> -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Garfield [mailto:la...@garfieldtech.com] > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 9:51 PM > To: internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct > > On 1/8/16 12:31 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote: > >> 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? > > As many people, including both you and I, have said, we don't want to focus > on the "jury" aspect. Rather, we want to focus on conflict resolution and > mediation, not on hammer dropping. And conflict resolution and mediation > is not even remotely a universal skill. No, I would not trust a "select a person > at random" as a "defuse a situation" > role, not even a little.
As I said in my other note, I agree 100%. I think the problem is that the RFC right now goes well beyond mediation, and so far, I haven't heard willingness to let go of these extra elements or break them into a separate RFC. So we're, in effect, discussing several things at the same time, with this fundamental issue remaining undetermined. If it's a mediation team and not a judicial/jury one, then everything happening in private becomes a non-issue and very natural. Having the most skilled people to mediate becomes a no brainer, as there's no real risk for abuse of power. Deciding how these people get elected and where discussion happens should only happen after we establish what jurisdiction they have in the first place, otherwise, we're discussing it backwards IMHO. Zeev -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
