[DISCUSSION] Define "sustained disruption"

[dshafik]

1. Any sustained disruption of the collaborative space (mailing lists, wiki, bug tracker, official social media accounts) or when representing the PHP project shall be construed as a violation of the CoC and appropriate action will be taken by the CoC committee.

This needs a little more clarification, what is a disruption. Could Pauls continued objections to the CoC be considered a disruption? We aren't getting anywhere fast, so in that way, yes, but that's not what I meant by this statement.

A disruption is more things like:

• spamming the ML with unreasonable demands
• intentionally derailing topics for your own ends
• re-submitting the same RFC over and over when it keeps being rejected, without addressing the issues

Thoughts?

[TheFrozenFire]

I think that policing of "sustained disruptions" should be done very carefully, if it's done at all. Being disruptive is not itself poor conduct. It's often considered admirable to be disruptive, if you're doing it constructively. I'm sure many people in favour of this CoC would consider it constructively disruptive.

spamming the ML with unreasonable demands

Unreasonable by whose standards? It would be easy to paint someone's continued objection to a controversial idea as "unreasonable". I hate to keep using him as an example, but I'm sure many would mis-characterize Paul as an unreasonable person. I've seen it happen pretty consistently. He's absolutely a reasonable person, but he disagrees passionately on some matters.

intentionally derailing topics for your own ends

Again, by whose standards? Again, one might mis-characterize Paul or myself as "derailing for our own ends", in this CoC discussion. I believe passionately in freedom of expression and the right to offend. Is it derailing to demand discussion of how those things will be protected? What might be considered derailing in such a context?

re-submitting the same RFC over and over when it keeps being rejected, without addressing the issues

Seems like more of an issue to amend the RFC process for, if it's happening. If people are consistently trying to ram their proposals through, then maybe we need a rate limit on RFCs on the same topic?

[padraic]

Disruption is kind of wanted ;). You can argue that any debate is disruptive by its nature, so yes it should be replaced with specific behaviours.