> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me] > Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 7:38 AM > To: internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct > > Hi Zeev, > > Zeev Suraski wrote: > > One thing which isn't clear to me is whether this: > > "If you conduct yourself in a way that is explicitly forbidden by the CoC, > > you > will be warned and asked to stop. If you do not stop, you will be removed > from our community spaces temporarily. Repeated, wilful breaches of the > CoC will result in a permanent ban." > > ... applies to reports, or only to proactive moderation. In other words, > whether the response to a report - anonymous or otherwise - can only result > in a warning the first time around? Can one only get permabanned after > numerous temporary bans and repeated 'offenses'? > > I don't think it specifically applies to reports or moderation, but rather to > what it says: "repeated, wilfull breaches". If the team is aware that you've > done something multiple times, then it's going to be more harsh on you. I > don't think whether each of those times was reported separately, if at all, > would mean anything.
I think it needs to be clarified because at least to me it's currently unclear. I'm happy with your interpretation. > Anyway, as to how many warnings people would get, and how quickly they > would be banned, if at all, would surely vary from case to case with severity. > We should assume whoever enforces this is somewhat reasonable. I've said it before and I'll say it again. My experience with other people interpreting the intent of RFCs (including ones I've written) has been downright horrible. That happened more than once. There were common ingredients in all of these cases: 1. The original intent behind the RFC was lost, and the only thing that remained was the RFC text that was voted on. 2. The text itself wasn't sufficiently robust (often an understatement), and assumed that it will be executed with the intent behind it as a part of the context. In other words, my 'reasonable' could be very different from your 'reasonable', or from someone else's 'reasonable'. I'm reluctant to keep things vague where they should be clear. We can't be clear about the penalties, but not be clear about the situation in which they'd be applied - and the steps that would precede imposing them. > > Last - does anybody know whether this CoC ever got 'battle tested' thus > far? > > This is a question I'm wondering about as well. It all seems pretty good, but > I > wonder if, for example, the lists of unwelcome behaviour and discrimination > characteristics are sufficiently complete. As I pointed out, I think it's too wide already. Harassment and Bullying have been used by people on this list to describe situations which, in my opinion, not only shouldn’t constitute Harassment/Bullying, but are actually not even remotely close to being that. 'Demeaning' is also a term which is very vague, and could mean different things to different people, even more so than Harassment and Bullying. If we were to accept these as a part of a CoC, there should be very clear cut definitions for them. FWIW, as someone that's about to turn 40 in ~3 weeks, I find this definition of Harassment pretty harassing: "Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information." :) Zeev
