Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
| From: | David Zuelke | Date: | Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:05:47 +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 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-90520@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 11.01.2016, at 12:31, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, asking for proof and denying are the same thing. If they
> weren't, then why would you be asking for proof unless you believed it
> didn't happen?
They are not the same thing. If you make a claim, then the onus of proof is on you, and you cannot
simply turn that reasonable request against them by then implying they're denying. Otherwise,
why have proof for anything at all?
To me, this begs the question: would you handle incidents covered by the CoC in a similar way, with
that same attitude? An accuser claims something, and asking for proof will be interpreted as denial?
By extension, will a third party asking for proof for an incident be subject to kafkatrapping -
"the fact that you're doubting X happened means you're also guilty of X"? That
one has happened to me before on twitter. Didn't stick because of the ridiculousness, but maybe
the conjured mob was simply not large enough to spark sufficient outrage.
I'm pretty uncomfortable that you as the person "in charge" of this RFC hold such
biased views. If you can't see that asking for proof and denial are different things then that
IMO disqualifies you for that role.
The same applies to your claims of threats of violence. It's fine if you don't want to
provide details, but then you can't bring those cases up. It's legitimate for others here
to ask you for evidence if you do bring it up. I understand that we're all different
personalities and you're maybe more wired in that direction (mentioning something in passing),
but you need to understand that once a claim is out there, it's up to you to back it up. If you
then refuse to, it raises doubts, and rightfully so.
Otherwise, we "just have to take your word for it", and that's exactly the thing many
here are afraid of when it comes to this RFC - that in the future, anyone can pull accusations out
of their hats, and the accusation is enough, because "why would you be making that accusation
if it didn't happen" (please compare that sentence to the quoted section at the beginning
of this message to understand why it is relevant.
David