A second SJW attack on PHP

Another SJW, this time one Derick Rethan, takes another crack at imposing a Code of Conduct on PHP:

Hi, I’ve decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. There are many reasons for it, but there are a few points I want to make. I strongly believe that a Code of Conduct is required. The amount of toxic behaviour on this list is in my opinion unacceptable. It drives people away, it certainly did. It is also one of the reasons I am not nearly as active as I used to be.

It also makes me reluctant to welcome and mentor new people wanting to contribute. I have said “no” to two people in the last few days, mostly because I am not sure whether I want them exposed to some of the things being said on the list.

But I think this list, and hence this project, and language, can be improved. A Code of Conduct alone is not enough. The focus for this list, and wider community, should be on collaborating to make PHP even better and faster than it already is. Collaboration works better in a happy environment, where people work together instead of against each other.

The new 0.5 version of the RFC that is up at  https://wiki.php.net/rfc/adopt-code-of-conduct focusses more on working  together and mediation than on acting with an iron fist on when things
go awry, although these parts of the RFC are still included. In my opinion, an CoC that is not enforced is nothing but some text on a piece  of paper—or in our case, a few bits on a disk. I have added a section,  Constructive Contributor Guidelines, in addition to the CoC. This section definitely needs improving.

I would everybody invite you to help out improving this RFC, but please take into account  https://wiki.php.net/rfc/adopt-code-of-conduct#constructive_collaboration_guidelines

I want this to work, and work together, to get this approved.


If the project leader at PHP has any sense at all, he will expel this SJW from the project immediately. Notice how he spews squid ink the moment his idiocy is confronted:

There is no mechanism or ability for one to confront ones accuser

That is a tricky one. In my opinion, in the case of abuse as pointed out in the draft CoC, I think this is fair, and necessary that we all for reports of abuse in private, and with secrecy. Without it, an accusor is likely immediately going to be lambasted by the perpetrator.

Here we have the core of (yet another) problem: presumption of guilt. The “accused” is casually referred to as the “perpetrator.”  This is *exactly* why the accused needs to be able to confront the accuser.

The common reply here is to say “oops, sorry, I meant to say ‘the accused'”.  I don’t think that’s true; it’s a wink-and-a-nod, a recognition that one has revealed their true thoughts: all accusations are to be believed. Except, of course, the ones that are not to be believed, and those will (strangely enough) line up with the political beliefs of the enforcers. Because it is a political document, the Contributor Covenant is *intended* to work that way.

That is only one of the many reasons the Contributor Covenant, and all documents like it, should be removed in toto from any Code of Conduct discussion.

There is nothing “tricky” about it. SJWs want to be able to act arbitrarily, and in secret, without any oversight or possibility of public protest. Again, PHP should ban this SJW from the project immediately; he is actively seeking to destroy it and he is using deception to do so.

Furthermore, the Code of Merit appears to be an effective way to go, because the SJWs are definitely against it:

I had a look at this, and I think it is not suitable. It is almost the exact opposite of promoting collaborative behaviour, and instead only focusses on the “if you done nothing before, you have no voice”. There is also no chance the PHP project will have have a benevolent dictator (or group of people). And it only focusses on the technical aspects of a community, but even covering a set of guidelines to improve collaboration.

Remember, to the SJW, “not suitable” means “it won’t help us take control and play thought police.” But clearly it can be approved. “Almost the exact opposite” is not good enough. If they’re not shrieking and crying and protesting, it’s clearly not enough.

Show them you mean business and will not put up with the disruption. Kick them out as soon as they show themselves.