(Thank you for this write-up, Brandon. It's good to hear an opinion from someone who's a bit closer to that "field". I'll ignore netiquette and top-post because it feels like a good point to pick up from and share my general thoughts on this)
Personally, I don't disagree with the idea of having a CoC. I think it can be greatly beneficial to a community overall. Adding the "Reasonable Person" test was an important step. I would like to go a step further, because there is this section (emphasis mine): > Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or > reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions > that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or > permanently any contributor for other behaviors that ****they deem > inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful****. IMO, the emphasized portion should be changed to demand "objectively" as a requirement (e.g. "objectively offensive"), to ensure that the reasonable person test is applied. We've seen time and again in this thread how different people's perspectives are when it comes to what constitutes an attack or offense, and how "fluid" the lines are in people's subjective perception. Systems where these things are not well-defined and instead open to subjective interpretation have the potential to spiral out of control (at varying velocities), and that's my main concern. As an example, look at the minefield that university campuses in the US have become in recent years: > In a particularly egregious 2008 case, for instance, Indiana > University–Purdue University at Indianapolis found a white student guilty of > racial harassment for reading a book titled Notre Dame vs. the Klan. The book > honored student opposition to the Ku Klux Klan when it marched on Notre Dame > in 1924. Nonetheless, the picture of a Klan rally on the book’s cover > offended at least one of the student’s co-workers (he was a janitor as well > as a student), and that was enough for a guilty finding by the university’s > Affirmative Action Office. This is from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/ - I urge everyone to read it, because it's extremely relevant to this debate. Such so-called "emotional reasoning" (e.g. "I am offended by this, therefore it must be offensive and have been intended as an offense"), is becoming more and more common. Situations like these are already happening to members of the community, see e.g. https://twitter.com/nateabele/status/684135142915452928 (and like with Paul, I often disagree with Nate, but shout-out to him for his input and in particular for https://gist.github.com/nateabele/8d156730dc428322fca5) I would like to cite another section from the article above to underline this point, just in case readers are not interested right now to read it whole first and then return: > The thin argument “I’m offended” becomes an unbeatable trump card. This leads > to what Jonathan Rauch, a contributing editor at this magazine, calls the > “offendedness sweepstakes,” in which opposing parties use claims of offense > as cudgels. In the process, the bar for what we consider unacceptable speech > is lowered further and further. > > Since 2013, new pressure from the federal government has reinforced this > trend. Federal antidiscrimination statutes regulate on-campus harassment and > unequal treatment based on sex, race, religion, and national origin. Until > recently, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights acknowledged > that speech must be “objectively offensive” before it could be deemed > actionable as sexual harassment—it would have to pass the “reasonable person” > test. To be prohibited, the office wrote in 2003, allegedly harassing speech > would have to go “beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or > thoughts that some person finds offensive.” > > But in 2013, the Departments of Justice and Education greatly broadened the > definition of sexual harassment to include verbal conduct that is simply > “unwelcome.” Out of fear of federal investigations, universities are now > applying that standard—defining unwelcome speech as harassment—not just to > sex, but to race, religion, and veteran status as well. Everyone is supposed > to rely upon his or her own subjective feelings to decide whether a comment > by a professor or a fellow student is unwelcome, and therefore grounds for a > harassment claim. Emotional reasoning is now accepted as evidence. I fear that as group with (mostly) a programming background (as opposed to a legal one), and definitely "armed to the teeth with good intentions", we might mess up this crucial aspect of the CoC. It's become a not-uncommon tendency for people in "modern society" (gah, kids these days!) to say "I find this subjectively offensive, therefore it must be VERBOTEN", and the threshold for that has gradually been creeping lower and lower in recent years; see e.g. https://twitter.com/_klausi_/status/683226524175208448 This is even going as far as saying "if you disagree with me/us, you deserved to be publicly shamed and smeared", which coincidentally happened just yesterday when someone suggested precisely this for anyone who disagreed with the CoC under discussion: https://twitter.com/drupliconissad/status/685489458934841344 Maybe we can make http://observer.com/2015/09/the-real-reason-we-need-to-stop-trying-to-protect-everyones-feelings/ (also, a really good piece, and a must-read related to this debate) mandatory reading for everyone who would like to in any way interact with the CoC (as an accuser, a victim, or the "panel of judges")? :) David > On 09.01.2016, at 10:30, Brandon Savage <bran...@brandonsavage.net> wrote: > > All, > > Having read all of the RFCs proposed to date, as well as the discussions > around this topic, I have some questions that have yet to be answered, and > that I would like to try and understand the answers to. > > Some quick background: I may program for a living, but I hold a degree in > political science with an emphasis in law, government and political > systems. > > In every judicial system (and that's essentially what we're creating here), > the rights of the accuser are always balanced against the rights of the > accused. Most western (European/American) cultures have a concept of "due > process of law", along with certain rights reserved for the accused like > the right to confront an accuser, the admissibility of evidence, conduct of > the government and prosecutors, and the right to present a defense. In > addition, there's almost always a standard of proof that must be offered > prior to convicting the accused person of the alleged wrongdoing, along > with an automatic presumption of innocence. > > Even in a very basic sense, we are asking a small group to sit in judgement > over members of the community and regulate their conduct. This creates a de > facto court. What we call it (mediation team, conflict resolution team, > etc) doesn't take away from the fact that any group that can impose > punishment on others creates some sort of judicial or legal system. > > This RFC does have real consequences for real people (imagine explaining > being banned from the PHP project to a prospective employer), and I think > it's worth noting that by applying the "reasonableness test" we've made > improvements. There are some additional questions that are worth > considering that might help improve this RFC. These are in no particular > order. > > 1. We are asserting that privacy, for the accused AND the accuser, are a > primary goal. Are we then outright rejecting the premise that the accused > has a right to "confront the witnesses against them"? > > 2. What standard of proof do we want to use for these issues? Legal burdens > of proof range from "reasonable suspicion" to "beyond a reasonable doubt." > The RFC makes no mention of a standard of proof, and this is important, > because the standard we use will impact what kind of evidence is required. > (For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof) > > 3. What standard are we using to authenticate evidence? Modifying > documents, emails and tweets on the internet is very easy. Screenshots are > not reliable evidence. Charges of fabrication can taint even the most > legitimate process. How can we be sure that neither party engages in this > type of behavior? > > 4. Is the accused REQUIRED to provide evidence in their defense? In > American criminal courts (I can't speak to elsewhere), it's the obligation > of the prosecution to make a prima facie case AND prove their case beyond a > reasonable doubt. A legitimate strategy for a defendant is to offer NO > evidence, and poke holes in the prosecution's case, resting immediately > after the prosecution does. Is that an option here? > > 5. In the same thread of the previous question, can silence or refusal to > participate in the process be used against the accused? > > 6. What provisions exist for managing conflicts of interest? Examples: what > if the accused is on the mediation team? Best friends with someone on the > team? Married to someone on the team? Brother/sister of someone on the > team? Works with someone on the team? Was somehow involved/observed the > original incident in question and is cited as a witness by the accuser? > > At the end of the day, I don't think that the concept, or even the text, of > the code of conduct is that controversial. For me, it's the enforcement > mechanism that needs improvement to get my +1. > > Brandon -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
