Focusing on what is best for the community can be very different from Focusing on what is best for the project. Are we sure that the Symfony project should not focus on what's best for the Symfony project?

True, it's different, but it's also related. What's good for the project is good for the community and vice versa. I've changed it to the project and the community

I guess this is a key part of this particular CoC .. the project exists for the community and not vice versa.
As such I would prefer to keep the original version.

Someone could be an excellent developer (good for the project) but be extreme rude against woman (bad for the community). History itself has a great number of examples about this actually.

Physical address makes a lot of sense ... but electronic address? For example, if I want to ping someone in a pull request, should I ask for permission before pinging them? (because pinging requires to expose the user electronic address on GitHub). And about the email, if that user publicly shows their email address in GitHub pull requests, should I also ask for permission to show that (already public) electronic address?

It affects only private information, but i guess it should be more explicit by saying non-public?

in general imho we should bring such feedback upstream. I would really prefer not forking the contents of this standard CoC.

Not sure about that. Each project has different needs and ideas how to govern their community. Changing/tweaking/improving things might be OK. It's like bringing diversity to "diversity CoC".

heh .. well I think CoC's are like software licenses .. yes each project is different but coming up with your own is likely going to create more problems than it solves.

opened a ticket EthicalSource/contributor_covenant#492

This is vague ... and vague statements are backdoors for abuse. If we know more unacceptable behaviors, let's list them all explicitly.

True! I've removed this entry

This is again open for abuse --> behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful. We should stick to the list of unacceptable behaviors listed above. Nothing should depend on the opinion of a person of group of people. The rules to enforce should be clear, public and listed explicitly.

This is again vague and open to abuse: Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers. Let's be explicit about everything.

We should reword this --> as determined by other members of the project's leadership to be explicit. Let's list the offends and corresponding punishments.

in general imho we should bring such feedback upstream. I would really prefer not forking the contents of this standard CoC.

BTW I think on this aspect .. the CoC tries to be specific to some degree on the offenses .. but if we were to attempt to list the offenses and punishments exhaustively .. I think we would need to fill a book, which I think isn't really helpful.

Yes, I agree we can't list them all. We have two alternatives:

1. Saying that you can't do A, B, C, D and E.
2. Saying that you can't do A, B, C, D and E ... and any other thing a certain group of appointed people think you can't do.

I can't accept (2). That's why I propose to use (1) and remove any vague statement that is a backdoor to power abuse.

I understand where you are coming from but I think your expectations are unrealistic. Again if we try to list exactly every little thing, then we will miss things which enables predators and as a result the entire thing is of little value. Even the law doesn’t have such details and leaves some things up to judges and I don’t think we want to maintain anything even remotely close to the rule of law.

@lsmith77 thanks for bringing in the Law to this discussion. I think your comment is not correct because the Law is the opposite of what you said. Specifically, this principle: "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" (explanation on Wikipedia).

Can you imagine a country where the Law says: "you can't do A, B, C, D, E ... and whatever the elected President decides you can't do". That's not how the Law works.

About the judges, again I think your comment is not entirely true. The "Criminal Code" of each country lists the offences and their punishments exhaustively. If it's not in the "Criminal Code", then it's not a crime. Judges can adjust the punishments ... but always within the limits defined by the Criminal Code for each crime.

exactly .. and I am saying you cannot expect a CoC to work like criminal law. at the end of the day we need to ensure that minorities feel safe in our community. So yes there will be edge cases and those will be hard to deal with simply because we do not have the infrastructure that is used to enforce the law. That being said, when you say “I cannot accept 2.” .. this is effectively what we have today. Right now nothing is written down, yet I assure you that even without a CoC community members could be expelled if they misbehave. This CoC is already a step in the direction of 1. that you hope for ..

This is where we entirely disagree. To me, the two most important things a CoC must do are:

1. List the things you can't do in this community.
2. Explain what happens to you when you do those things.

The list of forbidden things will never be perfect, but can be modified in time. If we get some report about something that it's not on that list but we consider a wrong thing, then we cannot punish that person (because it wasn't on the list) ... but we can add it to the list to prevent that from happening in the future.

@javiereguiluz Laws are often much less concrete than you implied. For example, the US Fair Debt Collection Practices Act includes the following language:

See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c(a)(1) (placing restrictions on call times), 1692d(5) (prohibiting “any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse,” including “[c]ausing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass”).

The law does not define "harass, oppress, or abuse", "repeatedly", or "continuously". Instead, it is the explicit purpose of a court to interpret the law, the situation, and issue a remedy. Regardless, perhaps the courts aren't the example we should be shooting for, as they regularly stretch the law, as well.

Having said that, there must be a balance between "explicit" and "implied" that can be agreed upon; perhaps even a result that can be merged upstream.

About this -> private harassment ... harassment is horrible of course. But if someone does that in private, out of Symfony repositories, out of Symfony conferences, etc. what should we do?

Private harassment can be reported as stated here https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/24896/files#diff-510d358f0b955588b8abd91113ae6858R36
If it's not reported not much can be done..

@javiereguiluz regarding the "should" do .. I guess what you are asking if we should even try to look at such stuff? I think the question is always if such private harassment has some relation to Symfony. for example if someone sends a problematic twitter DM with a twitter account that they associate with Symfony (either through the twitter bio or by using this account to interact with the Symfony community) then imho we should deal with this. If its a twitter account that is entirely unrelated to the Symfony community then based on my current thinking it would not necessary fall within the scope of this CoC.

OK. So we should explicit that the harassment must be related to Symfony somehow, not matter if it's public or private.

From what I have learned so far this specific topic is one of the trickiest aspects of CoCs since harassers tend to create dedicated troll accounts to specifically circumvent such clauses if they focus just on "public" harassment.

@javiereguiluz since you had concerns over the question if using someone electronic address (like github) name I opened EthicalSource/contributor_covenant#492

I also re-read the line and given Coraline's response I would say its sufficiently clear that its really just about digging out information the contributor kept private from the community.

ie. it reads private information and not personal information

harassment looks like a very strong word in English (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/harassment). @lsmith77 proposed in the Symfony Slack to use something like this instead:

I would rephrase this as "make a real effort to not make someone uncomfortable and if you do apologize and adjust your behavior .."

It's impossible to not make anybody uncomfortable. People get uncomfortable even if somebody has different opinion, regardless in what area. Therefore I like harassment word better. That words means you are not doing it by accident, but repeatedly.

From wikipedia:

Harassment: It is commonly understood as behavior that disturbs or upsets, and it is characteristically repetitive.

I also like this from same page:

Harassment, under the laws of the United States, is defined as any repeated or continuing un-consented contact that serves no useful purpose beyond creating alarm, annoyance, or emotional distress.

I think that list should also contain opinions

What does trolling mean here? I think it should be clarified.

"Make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them" https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/troll

I'd love to find something that would make "Code of Conduct" a link instead of "this document".