On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Paul M. Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 13:50, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > (/me nods) > > If there must be a response team, I would prefer the "mediator" approach, > as you note. > > However, the RFC as I last saw it is not a "mediator" approach, but a > "judicial" one. If it is to be a "judicial" approach, my suggestion stands. > If/when the RFC changes to a "mediator" approach, I will change my > suggestions to fit the modified RFC. > Agreed, I think a mediator approach works best. I also agree with Zeev, that said mediator(s) should be picked not at random but for their ability to diffuse a situation. If a situation requires a "judicial" process, then I think at that point it should be a community decision.
