Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:39, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 8, 2016 2:27 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:25, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2016 2:21 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:15, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jan 8, 2016 1:58 AM, "Paul M. Jones" > > > > >> <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> I notice you did not answer my question. I'll ask again: when you > > > > >> say "proven guilty" what exactly do you mean? > > > > > > > > > > I see you are going to nitpick here. So let clarify it. > > > > > > > > When we're talking about banning people as a result of their actions, > > > > we'd better be clear on the details, don't you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is a clear set of evidences that someone harassed, insulted, > > > > > attacked another person then it fits this definition. > > > > > > > > What to you would be "a clear set of evidences"? (If you have > > > > examples of actual occurrences, that would be better than building hypotheticals, and probably > > > > easier.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please keep in mind than harassment, attacks or insults have nothing to do > > > > > with opinions. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, too many people confuse "argument" with > > > > "harassment", and "disagreement" with "attacks", and > > > > "observations" as "insults." So I'd like to hear first what "clear > > > > evidence" means to you. > > > > > > This is what I mean by nitpicking. I am sure you perfectly understand my point as > > > well as what I would consider as bad. Just in case, an opiniated hot discussion is not. I would > > > appreciate a clear answer as well from your side and little less nitpicking. > > > > To give clear answers, I need clear statements. For example, if a person *claims* > > harassment, what to you would be *evidence* of that harassment? This is not nitpicking; this is > > defining the terms of the conversation. If you are unable to clarify, that's cool, just say so. > > I think you are playing. I have never been more serious. This RFC, if passed, is going to have wide-ranging consequences, and if the terms in it are so vague as to give open-ended powers to those charged with enforcing it, I think that's a dangerous thing. So again: What to you would be "a clear set of evidences"? (If you have examples of actual occurrences, that would be better than building hypotheticals, and probably easier.) And again, if you are unable to clarify this, I'm OK with that. I get that it's messy. We can then work together to build up a definition. I presume that you want to collaborate to come up with the best possible RFC, yes? And if not, why not? -- Paul M. Jones pmjones88@gmail.com http://paul-m-jones.com Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP https://leanpub.com/mlaphp Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP https://leanpub.com/sn1php