RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

That's been in my queue for a while... > -Original Message- > From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me] > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:26 PM > To: internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct > > Hi, > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

> On Jan 24, 2016, at 16:48, Dan Ackroyd wrote: > > A significant number of technical RFC discussions have been less > productive than they should be, due to people repeatedly sending > emails against an RFC, that repeat what they have already said, which > is not a productive use of anyone's t

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

On 22.01.2016, at 17:43, Florian Anderiasch wrote: > > On 22.01.2016 15:29, Pierre Joye wrote: >> >> Freshly adopted: >> >> http://rubyonrails.org/conduct/ >> https://golang.org/conduct >> > > Ruby (the language) is discussing the adoption of a Code of Conduct > right now, and several people

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi! > Why? Misconduct is simply the inversion of 'conduct', and a code of > conduct, necessarily, primarily deals with misconduct. Good conduct is > supposed to be what normally happens. It's the exceptions to that - > misconduct - that you need a code to manage. I would disagree with that. If yo

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

>> On 21 בינו׳ 2016, at 9:54, Andrea Faulds wrote: >> >> There is absolutely no rule against being allowed to discuss >> something. The only rule is about putting stuff to a vote repeatedly. > > This is true, but Ze'ev acknowledged that already. I've more than acknowledged that already - I sai

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Dan, Dan Ackroyd wrote: On 21 January 2016 at 07:06, Zeev Suraski wrote: We have clear rules which disallow revival of RFCs which failed a vote for a duration of six months, unless they're very substantially modified, so revival isn't always allowed in open source. As other people have no

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

On 21 January 2016 at 07:06, Zeev Suraski wrote: > We have clear rules which disallow revival of RFCs which failed a vote for a > duration of six months, unless they're very substantially modified, so > revival isn't always allowed in open source. As other people have noted, the RFC never went

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

On 1/21/16 10:04 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote: > On 21 בינו׳ 2016, at 7:36, Sascha Schumann > wrote: > . >>> We have clear rules which disallow revival of RFCs which failed a vote for a >>> duration of six months, unless they're very substantially modified, so >>> revival >>> isn't always allowed in o

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Paul M. Jones wrote: That's a nice try, but since the Contributor Covenant is a political document, the politics of those who favor it are fair game. Also, your attempt to characterize "quoting someone's own words" as "personal attacks" is noted. Inherently, any discussion concerning interac

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi, Pádraic Brady January 21, 2016 at 10:59 AM Hi, On 21 January 2016 at 14:33, Allan MacGregor wrote: Padraic, Taking a step back, instead taking a knee-jerk reaction; I think Kevin brought up a valid point. Is very clear that there are certain actors that a

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi, Zeev Suraski wrote: I wouldn't say the idea of a code of conduct is really a constitution per se (it's not setting down the foundation and goals of the PHP project, merely rules for misconduct) Should somehow this RFC get ratified, it would be by far the closest thing that the PHP projec

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi! > That's a nice try, but since the Contributor Covenant is a political > document, the politics of those who favor it are fair game. Also, I don't think we need to discuss politics here, at least "politics of those", i.e. personal views rather than merits of specific proposals. I see no good

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

> On Jan 21, 2016, at 09:46, Derick Rethans wrote: > >> - There is no mechanism or ability for one to confront ones accuser > > That is a tricky one. In my opinion, in the case of abuse as pointed out > in the draft CoC, I think this is fair, and necessary that we all for > reports of abuse i

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

> On Jan 21, 2016, at 09:59, Pádraic Brady wrote: > > Hi, > > On 21 January 2016 at 14:33, Allan MacGregor > wrote: >> Padraic, >> >> Taking a step back, instead taking a knee-jerk reaction; I think Kevin >> brought up a valid point. Is very clear that there are certain actors that >> are pus

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi, On 21 January 2016 at 14:33, Allan MacGregor wrote: > Padraic, > > Taking a step back, instead taking a knee-jerk reaction; I think Kevin > brought up a valid point. Is very clear that there are certain actors that > are pushing for a specific version of this code of conduct to use it as a >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, Allan MacGregor wrote: > Taking a step back, instead taking a knee-jerk reaction; I think Kevin > brought up a valid point. Is very clear that there are certain actors > that are pushing for a specific version of this code of conduct to use > it as a political tool. I am g

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi Allan, Allan MacGregor wrote: The Code of Merit essentially creates an armour clad rejection of any non-technical topic. Is really that bad, this is an open source project. We are talking about a programming language not a socio-political movement? Or did I missed the memo? An open-sour

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi Stas, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: Hi! It might leave others feeling pressured, but it's not their fault if those contributors feel unsafe without a code of conduct. Nor is the I don't want to be dismissive, but I do not see anything on the list that should make anybody feel *unsafe* (unless

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi, On 21 January 2016 at 07:50, Zeev Suraski wrote: > I think the fact that this RFC was (and still is) perceived to be a solution > for the toxic internals problem - actually served the proponents of this RFC > very well. On one hand, this is what people at large care about. On the > othe

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

On 21 בינו׳ 2016, at 7:36, Sascha Schumann wrote: . >> We have clear rules which disallow revival of RFCs which failed a vote for a >> duration of six months, unless they're very substantially modified, so >> revival >> isn't always allowed in open source. > > I think Derick is abusing the RFC

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Derick Rethans wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Pavel Kouřil wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Derick Rethans >> wrote: >> > >> > I've decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. There are many reasons for it, >> > but there are a few points I want to make. >> >>

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

> For what it's worth, I find the description 'rules for misconduct' extremely > telling and fairly horrible way to describe a Code of Conduct, as I'm sure any > people involved with education would agree. Agreed. > > But we don't really have an alternative process for this currently > > establis

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

The Code of Merit essentially creates an armour clad rejection of any non-technical topic. Is really that bad, this is an open source project. We are talking about a programming language not a socio-political movement? Or did I missed the memo? When it comes down to PHP itself the main con

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi, >For example, http://code-of-merit.org/ seems much more reasonable in >"getting the things done" than the Covenant. I reviewed this last night, and it hasn’t fared any better after a night’s sleep. The Code of Merit essentially creates an armour clad rejection of any non-technical topic. It m

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > I've decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. There are many reasons for it, > > but there are a few points I want to make. > > > > I strongly believe that a Code of Conduct is required. The amount of > > toxic behaviour on this list is in m

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Padraic, Taking a step back, instead taking a knee-jerk reaction; I think Kevin brought up a valid point. Is very clear that there are certain actors that are pushing for a specific version of this code of conduct to use it as a political tool. This is it what concerns most people regarding

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Pavel Kouřil wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Derick Rethans > wrote: > > > > I've decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. There are many reasons for > > it, but there are a few points I want to make. > > if you still insists on some CoC, maybe you could at least look

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi, On 21 January 2016 at 04:37, Kevin Smith wrote: > I noticed you were contacted by Randi Lee Harper [https://archive.is/b8RDW], > the ironically abusive founder of the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative > [https://archive.is/eqco9][http://archive.is/A1Azz] known for attacking and > attempti

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi! > [http://archive.is/1A8SQ], wherein she suggested that you ignore the And this is exactly what we want to prevent from happening here. -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

> -Original Message- > From: Pádraic Brady [mailto:padraic.br...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:43 AM > To: Zeev Suraski > Cc: Derick Rethans ; PHP Developers Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct >

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

> I wouldn't say the idea of a code of conduct is really a constitution per se > (it's > not setting down the foundation and goals of the PHP project, merely rules > for misconduct) Should somehow this RFC get ratified, it would be by far the closest thing that the PHP project will have for a co

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi! > It might leave others feeling pressured, but it's not their fault if > those contributors feel unsafe without a code of conduct. Nor is the I don't want to be dismissive, but I do not see anything on the list that should make anybody feel *unsafe* (unless of course I misunderstand what you

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

> > On Jan 20, 2016, at 3:20 PM, Derick Rethans wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Pavel Kouřil wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Derick Rethans >> wrote: >>> >>> I've decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. There are many reasons for it, >>> but there are a few points I want to make. >>

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 21, 2016 2:38 AM, "Paul M. Jones" wrote: > > > > On Jan 20, 2016, at 13:04, Derick Rethans wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I've decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. > > Is it a violation of the RFC rules to skip step 1 ("Email internals@lists.php.net to measure reaction to your intended proposal"

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi Zeev, Zeev Suraski wrote: I want to point three key concerns that are unrelated to the contents of the updated RFC before addressing the RFC itself (in short). Note that I'm not blaming or otherwise holding you in any negative light in any way, but rather, stating my opinion on the contex

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi! > First, on process. Tangentially related, by pure coincidence I was given today a link to an IETF RFC describing their view on consensus: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 While their procedures are substantially different from ours, and for a good reason, I think learning from their exp

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi, Up front, I agree the objective of the COC needs to be clearly stated. There is confusion, whether it's here or externally by observers, as to whether this is intended to fix mailing list toxicity (I assume, for now, not) or intended to state the projects intentions should there be a complaint

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi! > I've decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. There are many reasons for it, > but there are a few points I want to make. > > I strongly believe that a Code of Conduct is required. The amount of > toxic behaviour on this list is in my opinion unacceptable. It drives > people away, it certainly

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

> -Original Message- > From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@derickrethans.nl] > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 9:04 PM > To: PHP Developers Mailing List > Subject: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct > > Hi, > > I've decided to re-pro

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Pavel Kouřil wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Derick Rethans > wrote: > > > > I've decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. There are many reasons for it, > > but there are a few points I want to make. > > if you still insists on some CoC, maybe you could at least look i

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Derick Rethans wrote: > Hi, > > I've decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. There are many reasons for it, > but there are a few points I want to make. > > > cheers, > Derick > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote: > > > On Jan 20, 2016, at 13:04, Derick Rethans > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I've decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. > > Is it a violation of the RFC rules to skip step 1 ("Email > internals@lists.php.net to measure reaction to your intended

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > > You can't do it on the /blob/ view, but if you click on the commit > > to get to the /commit/ view, you can comment on that. :) > > Right. That's what I meant by "patches". But that only specific commit, > not the whole result, right? Correct -

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi Stas, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: Hi! You can't do it on the /blob/ view, but if you click on the commit to get to the /commit/ view, you can comment on that. :) Right. That's what I meant by "patches". Ah, okay. I took that to mean pull requests. But that only specific commit, not the

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi! > You can't do it on the /blob/ view, but if you click on the commit to > get to the /commit/ view, you can comment on that. :) Right. That's what I meant by "patches". But that only specific commit, not the whole result, right? -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com -- PHP Internals - PHP

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi Paul, Paul M. Jones wrote: On Jan 20, 2016, at 13:04, Derick Rethans wrote: Hi, I've decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. Is it a violation of the RFC rules to skip step 1 ("Email internals@lists.php.net to measure reaction to your intended proposal") and go straight to step 3 ("Create

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi Stas, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: Hi! In order to make suggestions to the wording of the RFCs, and included Contributer Covenant and Guideslines easier, I've imported it into GitHub: https://github.com/derickr/php-code-of-conduct/blob/master/RFC.rst Great idea. Unfortunately, I don't see a

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi! > In order to make suggestions to the wording of the RFCs, and included > Contributer Covenant and Guideslines easier, I've imported it into > GitHub: > > https://github.com/derickr/php-code-of-conduct/blob/master/RFC.rst Great idea. Unfortunately, I don't see any way in Github to comment

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote: > > > On Jan 20, 2016, at 13:04, Derick Rethans > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I've decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. > > Is it a violation of the RFC rules to skip step 1 ("Email > internals@lists.php.net to measure reaction to your intended

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi, In order to make suggestions to the wording of the RFCs, and included Contributer Covenant and Guideslines easier, I've imported it into GitHub: https://github.com/derickr/php-code-of-conduct/blob/master/RFC.rst If you have specific suggestions, they're more than welcome there through Pul

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

> On Jan 20, 2016, at 13:04, Derick Rethans wrote: > > Hi, > > I've decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. Is it a violation of the RFC rules to skip step 1 ("Email internals@lists.php.net to measure reaction to your intended proposal") and go straight to step 3 ("Create the RFC") ?

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Am 20.01.16 um 20:04 schrieb Derick Rethans: > Hi, > > I've decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. There are many reasons for it, > but there are a few points I want to make. > > I strongly believe that a Code of Conduct is required. The amount of > toxic behaviour on this list is in my opinion una

[PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi, I've decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. There are many reasons for it, but there are a few points I want to make. I strongly believe that a Code of Conduct is required. The amount of toxic behaviour on this list is in my opinion unacceptable. It drives people away, it certainly did. It is