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

> -----Original Message----- > From: Pádraic Brady [mailto:padraic.brady@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:43 AM > To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> > Cc: Derick Rethans <derick@derickrethans.nl>; PHP Developers Mailing List > <internals@lists.php.net> > Subject: 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 > concerning conduct as specifically listed in the COC text per the RFC. It serves > neither side when this confusion gets muddled into argument for, against or > in-between. 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 other - the proponents can tell the those who oppose that it's not at all what the RFC is about, and that their worries about this becoming a tool for a behavioral/thought police are completely baseless. Note that despite the fact that Derick - who's now the RFC author - clearly said that the reason he's reviving the RFC is because internals is toxic - you're still assuming that the RFC isn't intended to 'fix mailing list toxicity'. Can we get any more confused than that? > At a basic level, what exactly is a code of conduct where the only > consequence is mediation, where both parties are assumed to have good > will, and where the outcome is ??????????. My take? A successful one. One that we can all rally behind, as opposed to a controversial one that is creating much angst. Please see my response to Andrea. > That's the a problem from my > perspective. What is the outcome? Does mediation continue indefinitely > without results? No, in the vast majority - and I do mean VAST majority, mediation works and results would be quick. When people are told that they should cool off, they typically do. I know I would. Even more so if that mediation team could point me to a certain desired behavior I'm not quite following at that time, and do so respectfully and not judgmentally. > While the mediation is ongoing for the long haul, will be > there be any remediation set to protect a theoretical victim? What is Plan B? I don't think we can go on discussing two completely different issues - safety and 'toxicity', while jumping in between them as if they're the same thing. The way the current RFC author sets of the scope is much wider than safety issues, and the use of the word 'victim' and 'remediation' are not really relevant to it - at least in the vast majority of incidents we're likely to experience > Part of the COC is to explicitly limit ad-hoc reactions should things go > completely down the gutter by defining something upfront. By extension, > any uncertainty of what would happen should Person A complain may act as > a deterrent to making such a complaint. It could be anticipated that long > drawn out procedures with an unknown ending are in and of themselves > stressful (and to both parties to boot). There's just no way to undo the damage that the threat of penalties does when the goal is trying to foster positive behavior. Any education person - and hopefully most parents - will tell you that. Our brains respond completely differently to demands and threats versus encouragement and guidance. There's no absolute winning formula, and there's no one size fits all. Yes, in an extreme, uncommon case - the fact we're focusing on desired behavior and not on 'deterrence' - might cause a certain individual to feel they can do a certain something and get away with it (something, that if safety issues was what we're dealing with, may very well be illegal and carry criminal penalties). Is it worth to design our whole system around that extremely infrequent situation *AT THE EXPENSE* of how we deal with the normal day to day situations? I know my answer. Zeev