Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
| From: | Paul M. Jones | Date: | Sun, 10 Jan 2016 17:03:17 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-90455@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi Anthony,
> On Jan 9, 2016, at 21:48, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrote:
[Regarding supported of the COC as presented]
> We've been trying to discuss logic.
I think "logic" would apply itself to more measurements of observable reality. For
example:
- Collect observations and apply some sort of measurement to them.
- Describe a hypothesis about the conditions leading to the measurable observations.
- Describe (in relation to the hypothesis) a course of action by which the measurable outcomes could
be changed, both positively and negatively, to either prove or disprove the hypothesis.
- After implementing the course of action, continue to collect observations and apply the prior
measurements to them, including both confirmatory and disconfirmatory observations.
- Determine if the course of action succeeded or failed in changing the measureable observations,
thus either confirming or disconfirming the hypothesis.
Of course, that's just one approach that "logic" might use. Do you feel the approach
to the COC has been "logical" in that sense? If not in that sense, then in what other
sense do you feel it has been "logical" ?
--
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