Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
| From: | D Keith Casey | Date: | Fri, 08 Jan 2016 16:38:54 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-90364@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 1/7/16 11:52 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
On 01/07/2016 10:08 PM, Brian Moon wrote:Good scenario but we don't have to be hypothetical. Let's apply it to the real world of this week: Throughout this discussion, Paul Jones has been active and - despite vocally attacking the proposal - I have yet to see him attack anyone in general. And then Phil Sturgeon else used a sexualized term to insult Paul to his ~16k followers but didn't name him: https://archive.is/oeekT While Phil claims this is not sexualized, Urban Dictionary disagrees but then he follows it up with a claim that he doesn't represent the project anyway: https://archive.is/TA2YP According to the definition including attending conferences that use the PHP logo and active in PHP channels, he does. And then Phil follows it up with another more potentially damaging attack - again, without naming Paul - https://archive.is/Z3zNy And finally, it turns out it's all Phil is blocking Paul anyway - https://archive.is/6iZQY - so Paul wouldn't even have see the attacks to defend himself or report to the PHP Code of Conduct group. So my questions: - In his day to day interactions, would Phil be considered a representative of the PHP team? - If not, why not? - If so, do his personal attacks using sexualized terms constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct? - If not, why not? - If so, what would the consequences be for Phil? Thanks, keithSimply cutting off contact (either by the receiver of harassment or otherwise) isn't the entire goal. There are least 2 others: 1) Harassment does not need to be direct. If I were to start tweeting up a hostile, insulting storm about someone else on this list, by name and talking about PHP Internals business, but not tweeting @ that person, them blocking me isn't going to accomplish anything. The harm isn't that they are seeing the message necessarily, it's that everyone else I know is seeing it, many of whom that person may not even know. That's still an attack on a person's reputation, and damaging to the person.Why not? The harassment has been nullified.I agree with your position on most of this, Paul. However, free email, and thus, Twitter and other social media accounts are nearly unlimited. It becomes an arms race to try and block someone. Brian.