> On Jan 8, 2016, at 12:16, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > > On 1/8/16 11:28 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote: >>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote: >>> >>> Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust to >>> make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that are >>> fair) that don't fall too far into "thought policing", in *any* direction? >>> If not, then the community is already lost beyond all hope and we should >>> all just give up now. I do not believe that to be the case, at all. >> Too long spent in a position of power, and even the most fair can become >> unfair. >> >> As I have suggested before: *if* there is to be a response team, let it be >> randomly selected on per-reported-incident basis from the pool of voters. >> Then there is no possibility of a charge of continuing bias, and it >> distributes power among the pool, instead of concentrating it into a few >> members. >> >> Proponents of the response team: thoughts? > > Randomly selected: Absolutely not. I wouldn't randomly select someone to > make Ultimate Decision(tm) on a technical RFC, either. But if a question > about, say, a parser bug came up there are absolutely certain people that I > would trust with that question more than others, and defer to their > analysis/opinion more readily.
Certain people *you* would trust more than others, but that *others* would not trust more. Also, this is a social/political realm, and not a technical realm; would you not trust, say, a randomly-selected jury to hear and decide on a case? If not, why not? -- 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
