of > profession behavior, then the rest of this conversation is irrelevant. I think many do agree. If you look at this 225+ reply thread, the vast majority of karma holding people have not responded (even many who frequent this list). A few (5+) of them have reached out to me personally to say that they are explicitly staying out of this discussion because of the level of aggression and tone, but would be willing to support a reasonable proposal (some provided meaningful feedback on it, some support the current revision). Think about that. People who are long standing members of this community and project do not feel that they can safely respond to this very thread. Think of the irony there. One active community member (though does not have karma here) is quoted to say "The tone of the 'discussion' is such that I wouldn't dream of throwing in 2 cents, let alone attempt to spearhead real and lasting change". I think if the current RFC went to vote, it would come very close to passing as-is. But as I've said before, I don't think it's anywhere near ready to vote on. Larry has started a discussion with the people behind Drupal's CoC, and I hope that leads to significant change and clarity in the CoC and CRP that I'm proposing. There's still significant work to be done, but I honestly don't believe that the tone and content of this thread accurately represents the majority opinion of karma holders, nor of the broader community. The only way to know for sure would be to hold a vote (preferably a blind one, but that's not really on the table). I don't believe the current RFC is good as a final proposal, so I won't put it to a vote. But it's worth thinking about at least. That's my $0.02. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
