💾 Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz › thread › 24945671 captured on 2020-10-31 at 01:00:08. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
I'm not going to read the comments here, for obvious reasons, but I do just want to clarify three things:
- I accept the apology.
- I do not accept the assertion that "At the time of the interview, the committee had not determined that there was a violation of the code of conduct, only that there were two complaints filed and being examined." The email to set up the call said "We would like to schedule a meeting so that we can discuss the results of our investigation with you" - nothing further. During the call, the committee stated the list of violations, and said "that is what the reporters stated, and what we found". I asked why they didn't take a statement from me before that finding, and they said "we all watched the video, so we could see for ourselves the violation".
- The committee offered in their apology email to me to have a follow-up discussion, and I declined the offer.
We do not know each other, but I just wanted you to know that I support you!
I hereby condemn anyone who downvotes my comments, for they clearly are not kind and deeply hurt my righteous feelings. Can I doxx and cancel the downvoters too? Please....
Am I reading this correctly?
It seems to say that Jeremy is still considered guilty of a CoC violation but if he appeals then the board will hear it (rather than the committee). So Jeremey has to file an appeal or the decision will stand? So the onus to fix this is on Jeremy who seems so exhausted by this whole process that he's quit conference talks?
That seems a response that lacks any sense of empathy to Jeremy.
edit: Okay. On Twitter they said that no judgement was made even now. However their enforcement policy (which the apology explicitly references) only mentions appeal if an action was already decided upon "Give them a place to appeal to if there is one, but in the meantime the action stands." Given that not adhering to their own process and written documents was a chief complaint it seems they haven't learned much yet from the incident.
Yes.
You will also note that the word "sorry" is entirely missing. And the list of things that they failed to "acknowledge" includes their not telling him what rule he was accused of violating, what action of his violated the rule, having literally laughed at him, and having violated their own code of conduct.
They also offer nothing in the way of amends. Or do anything to suggest that there will be consequences to the people who screwed up.
Given that, their assurance that they will use this "to improve our policies going forward" sounds like the meaningless hollow BS that it is.
This seems nitpicky.
Saying "we apologize" multiple times is the same as "we're sorry".
They've said their communications were in error in the way they described the complaints, the status of the investigation, and their charged language.
They've kicked the whole thing up to the responsible organizational Board of Directors for more action - which is to say, completely removed the group that made the errors from next steps.
That's about as good an public apology from one specific committee, with limited remit, as is possible!
If NumFocus as a whole takes further steps, I'm sure we'll hear. But there's no reason to hold up this 'mea culpa' until everything is settled at all levels. Promptness is better than perfection!
_Saying "we apologize" multiple times is the same as "we're sorry"._
The difference is that the first indicates that "we" want you to feel better, while the second indicates empathy. When I'm on the receiving end, my gut reaction is almost exactly opposite.
Second, their claim is that this is a miscommunication appears to be a CYA lie. The recipient has shared sufficient details of what actually happened that either he is lying, or they are. An apology that asks the recipient to swallow a lie is not much of an apology.
You think that this is a good apology. I think that it is a terrible one. Here is what an apology that I call good would look like:
_We, the NumFOCUS Code of Conduct Enforcement Committee, issue a public apology to Jeremy Howard for our handling of the JupyterCon 2020 reports. We did poorly on multiple levels. Therefore we have requested our board of directors to take over the investigation of those reports, and to separately investigate our mishandling of the situation._
_We deeply regret the pain and anguish that we caused, and we are sorry for it._
Incidentally doing this would have been free to them. Everyone knows that they screwed up. At this point the board would be remiss to NOT investigate, so asking the board to do what it has to do anyways costs them nothing. And they wouldn't have said something that sounds like a lie.
I maintain that "we apologize" and "we are sorry" are identical in meaning, except to those straining to be ungenerous, always demanding "just a bit more" prostration than was offered.
Your compact "good apology" wording is fine, too!
But if they'd used that, exactly, plenty of people would still be hair-splitting & demanding more – maybe even you, since even your wording doesn't do most of the things your first post above wanted!
It _also_ fails to 'acknowledge' the specific "list of things" you wanted to see. It _also_ offers nothing more "in amends" than they already offered. It _also_ suggests no "consequences" for those who erred. Your added cheap-but-emotionally-performative intensifier words – "we _deeply regret_ the _pain and anguish_" – are _also_ viewed as "meaningless hollow BS" by many.
See how easy it is to nitpick tone?
The social function of apologies also requires gracious acceptance of actual admissions of error.
They did apologize, but not for the stuff Howard complained about.
A: You kicked in my front door, walked in unannounced, and stole my TV!
B: I apologize unreservedly. I should have announced myself.
I don't think it is nitpicky. It definitely reads at least partly like an "I'm sorry you feel that I have offended you" apology and "We ... issue a public apology to Jeremy Howard..." is a weirdly evasive way of putting it. I get that it is hard to admit fault and apologise but here's what they _should_ have said:
> We, the NumFOCUS Code of Conduct Enforcement Committee, would like to publicly apologise to Jeremy Howard for our handling of the JupyterCon 2020 reports. We did not give Jeremy a chance to defend himself before concluding that he had violated our CoC, and for that, and the stress it has caused, we are sorry.
I'm available to hire for public apology writing. :-)
Still, to be fair I don't think I've actually ever seen a public apology that was _actually_ a full genuine public apology. This is probably the best anyone could hope for.
They're apologizing for how they handled the incident:
> We apologize for causing this stress and will work to improve our process to avoid this from happening in the future.
> We apologize for not communicating that clearly from the beginning.
They are not apologizing for the existence of the complaints. They do not imply that Jeremy is considered guilty -- they say that the issue is unresolved:
> We should have been clearer saying multiple complaints have been made and the alleged violation investigation had not been resolved.
Their language does not seem to put the onus on Jeremy:
> Because of the missteps of this committee, we have asked the NumFOCUS Board of Directors _to take over the work_ of the committee as outlined in the appeals process of our enforcement guide.
(emphasis mine)
>They are not apologizing for the existence of the complaints. They do not imply that Jeremy is considered guilty -- they say that the issue is unresolved:
It's very unclear to me if they meant to say Jeremy was not guilty when they talked to him at a certain point in time or if he is still not guilty.
>Their language does not seem to put the onus on Jeremy:
What you quoted also says:
>outlined in the appeals process of our enforcement guide.
Are appeals automatic in the enforcement guide or is an appeal already pending?
edit: And if he was never found guilty then why is this an appeals process. Doesn't that usually mean an initial judgement was rendered and is being appealed?
> It's very unclear to me if they meant to say Jeremey was not guilty when they talked to him at a certain point in time or if he is still not guilty.
It's clear to me that they're trying to not express an opinion there. I read this as them recusing themselves from the situation and doing their best to not express an opinion about a ruling which may or may not have been made (the murkiness about this also seems deliberate)
Seems to me that he was found guilty and they're just trying to avoid the backlash from saying so. He's too tired of it all to argue about it further so they win by default and it all goes away. Their enforcement guide only mentions appeal once and it's clear that it only applies after a judgement was already made and requires the reported person to do something:
>Give them a place to appeal to if there is one, but in the meantime the action stands.
What's the point of appealing this thing, anyway? I wouldn't appeal it on the grounds that that would mean I'm conceding that they have some sort of power here. From my (naive) perspective, they really don't. Besides looking incompetent to me and (hopefully) others, this entire ordeal just looks like a huge waste of time and energy.
I read it quite differently. It sounds to me that he is still accused but they have not confirmed the violation yet. The committee has recused themselves from that decision.
That seems correct based on their Twitter comments however their apology reference something (appeal) and a context (enforcement policy) which only applies (as written in the enforcement policy) if an action (read: penalty) was already decided upon. Given the original issues Jeremy had I would have assumed they'd take extra care to follow their own as written process and documents in the follow up. Clearly not.
Their own communication to him said that they were discussing the results of the investigation with him, without talking to him during the investigation. They're not being honest.
Yep, this is a non-apology apology.
This all reminds me of a talk Justice Scalia once gave. The gist was that the US Constitution isn't very good compared to a lot of countries' equivalent document. For example, the Soviet's Bill of Rights was undoubtedly better.
The important issue is how you structure the governing bodies and separate powers. If you don't do this correctly then your Constitution, or bill of rights, or Code of Conduct, is worthless.
I don't think the tech community has figured out this second part.
What fascinates me is that all companies and organisations (at a certain scale) will have to decide a governance structure that is better than - that guy is in charge.
Co-ops are one step forward but that was basically a century ago and stopped. What's the 21 C answer?
I came across the concept of teal [1] companies a few years ago, perhaps that may be relevant / of interest.
The article talks about the various ways of structuring organisations, giving each a colour. The author sees teal companies as the latest evolution.
[1]:
https://www.strategy-business.com/article/00344?gko=30876
> This all reminds me of a talk Justice Scalia once gave. The gist was that the US Constitution isn't very good compared to a lot of countries' equivalent document. For example, the Soviet's Bill of Rights was undoubtedly better.
I am assuming Scalia would have been referring to the 1977 Soviet Constitution [0], which has no "Bill of Rights", but does have Chapter 6 (concerning equality) and Chapter 7 (concerning basic rights and duties of citizens). Taken together, are Chapter 6 & 7 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution "undoubtedly better" than the US Constitutions "Bill of Rights" (Amendments I-X, possibly also XXVII, which was one of the original 12 articles proposed as the Bill of Rights)? I'm going to say most Americans would say "no".
I mean, sure, lots of people would say that Article 34-35, in Chapter 6, are more explicit and complete on their face than the protections in the US Constitution (which have been mostly read into the Bill of Rights against the federal government by way of the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment, and against the states through the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th, but aren't very explicit in either case.) But I think many people who start out liking where Article 36 seems headed in the first sentence (though they might wonder why it is reiterating what is already explicit in Article 34) would be worried by the turn it takes after that: "Citizens of the USSR of different races and nationalities have equal rights. Exercise of these rights is ensured by a policy of all-round development and drawing together of all the nations and nationalities of the USSR, by educating citizens in the spirit of Soviet patriotism and socialist internationalism, and by the possibility to use their native language and the languages of other peoples in The USSR. Any direct or indirect limitation of the rights of citizens or establishment of direct or indirect privileges on grounds of race or nationality, and any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law.")
And I think many in the US (especially left of center) would like _most of_ the first part of Chapter 7, say Articles 39-58, with the exception of the last sentence of Article 39 ("Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state, or infringe the rights of other citizens") which would raise a lot of alarm bells, and the introduction to Article 51 ("In accordance with the aims of building communism") which pretty much everyone not a Communist would have problems with.
But then things take a _big_ turn starting at Article 59 ("Citizens' exercise of their rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance of their duties and obligations. Citizens of the USSR are obliged to observe the Constitution of the USSR and Soviet laws, comply with the standards of socialist conduct, and uphold the honour and dignity of Soviet citizenship") which raises the same alarm bells that were probably going off from Article 39.
There are people who make arguments that something liek Article 60 ("It is the duty of, and matter of honour for, every able-bodied citizen of the USSR to work conscientiously in his chosen, socially useful occupation, and strictly to observe labour discipline. Evasion of socially useful work is incompatible with the principles of socialist society") _ought_ to be a rule in the US, but they tend to be exactly the people that would find the positive rights earlier in Chapter 7 unacceptable, and vice versa.
I think, left to right (even if they express something similar as a social expectation) most Americans would recoil at the first sentence of Article 62 as a Constitutional mandate: "Citizens of the USSR are obliged to safeguard the interests of the Soviet state, and to enhance its power and prestige."
And, while there might be broad support for the idea that the duties of citizenship articulated in the rest of Articles 60-69 are legitimate duties of citizenship, or at least virtues of citizenship, at least if you stripped the explicit references to socialism, I don't think most Americans would accept them as _Constitutional mandates tied to the express relationship between freedom and duties in Article 59_.
Ask yourself, would you _really_ accept the base US Constitution and its structure of separation of powers, with the Bill of Rights and similar amendments that deal with rights of people and not primarily structure of government (say, Amendments I-X, XIII-XV, XIX, XXIV, and XXVI) replaced by Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution (even with removal of by-name references to socialism/communism)?
I'm going to say that while most Americans might like some aspects of Chapter 6/7, they'd reject that idea and the concept that the Soviet "Bill of Rights" was "undoubtedly better", even if they didn't know the source was the 1977 Soviet Constitution.
[0]
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Soviet_Un...
The context for those out of the loop:
https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/
and discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24926214
It was a very effective response from Jeremy. He clearly describes his side of the story and convincingly explains why he thought he did nothing wrong.
What is a little more troubling is that he (A) describes codes of conduct in detail and repeatedly affirms his allegiance to the general idea behind CoCs, including describing "previous sexual assault allegations" as "behaviors" he "strongly agrees" should be stopped. (B) He goes some way towards portraying himself as a victim, describing in graphic detail his lack of "emotional resilience". I wonder if he realized what a thin line he was walking with (A), because he now has a "previous CoC violation allegation" on his permanent record, regardless of his acquittal.
In other words, he very strongly backs the spirit, letter, and zeitgeist of CoCs before describing why he thinks he did not violate them in this specific case. I think these were very wise tactical moves, although they leave a bad taste in my mouth, and I can't help but wonder if this approach affected the outcome. I don't recall seeing an apology ever given, let alone changes instituted, for CoC violation allegations.
I don't find any of that particularly contradictory. I'd probably do the same in his position.
To use an extreme comparison: I suspect that most of the people who are falsely accused of murder still believe that murder should be illegal.
My gut reaction if I were Jeremy would be to say that "This is absolutely absurd; there is no way that claiming 'X's opinion is wrong' is in itself a CoC violation, and if it somehow is, then the CoC is ridiculous. The fact that such an accusation was even able to be _made_ under the CoC and not immediately dismissed makes CoCs look ridiculous. Why are you wasting everyone's time?"
He goes a very, very different route. I think that different route gave him a better outcome. I think it is worth thinking about why that is. We are not talking about an accusation of sexual harassment or assault here, we are talking about an almost textbook case of how CoC accusations can be overextended to absurdity. Yet he chooses to _defend_ CoCs.
One possible explanation of this is that he is trying to draw a distinction between things that should be "legitimate" CoC violations, and his case. Another possible explanation is that he is trying to say that "Look, I strongly believe that <murder should be illegal>, really strongly. That makes me one of the good guys. Would a good guy commit murder?" The latter take is more cynical, but I think it would be more effective than my gut reaction.
I think you are vastly overestimating the significance behind having a "previous CoC violation allegation on [one's] permanent record". Who's keeping, and enforcing on, permanent records of this sort? Every org is going to call this one for themselves, and the facts are out there.
>>>", because he now has a "previous CoC violation allegation" on his permanent record, regardless of his acquittal."
I wonder how much this has affected his lifetime earning potential?
Couple that with the "public apology" seems like an open and shut lawsuit that many lawyers would be happy to take on contingency.
EDIT: My reading was wrong, see below.
The thing that seemed to me oddest about all this is that Jeremy says the committee spoke to two reporters _before_ hearing his side of the story, and before issuing a judgment. It is not totally clear if they were speaking to those two reporters about his case.
I would imagine that an obvious way for CoC committees to minimize their own liability would be to at least avoid talking to reporters before they have issued a judgment. Really, the process should be totally private until a guilty judgment has been made, and if the person is declared innocent, then the whole thing should disappear without ever having been made public.
I believe that "reporters" here means "one who reports a violation" and not "a reporter who can be expected to publish the story".
Yes, I think you're right. He refers to "_the_ two reporters" (and previously mentions that there were two complaints).
> NumFOCUS found I violated their Code of Conduct (CoC) at JupyterCon because my talk was not “kind”, because I said Joel Grus was “wrong” regarding his opinion that Jupyter Notebook is not a good software development environment
Wow.
Don't leave out the best part (the very next sentence)
_> Joel (who I greatly respect, and consider an asset to the data science community) was not involved in NumFOCUS’s action, was not told about it, and did not support it._
Wow! Feelings! Feelings! Feelings! Since when have people become like this?
Excuse me sir, you've committed a thought crime for not following propaganda guidelines on independent thought and expression.
You have violated the CoC by presuming to use the honorific "sir", thus promoting gender opression!
FWIW I've got a female friend who was in enlisted the US Navy and she spoke of female naval officers who were addressed as "Sir" rather than "Ma'am" (though most went by "Ma'am").
So I don't know how to feel about anything anymore.
We can criticize this specific instance of CoC enforcement without making fun of legitimate gender issues in technology.
Not OP, but I don't think they were making fun of the legitimate issues. There have been plenty of instances of pronoun-related overreactions in and outside the tech sector - see the recent-ish StackOverflow mess for an example. There are obviously many issues, but there are also many overblown non-issues and I don't see much harm in making fun of those.
AFAICT, according to the apology he had been accused but not convicted of the violation.
According to his account, he was told that he had been convicted.
According to him, now, he disagrees with that assertion in their apology. See
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24946688
.
> According to his account, he was told that he had been convicted.
The apology states that this was a "crucial miscommunication that we take responsibility for"
OTOH, from Jeremy Howard's account it really does sound like the committee doubled down on that miscommunication so often that it seems hard to believe that's all it was.
And my judgement after all available information is that they are straight up lying.
Here is why.
His stated recollection is that they said, “that is what the reporters stated, and what we found” and to his asking why his statement was not requested, “we all watched the video, so we could see for ourselves the violation”.
What they said in his version is very clear. That is not a miscommunication. Calling it a "miscommunication" sounds like nothing more than the best excuse that they came up with for themselves.
Therefore this reduces down to a simple "he said, she said" type of conflict. What I have to judge on is what is publicly known of his character, their incentives, and indications about their character. He has a solid public reputation as an upstanding person. Their incentives are to minimize perception of wrongdoing in their actions. Both the fact that they got into this mess, and their non-apology in attempting to get out of it, suggests that they lack even a shred of integrity.
Therefore it is his word against theirs. He is believable. They are not. And so I conclude that they are lying on this point.
Isn't concluding that they are lying without solid evidence basically the same crime that you're accusing them of committing against Jeremy Howard?
Whenever I see things like this, it always makes me think out of all the problems we have right now in the world do we really need to spend time in trivial things like this?
At some point we will collectively realize that the average organization cannot and should not act as a judicial body.
Running a fair, competent and accountable court is _really_ hard, and to think otherwise is hubris at best, and unbridled ideology at worst.
_Edit_: apologies for the multiple edits. It sometimes takes me a few tries to precisely express my thoughts.
This is the real issue. CoC proponents seem to think writing down the correct rules is sufficient. But rules are only as good or bad as their enforcement.
CoCs didn't jump out of the void for no reason. They are a response to years of harassment and unprofessional behavior at conferences. Conferences have always had a list of rules to follow and breaking the rules could get you ejected from the conference. In theory all a CoC should do is codify some bad behaviors that people believe to be acceptable but are actually not, so in that regard they shouldn't be controversial.
You hit the nail on the head though: if the people enforcing the conference rules don't act in good faith or don't follow the rules then the rules don't matter.
In theory a conference could just have a rule that says "act professionally" and if properly enforced that would be sufficient. On the flip side such a conference could have a petty tyrant rules lawyer for an enforcer and decide anyone they don't like was not acting "professionally".
There is no outside body that could (or should) be adjudicators. Conferences live and die by their reputation. All we can do is judge them by their actions.
This is a good response as far as the actual process goes, but it doesn't really do anything to address the claims that "There were two totally different Codes of Conduct with different requirements linked in different places" and "I was held to a different, undocumented and uncommunicated standard"
I read the apology without knowing the backstory. It just feels so weasel-worded: they apologise for their process but certainly don’t make any suggestion that was innocent so actually increasing the smear. A proper apology also needs personal, private apologies from the committee members. I can only hope that Jeremy receives a better apology than this for the shit he has been made to chew by them.
They don't believe he was innocent, at best they believe the question is still up for debate and at worst they believe he is guilty but are putting off a public claim until things calm down.
It’s been passed to the board of directors to investigate further. I would expect to hear more once they’ve completed their investigation.
who seem to be overlapping quite a bit:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24945944
There is one person on both, and the apology clearly states he won't be involved:
Because of the missteps of this committee, we have asked the NumFOCUS Board of Directors, _minus those involved_, to take over the work of the committee as outlined in the appeals process of our enforcement guide.
This apology rings hollow to me. A person of Jeremy Howard's statue was able to raise the issue in the media and get it resolved.
I would like to understand what would happen to a person who is not of a Jeremy Howard's statue and does not have such a access to the public discourse?
One thing I found interesting is the only name in the letter is Jeremy's. It's "signed" by the committee. Is that a reputation protection technique? A way to diffuse responsibility? It seems like an imbalance of power to be able to drag someone's name through the mud while being anonymous yourself
https://en.meming.world/images/en/thumb/5/5d/James_Franco_Fi...
Sadly, it seems true. If you don't have an audience, no one will care what happens to you.
> A person of Jeremy Howard's statue was able to raise the issue in the media and get it resolved.
But it's not though. They aren't apologizing for dragging him through the mud, they're apologizing that people got the impression that they had already rendered judgement on these complaints. They're still "under investigation."
It's really not an apology at all.
Ok, I'm not heavily steeped in this, but at first glance this seems like total bullshit.
Note that the original complaint was both 1) that the code of conduct people were being, well, total assholes, and 2) that the complaints were so obviously ridiculous that the entire exercise seemed like it could only be a power trip for those involved.
The apology addressed neither. They apologized for being unclear about what stage of the investigation they were in. No apology for laughing at Jeremy's distress, no apology for the witch hunt, etc.
The grand remedy? Replace 3/4 of the people on the committee.
Did I miss something here?
The apology is so vague and PR-washed that it’s nearly impossible to draw any conclusions.
At this point, they won’t even acknowledge that the initial accusations were unreasonable. In fact, it appears they’ve simply transferred the investigation up a level to the board of directors so it can continue.
A real apology would have acknowledged that they mishandled the situation and taken steps to resolve it as fast as possible. This feels more like an attempt to justify their actions, move the goal posts about what they did wrong, and move the investigation back behind closed doors within NumFOCUS.
Please just publicly acknowledge that this should have been resolved within a day or two by absolving Jeremey of wrongdoing, and without this never ending inquisition that now involves even more and higher-ranking individuals at NumFOCUS.
This is such a simple issue that never should have gone this far.
Why would you expect people who have shown little empathy up to this point and seem to enjoy their sense of power to suddenly act different when confronted? It's a bureaucratic BS statement from people who revel in bureaucratic BS.
No, but you can only expect so much self flagellation. In a day and age of "deny, deny, deny" an apology is welcome, even if it is a bit CYA.
The CoC members should all be expelled from the NumFocus community. They have done far more to make NumFocus a a non-welcoming community than just about any CoC violation.
Another option is to just directly fund developers instead of through organizations. I tried to find the audits on the NumFOCUS website, but I wasn't able to find how much of the donations they are getting gets to the developers themselves. I would imagine, that it could be even under 50%.
At very least the action is something to point to, and maintain reputation. Almost 5 years ago a hostile employer did this to me and since then most of my huge former network built over 15+ years have stopped associating with me and are starting to assume I’m mentally ill and hung up on it, but in truth I simply can’t work anymore due to the reference check process having been compromised and former associates lacking support.
I’m now forced to go through legal channels to clear my name. If I can get an acknowledgement of their mistake then life will get much easier to explain. Too bad about the content, non-apology, but I’d not undetestimate the act alone.
Except their apology doesn't do what you're saying as it doesn't say he was innocent or that he didn't violate the CoC. It simply says they didn't fully follow their process and that if he wants to appeal the board will hear it. As I read it he is still considered guilty unless the board accepts the appeal.
edit: And since he seems too emotionally exhausted by this to deal with it further there will possibly be no appeal filed and thus he will stay guilty by default.
What I’m saying is that the statement “and they apologized” is true and very significant. It’s extremely uncommon to get that much. Picturing a job interview scenario. People are all emotion and that fragment does the job. Not picturing IRC with a bunch of invested people here, in which case yes, your point is logically valid there.
Just curious, what would You suggest as a remedy to this situation?
This is an honest questions please don't get offended.
Honestly? They should be assigned 12 hours of reading that covers the history of due process, what it is, and why we have it.
That seems like a reasonable suggestion, with the option of resignation, I was thinking more along the lines of financial compensation.
A CoC is exactly as effective as the leadership that writes & enforces it. Sounds like the Board wasn’t happy with how this was enforced, so they stepped in.
Good on them. That said, maybe, uh, try and train your folks if you want them to enforce things like that.
>A CoC is exactly as effective as the leadership that writes & enforces it.
And the sorts of people who try to implement CoCs and get on enforcement boards are almost invariably the sort of busybodies that see it as a club to beat their enemies with, which is why I'm opposed to them.
This whole incident is like something straight out of a Kafka novel. The level of insanity in tech community is just shocking to me.
Not just Kafka, it's got a pretty nasty Orwellian side too. [1]
[1]
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190216/10394141613/faceb...
Well, who was responsible for this exactly?
Given the circumstances, they should do better than an amorphous "we".
The letter was signed by the The NumFOCUS Code of Conduct Enforcement Committee. The members of that committee are listed on their code of conduct site. Seems pretty transparent to me.
https://numfocus.org/code-of-conduct#persons-responsible
They caused a lot of grief to a particular person. It is only appropriate to sign their apology with their own names rather than a "committee", don't you think?
This is an incredibly petty complaint.
That was the committee at the time of writing. If anyone refers to this in, say, a year, they will have no idea who was responsible. As an analogy, transaction histories, if done in a DB, are not normalized because you wouldn't want the price and total sale of a past transaction to change when you later change the price of the items that were in that transaction. Sometimes, it's actually good to duplicate code/data/effort, especially if it helps to make something clear.
NumFOCUS Code of Conduct Enforcement Team:
Leah Silen, Executive Director
_Andy Terrel,_ President
Nicole Foster, Executive Operations Administrator
Walker Chabbott, Communications & Marketing Manager
NumFOCUS Board of Directors:
_Andy Terrel_
Lorena Barba
Jane Herriman
Sylvain Corlay
Katrina Riehl
Stéfan van der Walt
James Powell
I was wondering how much overlap there would be.
Why is the _Communications & Marketing Manager_ on the CoC? That's one scary red flag.
There's overlap with the people on that Committee and the Board of Directors, so the transparency isn't exactly their intention
Sounds like The Code of Conduct Enforcement Team themselves need a code of conduct to operate against.
I recommend immediately establishing a Code of Conduct Enforcement Team Code of Conduct. And since any CoC is meaningless when not enforced, there needs to be a Code of Conduct Enforcement Team Code of Conduct Enforcement Team.
its codes of conduct all the way down.
The board should make those 4 people (3 staffers and the president) step down. If not, they should abandon any pretext about supporting a code of conduct while they use it to bully others.
An interesting thing to think about is if they would apologize if this wasn't published in a blog and discussed online.
Let's say Jeremy just walked away quietly in disgust and didn't say anything publicly. What would have they done? I would guess that they would have chucked it under "We did a great job enforcing the code of conduct. Problem solved".
I know a lot of Hacker News users don't like it, but fact is that getting to the top of Hacker News is often the most-successful driver for getting something fixed in the tech industry.
Another good example of the impact of HN was the Triplebyte profile controversy (
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23279837
) a few months ago, which 100% would have gone through unchanged if it weren't for HN driving awareness. (followup:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23303037
)
Well, if nobody tells you you're being a shit, humans rarely realize it on their own, squeaky wheels get the grease.
I think the question is specifically regarding, _what if a less famous person encountered this issue_
Another question is, how many less famous people have already encountered this issue?
This might be going too far, but Type A personalities don't realize they're being shits. This allows them to get things done, as they don't care very much about what other people think; but sometimes it means that they deliver solutions/products without much empathy for the end users and the individual contributors who made it.
This blog post is unsigned. They should have put their names on it.
100% agreed. If they dont mind publicly making an issue with a persons name, they should have to expose their own.
See
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24926214
for previous related discussion.
This isn't an apology, this is damage control.
The tone is all wrong. You don't "issue a public apology" you say "We apologize for ... " or "We are sorry for ...".
Really? They are very clear in it saying “we fucked up, in these ways, and acknowledge the pain our actions caused. Here’s how we are fixing ourselves so it doesn’t happen again”. That feels like the wrong tone?
Grading peoples or organizations apologies and credibility from a distance is largely fruitless and mostly consists of you layering your own experience on someone elses words.
As best I can tell, nothing really changed... this type of situation can happen again at numfocus.
Implicit to having a code of conduct, is what you do to enforce it. That's the hard part. The problem stems from organizations that setup these types of disciplinary structures/groups without understanding even the basics of due process.
Note, I'm just reading about this now and have no knowledge of this organization prior, but that CoC group at numfocus reads more like a star chamber than anything.
From the way this non-apology is written, these NumFocus people seem very full of themselves and their organization. What are their credentials and achievements?
Okay, they sponsor existing projects and then take credit for them, calling them "our open source tools" which are used by everyone "from Netflix to NASA" to "solve the most challenging problems".
Where is the money coming from?
Their site makes deceptive claims:
https://numfocus.org/case-studies
Here, there is a representation made that there is "NumFOCUS stack" that is being used in various industries to solve problems.
"First Photograph of a Black Hole -- Made with the NumFOCUS Python Stack"
This strongly suggests that there is some actual software component by the name of NumFOCUS Python Stack. But when you read the case study in detail, it comes to light that this refers to some tools that have supposedly received support from NumFOCUS:
"Although the HOPS pipeline Dr. Chan helped develop is mainly written in the C programming language, [watch how we're going to take credit for it anyway, as follows:] EHT scientists also developed a lot of Python code around it to drive the analysis. Dr. Chan explained that there is a huge advantage in using Python."
Right ... , we would not have Python without NumFOCUS, the purveyor of Python! Never mind that Guido guy and what he had been up to since, oh, 1988.
"Dr. Chan pointed to NumFOCUS-supported open source tools — Numpy, SciPy, pandas, Astropy, Jupyter, and Matplotlib — as crucial to this iterative scientific thinking process."
I don't see any references to NumFOCUS in the NumPy Wikipedia page. The NumPy homepage makes absolutely no reference to NumFOCUS at all.
The other "case studies" are like his also.
ScumFOCUS is more like it!
They look like a bunch of status-seeking parasites, from where I'm sitting.
Non-profit organization, right? Sure, after salaries and expenses are paid out.
> Okay, they sponsor existing projects and then take credit for them [...] I don't see any references to NumFOCUS in the NumPy Wikipedia page. The NumPy homepage makes absolutely no reference to NumFOCUS at all.
I have no connection to any of these projects but some very basic browsing on these sites refutes your assertions. You're using questionable criteria to make dubious claims. NumFOCUS was founded by the primary creators of many of these tools specifically to support them; it's not some unaffiliated third-party trying to take credit.
> NumPy is a Sponsored Project of NumFOCUS, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity in the United States. NumFOCUS provides NumPy with fiscal, legal, and administrative support to help ensure the health and sustainability of the project.
> By 2010, a critical mass of projects were in need of a more formal structure to provide support and help to organize the community. [...] Travis Oliphant (author of NumPy), Fernando Pérez (author of IPython), Perry Greenfield (author of Numarray and Astropy), John Hunter (author of Matplotlib), Jarrod Millman (release manager for SciPy), and Anthony Scopatz (who came up with the name “NumFOCUS”) became the founding board of NumFOCUS.
You got me. The author of NumPy, Travis Oliphant, is still with the organization, as is Fernando PĂ©rez. Mostly, it consists of other people, though.
Wow this that story where the dude said he thought the other guy was wrong. And this is their response to their handling of it.
They weren’t sure if there was a violation but responded to a couple complaints by bringing this guy in front of a committee of sorts to get to the bottom of it and are now investigating their process to ensure a better process
What a torrential tempest in the tiniest of teapots, sometime you can take yourself too seriously.
For the younger among us there was a time when you could organize a conference or group or project without conjuring a set of rules governing social interactions, and establishing processes for the addressing of rule violations and appealing said addressing.
There’s nothing to be done about it. If people enjoy being treated and treating everyone like babies then it is what it is.
https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1321626078985687042
https://blog.jupyter.org/jeremy-howard-8dace7b4a34a
For people like myself needing backstory.
So the Code of Conduct Committee violated their own Code of Conduct, but they won't take action against themselves.
https://numfocus.org/code-of-conduct
They say "Because of the missteps of this committee, we have asked the NumFOCUS Board of Directors to take over the work of the committee", yet the 7-person board of directors overlaps with the 4-person code of conduct committee.
Board of Directors:
https://numfocus.org/community/people
CoC Committee:
https://numfocus.org/code-of-conduct#persons-responsible
It's just Andy Terrel who's in both, right? That's not a huge amount of overlap. Enough to potentially cause a problem, but 6 members of the board being different (and a whole lot of public backlash) should probably be enough to resolve this.
The 'overlapping person/people' (Andy Terrel in this case) should recuse themselves. Even then, it is no guarantee of impartial results, given that the committee reports to the board.
They seem to have rescued themselfes:
> Because of the missteps of this committee, we have asked the NumFOCUS Board of Directors, minus those involved, to take over the work of the committee as outlined in the appeals process of our enforcement guide.
This was possibly edited later into the article.
C'mon, overlap n = 1
The only two non-staffers (and thus decisionmakers) on the committee were both on the board at some point.
> 7-person board of directors overlaps with the 4-person code of conduct committee
The overlap is one person: Andy Terrel, NumFOCUS President.
That's a pretty important overlap. How many people on a board or in a community are _really_ willing and able to entirely discount the President's views and consider issues independently?
Of the 4 person committee, one is on the board, the other was on the board last year, and the other two are staffers.
The president (who presumably is also the chairman) was the only "non-staffer" on the committee and thus almost certainly had full responsibility already.
The rest of the board should ask for his resignation.
I'm going to get downvoted for this, but: I'm against code of conducts because they're worse than the problems they try to solve.
edit:
In my opinion, code of conducts become a distraction and a cause for worry to anyone contributing to these projects because someone inevitably gets their feelings hurt and points to some well-intentioned rule in the CoC to get the 'offender' shamed/removed even if no harm was intended.
I used to have feelings similar to yours, and then I started playing Valorant with my wife. The amount of vitriol she gets simply for being a woman is staggering. I had no idea because I didn't come across women in tactical shooters very often, and I wasn't a jackass to them when I did. But it's something like _every other game_ that someone is ridiculously rude to her because she's a woman. This is in addition to all of the normal toxicity that, e.g. I receive just for being a person playing a game where everyone has mics.
Before this discovery, I would have guessed that "someone inevitably gets their feelings hurt and points to some well-intentioned rule in the CoC to get the 'offender' shamed/removed even if no harm was intended" was a much larger percentage of the cases than it is. I also would have thought that anything that makes a lot of people uncomfortable that they might accidentally cross the line is worse than the current harm.
Now that I've much more personal experience with what it means to be a person who is an actual target of harassment, I realize that these edge cases make up a tiny proportion of the harassment that happens. And when you bring the hammer down on people who are unequivocally harassers, it is important that you do so in a way that's fair and not subject to recharacterization as unjust later, when no one who was there is a part of the conversation.
A great many good people being uncomfortable is unfortunate, but I also think it's a sign of the kind of cognitive dissonance that I experienced before playing with my wife. _I_ had never experienced anything other than the usual toxicity, so I naively assumed that it couldn't be _that_ prevalent. The fact that a CoC feels like overkill is, perhaps, evidence for the proposition that the problem with harassment is much more real than it might feel to those of us who are not targets of harassment.
And the kind of people who will harass someone so shamelessly are _exactly_ the kind of people who will boldly lie about not being given a reason for their discipline, or who will loudly complain about the rules not being explicit, even though it's incredibly obvious to everyone present that their behavior was beyond the pale.
The edge cases are edge cases, and unfortunate, but I don't believe most cases are edge cases.
I see the same thing in CS:GO. Then people wonder why no women stick with it long enough to go pro.
Valorant has a CoC. And yet, your wife suffered horrible toxicity and harassment in Valorant. This doesn't sound like their CoC was successful in curbing abuse.
You think it'd be better if Riot just didn't say anything about it?
Yes. The amount of abuse would be the same, but there would be one less hammer for zealots to attack heretics with.
I'm rather skeptical that the _only_ effect of CoCs is to allow for the persecution of innocent people... Agree to disagree, I suppose.
Please don't resort to strawman arguments. I didn't say that _all_ CoCs are useless in curbing abuse. I said that Valorant's CoC is useless in curbing abuse. As far as I can tell, Valorant is doing absolutely nothing to enforce their CoC against toxic players.
Apologies, do you have a CoC in mind that you think works?
And I’ve got an email from Riot that they banned someone I’d reported in Valorant, so they don’t do nothing. I don’t think either of us have enough evidence to know whether it’d be better or worse without the CoC.
> And I’ve got an email from Riot that they banned someone I’d reported in Valorant, so they don’t do nothing. I don’t think either of us have enough evidence to know whether it’d be better or worse without the CoC.
To the contrary, it's pretty easy to deduce that the CoC had nothing to do with the ban of the player you reported. Do you genuinely believe that a "CoC enforcement committee" sat down to review demos of the reported player and analyze whether their actions constituted CoC violations? No, that process is reserved for political enemies and occasional power trips. The ban was almost certainly a result of an automated process. For example, in CS:GO, if a player receives significantly more abuse reports than average, they will be muted by default. No human review is involved. I imagine the Valorant ban is something similar, because there is no way Riot could afford to pay actual humans to go through these reports.
I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm guessing you haven't been harassed/given unwanted attention at a conference.
It's easy to see codes of conduct as draconian or unnecessary if you can't empathize with the people they're designed to protect. I'm not saying the CoC system is perfect or that there aren't false positives, but your statement here is _dramatically_ privileged.
This kind of argument often comes up. Two implicit premises should be questioned:
1) Liberal values are associated with privilege.
2) Because of this association we should embrace authoritarianism.
Is authoritarianism any less privileged? It assumes that the authorities are on your side and protecting your interests... that seems right down the middle of privilege. A low privilege person would probably benefit from liberal governance/norms that limit the damage hostile authorities can do.
Having rules that are written down and apply to everyone _is_ a liberal value, last I checked. It is far more authoritarian for the standards to be unwritten, because then instead of applying them to everyone, the people in charge can do whatever they want. Throwing out the whole concept of having agreed-upon rules because of one bad outcome seems like a major step backwards to me.
This situation looks exactly like the people in charge doing whatever they want IMO.
> Having rules that are written down and apply to everyone is a liberal value
A Liberal is anti-arbitrary power. In the context of formal governments and legal systems, that includes having written laws.
I would argue having a vague CoC which is designed to be interpreted and applied arbitrarily by power tripping bureaucrats actually increases arbitrary power.
Through the CoC, the committee here was empowered to persecute any action they didn't like. That's the opposite of Liberalism.
I'm not sure I agree. The CoC was written down, which means we can critique it and change it, and hold them accountable to following it (which they failed to do.) And as you see, they are responding to feedback about their handling of it, although I'd guess we'd agree that their response thus far is pretty inadequate. But I'd be inclined to continue to pressure them to step up.
If you advocate for getting rid of CoCs, IMO, you have to have an answer for how actual harassment should be dealt with. Many people I've spoken to did not feel safe at tech events of the past because of rampant harassment that would be swept under the rug. The tech industry of 2020 is not prepared to return to that world.
It seems like step one of dealing with harassment is to define it, which is the problem CoCs _should_ solve. If you think they are failing, what is your alternative, if it's not to improve them?
They busted him for polite disagreement! Which the other party was totally cool with!
Here's an idea, limit CoCs to actual harassment, with a warning. It's not harassment, definitionally, unless you persist after being asked to stop.
And it should be actual harassment, targeted at a person, rather than "this person's views or public statements offend me".
If you need a CoC to get rid of someone who harasses others what you have is a deeper problem
How else would you codify what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour?
Is it just arbitrary? Do you just depend on more people enforcing their views out to stop harassment? If so, then why not codify it?
As this whole debacles shows codifying doesn't remove arbitrary standards. Human social interactions are far too complex to codify in a concise way without massive edge cases. So all too often it just gives people a tool with which to better force their own arbitrary standards onto others.
As this blog post [1] lays out, this seems like a case where the CoC was poorly authored exactly for this reason. But this isn't a reason to not have a CoC, it just means this particular one was not done well.
[1]:
https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/
There is no way to author a set of rules such that it can't be abused by someone with the power to enforce it. That's why the law has judges, juries, courts of appeal, standards of evidence, disclosure rules, corpus delicti, habeas corpus, and so on.
The problem is not the CoC, but the lack of accountability, oversight, and transparency in enforcement.
I totally agree, but people don't generally claim we should get rid of the law for these reasons. I am responding to the claim that we should get rid of CoCs, which I disagree with. I am not arguing that CoCs are perfect, or that we don't need checks. In this case, it seems that the CoC was pretty poorly written, and the team didn't even follow their own procedure. I think we should fix those problems rather than throw the whole thing out.
Agreed, but I don't see it happening. There's very little chance of any conference organizer setting up some sort of quasi-legal institutions around CoCs.
It is happening before our eyes! The organizers have admitted they made mistakes and are working on improvements. I agree a full-on court system would be ridiculous, but what that means is that the CoC needs to better thought out to reduce ambiguity.
> Is it just arbitrary?
Yes. Just as "kind" is. To the reporters and the officials, "saying somebody is wrong" is unkind, so it's clearly arbitrary.
The worst thing is when nobody is actually offended or hurt, and someone says your behavior _could_ be considered offensive or insulting or whatever and takes action based on that. That's just someone wanting to exert their power for the wrong reasons.
That reminds me of that event when a person with screen name "Christian", of all things, filed an issue at VS Code around the, ah, New Year festivities, demanding to remove the Santa hat from the status bar because it's offensive. And the VS Code team promptly reacted, by agreeing, changing it for a snowflake (I still have no idea if it was ironic, or not, and whether they've noticed it later) and pushing out an emergency hot fix.
_That_ did piss off quite a number of people, who filed much more hard-pressing (in their opinion) issues (like, some useful editor functionality being broken) and received precisely zero feedback.
You don't get to be the arbiter of who is "actually offended." I agree that there are people who take any amount of power and want to expert it for the wrong reasons, but that isn't an indictment against CoCs, it's an indictment of bad behavior.
>> You don't get to be the arbiter of who is "actually offended.
That is _exactly_ my point. Some committee member doesn't get to say "that may be offensive to someone" either. They need to wait until someone actually reports being offended.
That bad behavior is enabled by CoCs though, isn't it? If you leave room for abuse, you'll get abuse.
I think you're saying that people who harass should be able to be removed absent a code of conduct. I agree. However, harassment isn't always the overt act you may be picturing, it can be more subtle. Code of Conducts give a single canonical state for what's considered acceptable, but more importantly, give organizers something tangible to point to when there is a violation. In addition to that, they inform people (even the harassed, who may not have considered what's happening to them harassment!) of what I'd acceptable.
As a white, male engineer, I haven't ever found a need for codes of conduct because I've had the privilege of never having been harassed. This isn't the case for all groups, so it's best to have one.
> Code of Conducts give a single canonical state for what's considered acceptable
Except... they don't.
They say things like (quoting from the NumFOCUS CoC):
> We will not accept harassment or other exclusionary behaviors, such as:
> ...
> Other unethical or unprofessional conduct
That leaves things wide open -- whatever the committee decides is "unprofessional" is hereby banned. How am I supposed to guess their mind?
> Code of Conducts give a single canonical state for what's considered acceptable
This is what they're __supposed__ to do. In reality, this is impossible because so many of the rules in a CoC are subjective, and therefore are enforced based on the opinions of the people enforcing the CoC.
> but more importantly, give organizers something tangible to point to when there is a violation.
This just gives the enforcers a sense of moral authority to impose their opinions, nothing more. I don't see that as a benefit of what is inevitably an incomplete document, and frequently poorly thought out as well.
> If you need a CoC to get rid of someone who harasses others what you have is a deeper problem
How many conferences did you run before CoC's became popular?
Cue the cries of "I broke no rules!" when someone is "gotten rid of" without a CoC.
The task of making rules like that is never ending. This concept reminds me of when the head of GM rewrote their dress code. It went from several pages down to two words: "dress appropriately". What that means actually depends on context - who are you meeting with and what kind of work is going on. She realized that manager who needed a manual to figure that out had bigger problems.
Software developers, who are intimately familiar with the idea that software needs constant attention and maintenance, seem to often balk at the idea that communities also need constant attention and maintenance. The idea that a code of conduct is "never ending" does not seem like a bad thing to me.
As an example, the mozilla community participation guidelines (currently at version 3.1) are quite short and readable and many sections are essentially your "dress appropriately" example (i.e. "Be Respectful"), with quick a paragraph to clarify the idea.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/part...
>> The idea that a code of conduct is "never ending" does not seem like a bad thing to me.
So another area where that type of thing can happen is in union negotiations. Unions in the US started out fighting for basic decent treatment - reasonable hours and pay, safer working conditions, etc... Some years ago I was in a manufacturing plant and the break (lunch) room had a big television in it. Turns out the union had demanded the TV in their most recent contract. Someone I was speaking to berated the union "those idiots demand a TV, don't they have real concerns?" I realized the problem is that the adversarial nature had grown so bad - probably on both sides - that _nothing_ could be had without a negotiation and putting it in writing. That goes for work from the union: "that's not my job" or worse - "you're getting written up for doing something that's someone else's job" to the management "no we're not giving you anything we don't have to by contract". Once you start writing things down and trying to nit-pick it can lead to a terrible place where nothing is easy for anyone.
I went to Cambridge University, UK from a working class background. Unwritten dress codes were one of the many things used to "other" anyone from the wrong background. These things aren't obvious.
They're meant as a reminder for people who actually read them, but otherwise they're meant as a list for enforcement. They're something to point to as "you knew the rules - that's why we're removing that person". That's why in this case the affected person complained about the CoC using very ambiguous rules that were up for personal interpretation.
And, indeed, the tech industry has had and continues to have a deeper problem.
If you need a system of written laws that apply to everyone what you have is a deeper problem
This is certainly true, but how else would you propose solving the deeper problem?
One option is to designate someone or some group as arbiters / benevolent dictators, and have the rule of "If so-and-so decides you're making the place worse, you're not welcome." It's certainly effective. But it _exacerbates_ Jeremy Howard's complaint - which is not so much about CoCs per se as about the group of people who enforced them and the way in which they did so. I don't think getting rid of CoCs will really solve that problem.
One option is to have a closed or invitation-only group - but that's at odds with the goals of many communities. (And it doesn't reliably solve the problem, it just makes it less likely you'd run into it.)
Do you think it’s possible to empathize with people who are harassed, or experience harassment, and oppose codes of conduct? Assume that empathy includes caring about protecting people.
I think it is, but what alternative is there? CoCs were created for a reason, so simply getting rid of them feels like it would lead us back to where we started.
Sounds like "I empathize with them but I don't care about protecting them"
To me it sounds like: "I empathize and care, but I don't think CoCs are the best way to solve the problem because they i) don't solve the problem and ii) bring about harmful unintended consequences".
Not to me it doesn't.
I'm on the fence on this issue but it's sounds like you're willfully misreading that statement.
Thanks. I edited to clarify empathy includes caring about protecting them.
> I don't mean this as an attack,
You actually do mean this as an attack - you quite literally accused me of being "_dramatically_ privileged"
Maybe you meant it as an attack and maybe you didn't. If there was a HN CoC, maybe I'm the kind of asshole that would try to accuse you of abuse. See how easy it is to abuse the system?
Er, how is saying that someone is "_dramatically_ privileged" an attack? It's a judgment-neutral observation. When I say that sshd runs a privileged process, I don't mean to say that sshd is morally bad (or whatever), just that it needs to be more careful than less-privileged code and that it can do things more easily than less-privileged code can. It's the same meaning of "privileged" here.
(And yes, you could bring up to the moderators that this is an attack, but you could do that in the absence of any written rules, too, and if the moderators are the sort of people who would agree with that argument, then neither having nor not having written rules would save this forum.)
You can observe whether sshd is running a privileged process because you have all of the information available to make that judgement. You can't observe whether a random person is privileged because it's relative and related to your opinion and biases.
True, but then it's at most a false claim. It's still not an attack. If I say ping is privileged and you say you're on a distro with unprivileged ping, I haven't in any way denounced ping.
That's a false analogy. Saying something incorrect about a computer is different from using an incorrect/biased statement to try to shut a person down.
> it's at most a false claim
In your opinion. As the recipient of said 'claim' I took it as an attack. Maybe I'm an overly sensitive person, maybe it's the end of a long week and I'm just feeling cranky, either way it offended me. So in this fictional world I feel that I have been attacked, and the HN CoC frowns upon members hurting other members' feelings. What should be done?
Fair enough - I think that in this fictional world where the CoC frowns on hurting others' feelings, you'd have a valid complaint, and I think that such a CoC would quickly break apart a community (especially an open community, where anyone can show up and then proclaim their feelings have been hurt).
I think the NumFOCUS CoC doesn't say that though (although it's ambiguous because it includes "Be kind" in the normative text, and I'd agree that's a problem), and other CoCs are more interested in the objective (or, at least, _more_ objective) question of whether a personal attack actually happened than the question of whether a participant felt attacked. The Contributor Covenant, for instance, prohibits "Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks," to which 'I'm sorry you felt insulted, but this was not an insult' would be an adequate defense.
It does appear that the relevant sections of the NumFOCUS CoC aren't unique to them, though I can't tell exactly where they came from, and you have convinced me that this is a problem. (Geez, this is license proliferation all over again.) Thank you!
Attached is an implicit "and thus your opinion only perpetuates the issue", due to the inherent problem with phrasing basic rights in terms of "privilege" - the paradigm directs attention towards the people whose rights aren't being infringed as the _exceptional cases_, and away from the specific people responsible for the infringements.
I too dislike code of conduct type of stuff, but more along the reasoning you mentioned. I dislike that they are even needed in the first place. The fact that you have to be told to not belittle, harass, abuse, etc another user/participant/person is just difficult to understand.
It shouldn't be that hard to to follow the "Don't be an asshole" rule, unfortunately for the rest of us, 0.001% can't figure out how to get along with other humans.
I think CoCs just become a new tool for a different subset of assholes to abuse. Yes it does suck for those who have a legitimate issue. I've yet to see how CoCs solve that problem in practice.
As I see it, a CoC gives good leadership a way to punish people who are assholes without causing too much of a backlash. Without it people would argue about fair process, not knowing it was wrong, cultural differences, etc, etc. It's hard to enforce a don't be an asshole rule when you mostly have soft power at your disposal. Of course, it also gives bad leadership a tool with which to punish people without causing too much backlash.
I agree that some conduct guidelines are justified, but should be minimal. The feeling against them is due to overreach, where they stray away from codifying generally acceptable behaviour and move into territory that the general population would find incomprehensible, such as not being able to say that someone with the opposite opinion is wrong.
Your statement presumes that:
1) a Code of Conduct is necessary to enforce order
2) a Code of Conduct will prevent or discourage disorder
I think that 1) and 2) are both demonstrably false.
> [...] but your statement here is _dramatically_ privileged.
I don't like this personal attack and I feel less safe on this board because of it. Will someone go after this poster on my behalf please?
Jeremy says in own post on this subject:
> I was concerned that if only partial information became available, the anti-CoC crowd might jump on this as an example of problems with codes of conduct more generally, or might point at this as part of “cancel culture”
The person at the center of this actually disagrees with you. Having a vague CoC that was then not even really followed by the committee should not damn all CoCs. If you only see the worst most poorly executed examples of something then of course you'd be against them but that's not fair.
I mean, obviously they’re not worse than the problems they’re trying to solve. Sexual harassment, etc. is worse than someone getting their talk canceled unfairly, distraction, or worry about contributing to a project, full stop.
Whether they’re effective in practice, or if there are more effective methods is another question. But it’s hard to overstate the importance of their intentions.
There was a pretty lively discussion of this issue yesterday:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24926214
...specifically under what is currently the top comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24927123
> In particular, I was concerned that if only partial information became available, the anti-CoC crowd might jump on this as an example of problems with codes of conduct more generally, or might point at this as part of “cancel culture” (a concept I vehemently disagree with, since what is referred to as “cancellation” is often just “facing consequences”).
I believe the author was referring to you.
I think you might get downvoted because you started with “I’m going to get downvoted for this...”
Reverse psychology often works; I have seen many examples of this on both HN and Reddit.
I'm not so sure about this. I routinely see comments that start like that with a lot of upvotes. It could be survival bias, but I have a feeling reverse psychology could be coming into play.
Yet you are here, on HN, a forum with a code of conduct (they're called guidelines but the commenting rules constitute a CoC), and this CoC is enforced firmly.
I don't mean this in a snarky "get outta here" way, but: why are you here? Why not any other forum, tech-related or otherwise? Why not 4chan? Whatever the reason is, is the answer not quite likely to be at least in part made possible by the CoC and its strict enforcement?
You treat it like a coincidence that HN guidelines are called "guidelines" instead of "Code of Conduct". I don't think it's a coincidence. I think there's a certain kind of ethos behind behind any "Code of Conduct" process, and that ethos is not present on HN. And I'm really happy about that. I think HN moderation is amazing and it allows for conversations that you couldn't have anywhere else on the web.
I'm probably going to go down with you; but can you elaborate on that a little?
I'm not the OP but:
- There is no presumption of innocence.
- There are no formal rights of an accused.
- There is no clear delineation of what constitutes a violation.
- There is no right to confront those making an allegation.
- There are no negative consequences for making a false allegation.
- All of which leads to a system whereby people are subjected to ostracism and official censure for violating unwritten rules, all without proof. A person can find their life ruined merely by saying the wrong thing _or in the wrong tone_, all while being told that the system is just and fair and seeking to protect the vulnerable. It is dishonest, it is gaslighting, and it is frankly Soviet.
I am a criminal defense attorney with experience in personnel law. I know first hand how important the presumption of innocence is, and I know first hand how disastrous these personnel management "policies" can be.
There are people who are openly hostile to all of these ancient principles.
It's not just people who are too green to know better. I've seen a user with a 2007 vintage account and >30k karma extol the virtue of smear campaigns.
Scary times.
A lot of them don't seem to have a "warning" phase either. In a lot of cases I'm guessing the harasser isn't really aware that someone is feeling harassed.
Plus, in many cases they don't get applied equally anyway, the project leader is going to get handled a lot differently than a random contributor. AKA one gets sent to etiquette school, the other gets banned from the conference and mailing list.
Exactly.
> All of which leads to a system whereby people are subjected to ostracism and official censure for violating unwritten rules, all without proof
Aka which hunt.
The downvoter crew has already arrived though.
People start using them to thought-police people.
Yes, a Code of Conduct is a good way to say no to harrasment, racism and stuff that's generally frowned upon.
But, as this case proves, they devolve too easily into thought police level crap, where the "Code" becomes vague and filled with useless buzzwords, that could be construed to fit any situation someone disagrees with.
And with the current cancel culture, there is a real, verifiable threat to people's livelihood when they are judged by Twitter Court for breaking a CoC.
It is the same problem as with censorship/fact checkers etc ... who do you trust to determine what is truth/fake news/coc violation and why do you trust them.
In abstract the CoC are fine if are written and enforced by impartial angels with well developed common sense.
The people that usually push for them are for politics and power.
The Tyranny of Structurelessness is an HN perennial, but I think you would do well to read it if you haven't before:
https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
CoCs are problematic like much of lived human experience, but they're better than a structureless void that allows people to discriminate without a formal process that makes sure they can be held to account.
I'll try to refine your argument a bit: codes of conduct have tended to become a distraction because of the sudden onslaught of such from a specific, highly politicised group of people who have used the opportunity to try to enforce their way of looking at the world upon others by getting their 'code of conduct' - which reads like a political pamphlet - adopted by a number of high-visibility projects. Having a code of conduct in itself does not need to be distracting as long as that code is politically neutral and above all short and concise. A good example of such a code of conduct is the following:
_don't be a jerk_
Everybody knows what this means. Nearly everybody will agree on how to behave.
> don't be a jerk
I disagree. This whole situation with Jeremy is because of vague rules just like this. If I tell you that you are "wrong", you might consider me to be "jerk" and we can do this whole song and dance.
What communities are trying to police and prevent is outright sexism, racism, etc. For that, being explicit is better than just offering that someone is "being a jerk".
Nope, being wrong is not being a jerk, this used to be common sense and is what we need to go back to. Feel free to change the wording on the proposed CoC from _don't be a jerk_ to _don't be an asshole_ or something similar, the end result should still be the same: most people will understand what is meant. Some people won't but that can not be helped. The more elaborate the code, the more it will be used for other purposes, Fewer words is also possible but even in the total absence of a code of conduct most communities - 4chan et al excluded - will still have the unspoken assumption to _not be a jerk_. Having this encoded in a code of conduct at least makes sure those other, politically motivated 'codes' do not get a foothold.
I don't know how you can make this argument when this exact situation is caused by the very thing you are advocating for. “Be welcoming”, “Be considerate”, and “Be friendly” is something most people understand as much as "asshole" and "jerk". And yet here we are -- the counterexample is literally this topic.
why would you get downvoted for expressing the dominant opinion of HN on this matter? have you ever read a CoC thread on here?
Yet you participate here on HN, and there is effectively a CoC:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
One of the irritating things about these CoC discussions is that the codes, really, are acting in a metonymic fashion. Codes of behaviour are, of course, common place all throughout the world. When people complain about Codes of Conduct in software, they’re broadly complaining about a particular movement that’s pushed codes of particular conduct, enforced with particular mechanisms (and they would often argue biases). The HN guidelines don’t fall under that umbrella.
Many comments yesterday and today said "don't be a jerk" is the only code you need. Many said any written code will inevitably be abused.
Who is pushing what particular enforcement mechanisms? The Contributor Covenant is probably the most popular and most hated code of conduct. It just says community leaders will investigate and take appropriate action. It's very open ended.
HN is a pseudo anonymous message board, thus not as restrictive. But in any activity where people are "collaborating", especially in shared space (like a conference) there are more concerns to be addressed.
The programming world historically has been the domain of white men, and these CoCs are often a response to the fact that things have changed.
Any talk about "CoCs are bad" or "CoCs are just for people to arbitrarily impose their morality" are _wrong_. We need guidelines, and we need to be prepared to refine those guidelines and how they are enforced on a continual basis.
That dismissive talk brings this quote to mind: "When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality seems like oppression."
I don't really disagree with any of that, but it's also exactly what I'm talking about above. Given that you posted both the original reply and this one, I think you're kind of guilty of the old Motte & Bailey [1].
Just for the record: I'm privileged (and generally pretty polite/non-offensive I hope), I've rarely needed to deal with any of the issues addressed by CoCs, and I've also never really dealt with any of the issues others claim are caused by CoCs. I don't personally have a strong opinion on them, and lean towards trusting activists when they say things need to change. I'm just commenting on why discussions about them are so frequently unproductive: there's both misunderstanding and deliberate misrepresentation, because it's not _codes of conduct in general_ that people - possibly wrong people! - don't like.
[1]
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...
That was tl;dr to decipher your accusation. Could you clarify please? I ask not to debate but to understand and correct future communications.
The (intended) gist of my comments is to push back against the tactic of "look a stupid rule or stupid enforcement of rules; this is why we need to get rid of rules."
Sure.
“Motte”: unobjectionable position no one would disagree with.
“Bailey”: more extreme position; the one you actually believe and that people take issue with. Must not directly logically follow from the motte per se.
Motte & Bailey (informal) fallacy: Jumping between the motte and the bailey for rhetorical effect, as convenient.
In this case, the motte is “codes of conduct are just like the HN guidelines, they’re everywhere and no one objects”. The bailey is the actual CoCs in question, and the culture of pushing projects, conferences, etc. to adopt them, which tends to be rooted in “liberal identity politics” or whatever you want to call it.
When people criticize the latter (the bailey), advocates retreat to the former (the motte) - they’re just normal guidelines like “be nice”, basic manners, who would object to that? - and then when the argument is over continue pushing for the latter.
I do not think so. I think this post and what happened to Jeremy is the excellent example of how bad this CoCs really are. Presume guilty until proven otherwise? Use intentionally vague terms so that anybody can be put through this process? I mean seriously, this is exactly how witch-hunts worked in the "dark ages". Anyways, I think Jeremy responded very well and he is not going to waste his time on this muppet show anymore. This is what the silent majority has to do to get rid of these CoC people.
> The process has left me shattered, and I won’t be able to accept any speaking requests for the foreseeable future.
In regards to CoCs, sometimes this snowflake mentality seems to go hand in hand, because they are tailored to the most fragile of sensibilities, which is a Bad Thing(tm). I'm not sure how this "shatters" someone or what that even means (not trying to attack here, as it just doesn't make any sense).
- Discriminatory jokes and language
- Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms
- Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior
These are largely subjective, so why bother caring about what you might have said to set someone off?
So what if you won't take up speaking engagement requests? Duh. As we know that these CoCs are ridiculous and someone might want to seriously consider having nothing to do with organizations that utilize them.
He can post up talks on Youtube if he wants to be heard, especially now.
TL;DR Jeremy did a talk and it turned out strangely so nothing's lost here.
It's better to follow 10 commandments than any code of conduct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
Details of how one worships and how one interacts with one's parents are rarely ever relevant in the context of a conference.
What I am saying is that even if all conference attendees agreed that the ten commandments were at the root of their ethical behavior (consider, for example, a conference among sects of Christianity that are focused on those commandments), Even then it would be useful for the conference to have specific statements about whether (for example) sexist language was permitted or not permitted during talks.
"No Sunday conferences, do not kill or pillage from other conference goers. Do not lie or fornicate outside of marriage. And worship the Christian god."
How is that even remotely better? It doesn't address... any... of the behavior that led to this type of CoC.
The first four of them seem like fairly clear discrimination.
People: let's make coc against bullies
Bullies: use coc to bully
When will the general public learn that adding more rules and education simply gives ill-intentioned people more complicated ways to screw others over.
At least they apologized, unlike the Linux Foundation when they banned a guy from a conference for no good reason.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21476407
This is a classic non-apology. It’s well-written enough that it sounds good on quick read, but let’s break it down:
1. They use “We’re sorry you feel that way” to recast the issue as a simple miscommunication.
We acknowledge that it was an extremely stressful experience, being summoned to an interview with several members of a committee, after a week had passed, and without knowing the nature of the complaint.
2. Now that the goal posts have been moved, they apologize for the miscommunication and hurt feelings, conveniently sidestepping any wrongdoing in their intentions or actions:
We apologize for causing this stress and will work to improve our process to avoid this from happening in the future
3. They go on to try to defuse the supposed miscommunication by proposing a new narrative that diminishes part of the victim’s original complaint:
To clarify a crucial miscommunication that we take responsibility for: At the time of the interview, the committee had not determined that there was a violation of the code of conduct, only that there were two complaints filed and being examined. We apologize for not communicating that clearly from the beginning. We have not recommended any enforcement actions.
4. They then immediately contradict the previous point, admitting that they had indeed recommended some enforcement actions (asking the victim to postpone posting their talk) and that they clearly communicated to the victim that a violation had occurred:
We had asked to postpone the posting of the talk to the JupyterCon shared space until the complaints are resolved. We realize now that we used overly charged language and miscommunicated the stage of the investigation when discussing the complaints, i.e. saying a violation occurred.
5. Their “What we should have done” sidesteps the core of the issue and again tries to rewrite the narrative as a simple miscommunication about an investigation, despite having just admitted they told Jeremey that a violation had occurred.
We should have been clearer saying multiple complaints have been made and the alleged violation investigation had not been resolved.
6. Finally, they conclude without apologizing for or even acknowledging the core issue of the ridiculous complaints. They move the goalposts to a different team within NumFOCUS, while casually admitting that this new team will be _continuing the investigation into Jeremy_.
Because of the missteps of this committee, we have asked the NumFOCUS Board of Directors to take over the work of the committee as outlined in the appeals process of our enforcement guide.
Unfortunately, this non-apology was clearly revised over and over again by someone with significant PR chops. At first read it sounds like they’re taking responsibility and taking action, but a closer read reveals that they’ve simply sidestepped the core issues, apologized for easy straw man arguments, and managed to reframe the debate in the best light possible for themselves.
If NumFOCUS had simply stepped up and dismissed the violations, absolved Jeremey of wrongdoing, and apologized for letting it get this far, we’d all be in a much better place. Instead, the situation is right back where it started (investigation continues behind closed doors at NumFOCUS).
Given some of the Twitter replies they've succeeded in their PR move of making the controversy go away with the least change, growth or cost to themselves.
maybe im not looking at the right places but this seems to have gotten far more attention on hackernews than twitter.
Is this what they call a COC-up?
1. Who are "these" people?
2. Is this org of any significant importance?
3. Why should _I_ care.
Or, am I being to mean and should someone here complain about my topics?
Meanwhile, is numfocus really on the map. Until yesterday, I never heard about them before.
> Until yesterday, I never heard about them before.
the world is much bigger than your sphere of awareness.
...which is why they take such glee in exercising arbitrary power...they're otherwise a collection of over-educated nobodies who can't figure out why more degrees doesn't equal more money like mom said it would
I appreciate that they decided to apologize, but I find this statement lackluster at best. A better, more earnest apology would properly address the major concerns Jeremy raised. This touches on just two of the issues and then only superficially. I don't expect them to lay everything bare and pay public penance. I'm not interested in assigning blame. But apologies ring hollow when you don't even discuss what, if anything, you feel you did wrong.
In fact, in committing only to "improve our process to avoid this from happening," it reads as if they take no meaningful responsibility for how they handled informing Jeremy. It feels as if they are sorry Jeremy was stressed out for a week but unapologetic for any of the numerous and hard-to-defend actions they took to cause that stress. They blame the process, as if it required them to inform Jeremy of a complaint they weren't ready and willing to discuss with him, to assure him they'd give him details the following day and then renege on that, to not give him adequate time to understand the accusation and formulate a response. And it is apparent, from the story as both sides tell it, that far from a "crucial miscommunication," the Committee was accurately communicating what they thought. Their error was in prematurely drawing conclusions and not giving Jeremy the benefit of the doubt.
They also don't address the confusion around having two differing codes; the serious and counterproductive issues with Codes of Conduct prescribing acceptable behaviors (instead of _proscribing_ unacceptable ones), especially when such prescriptions are vague; or Jeremy's accusation that the Committee, itself, failed to follow their own Code(s) of Conduct and Enforcement Guide. And while I would not want or expect them to discuss the specifics of Jeremy's case (unless they have his consent to do so), I do think it's necessary to discuss the issue of whether they believe merely making someone uncomfortable through disagreement on relevant topics can (let alone should) be the sole/primary basis for a finding of misconduct, especially when the people made uncomfortable are not even the person that is being disagreed with.
Perhaps they've given Jeremy a more in-depth and sincere apology and explanation in private. But I don't think that suffices. Like Jeremy, I believe that Codes of Conduct can (and often do) play an important role in improving our communities and events. I'm sure the Enforcement Committee would claim to believe this as well. But the numerous mistakes they've made in this matter do serious harm, not just to Jeremy, but to the larger cause. The way to mitigate (if not remedy) those harms is by honestly admitting to mistakes
What a ridiculous world we live in. Yet another symptom of the left and the quest for everyone to never ever be offended by anything ever.
Those kangaroo courts are such a joke.
I find the timing of this 'apology' to be somewhat analogous to that of 'Friday news dumps'.
It blew up on a Thursday.
i hope they called Jeremy first to apologize before posting this.
i dont think he would take the call, given his response. they weren't fair from the start, dismissive and one sided, and now have a non-apology for PR purposes.
They broke into his house, robbed him blind, burned it down, and are now apologizing for the communication error of not having knocked. Next time they'll work on the communication - the one sided dismissive process and lack of fair treatment, and the ridiculous nature of the issue itself, is not in the apology.
This is PR.
What was the context
https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/
we -
https://numfocus.org/community/people
Was a kangaroo court, is a kangaroo court. And that is what's wrong about this to resolve issues using a CoC. Harassment is of course real, and being a supportive organizations that helps and supports a victim in legal action is a better way to go.
I’m honestly amazed that they wrote even this small potatoes. So much of the sniping around codes of conduct is so filled with enmity and nobody seems to ever want to back down, even when they seem to have been clearly in the wrong or overreacting.
Personally I have no interest in this whole conference circuit. The knives are out; people who leverage these situations are just nasty, nasty, nasty, and often totally shameless. I don’t need that in my life, and whatever meager recognition would come from giving talks at conferences is unbelievably not worth it. Not even close.
Here are the people responsible who are too cowardly to sign their real names:
Leah Silen, Executive Director
leah@numfocus.org
+1 (512) 831-2870 or +1 (972) 896-3688
Andy Terrel, President
andy@numfocus.org
Nicole Foster, Executive Operations Administrator
nicole@numfocus.org
Walker Chabbott, Communications & Marketing Manager
walker@numfocus.org
I find it disgraceful how mealy-mouthed their response was, how they conveniently spread the blame out across the committee, don't directly address where the ball was dropped (and by who), don't even address not letting him tell his side of the story, and then trying to excuse their actions with a distracting paragraph about why the video hadn't been posted.
I found Jeremy's post yesterday [0] very measured and clear, this on the other hand was a garbage "apology" that sidestepped any real responsibility or consequences.
[0]
https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/
(HN:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24926214
)
Please don't dox people in a charged thread like this. There is no point in putting their phone number or emails here.
It's not doxing if it's public info:
https://numfocus.org/code-of-conduct#persons-responsible
The word doxing means different things to different people, but please don't bring anyone's personal details into a thread as ammunition in an argument or to rile up a public posse against them. That's not what HN is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I respectfully disagree with the stance you are taking. I did not post their names in an attempt to provide "ammunition in an argument or to rile up a public posse against them", I did it because they refused to sign their names and I saved people the step of having to dig into it themselves. I simply copy-pasted their (public) information, this is not "personal details" these are numbers and emails associated with their organization. Should all of the other comments that link to the same page (with the information I copy-pasted) be removed as well? I'm genuinely confused by this. Is tim@apple.com also considered "personal details" in a thread about an unpopular move by Apple? I'm trying to figure out where the line is here.
This is a bit like saying that it doesn't count that you piled fuel on a fire because it was only deadwood that you collected down the road.
There's a difference between that information sitting on a website and someone copying it to a thread that's pre-primed with indignation. The only reason to do the latter is to incite people. Maybe there's even a good reason to do it, but it's overshadowed by the damage that mob dynamics do to the community. This is an area where it's prudent to err on the side of caution.
In the past many societies had a rule where if you falsely accused someone, once it had been found you falsely accused them, you would suffer the same penalties that they would have suffered. Maybe it is time to bring back those rules for CoC complaints.
My new funtime activity: filing bogus claims against conference talks.
I, for one, welcome our new censoring overlords.
What I find positive in this outcome is that Jeremy Howard challenged the organisation to live up to their principles, and they are apparently going to do so. Without the CoC, this would not have been such a clear-cut issue.
For those who would do away with CoCs entirely, I suggest you read the HN perennial The Tyrrany Of Structurelessness:
https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
CoCs are complex in many ways, but it's much better to have a formal process that allows people to be held to account rather than a structureless void which enables people to discriminate without the ability to challenge them to something they've explicitly signed up to.
It wasn’t the CoC that resolved the issue in this instance, it was the fact that the he had the community clout to raise the profile of his mistreatment.
Arguably it wouldn’t have been an issue if the CoC didn’t exist.
I don't agree that the CoC caused the issue - note that I said "this would not have been such a clear-cut issue". These people may have complained anyway, and if they were close with the higher-ups then Howard wouldn't have had anything to point to and say "Hey! That doesn't fit this!" Visibility on HN surely helps, but still, even if this had reach HN without a CoC the issue would have been easier to dismiss. This is the clarity that explicitly stating your aims offers.
Dunno how a CoC may've been material to resolving this situation. I mean, say there wasn't a CoC, then couldn't the accused still have written a blog post about how they were kicked out for merely saying that someone else was "_wrong_"?
I think the concern is about a formal system being properly implemented. For example, say that we add a formal control mechanism to a door that wasn't previously automated. This has two advantages: (1) the door's now automatic; (2) we can ensure that the door is completely safe, never accidentally closing on anyone. Awesome, right?
But, if the door's automation-logic is faulty, then it's not fully safe. In fact, it can now falsely close on people in situations where it couldn't before.
I think that's what people are worried about here: the CoC appears to have enabled a destructive interaction that, absent the CoC, may've not occurred.
In real life, we usually save legal battles for the big issues because working out formal rule systems can be so cumbersome. People dread going to court because of what a hassle it is! But I don't think that the legal system is malicious; it just takes a lot of effort to analyze things. Cheaper versions of the legal system could be scary, potentially enabling all sorts of faulty, undesirable behaviors. And that's what I think folks fear in CoC's: a naively implemented formal system running amok. They'd rather have to manually open a door every time than risk an automatic door mistakenly closing on them sometimes.
Just the fact they have a group called "Diversity & Inclusion" is enough to steer away from these people.
https://numfocus.org/category/diversity-inclusion-disc
I suspect you're being downvoted because people are misreading your tone, but I agree with the overall sentiment: D&I is often (though not always) coded language for "critical-theory ideology". I'm likewise suspicious of organizations that reify this in a particular board or department, especially when the company culture seems to be very procedural, bureaucratic and/or CYA. When it comes to weeding out *ism, these groups have a tendency to care only about hit-rate with little or no regard for false alarms. In extreme cases, they view any disagreement with their principles and practices as an affront in and of itself -- one that calls for punishment.
Edit: I don't really think the parent comment needed to be flagged ...
> Edit: I don't really think the parent comment needed to be flagged ...
You can vouch:
- click on the timestamp
- click vouch
- IIRC dang will taking vouching privileges if he spots someone abusing it
To all of the people who hate CoCs: Just don't patronize any forum, software repo, or conference that has them. Not so easy to do, right? Same thing with people who get harassed all the time: It's not so easy for them to complain and have anyone take them seriously. Are CoCs perfect? Absolutely not. But allowing decades of harassment to continue unfettered until the most perfect solution is found, is not going to work, either. Of course, the people who hate CoCs don't think there have been decades of harassment. Or, if they even acknowledge harassment, they probably believe it is the victim's fault in the first place, or the victim's fault for not speaking up. I don't think minds are going to change either way. Just one more thing in our increasingly polarized world, that tech is actually making worse, not better. (Oh, so many subjective comments here -- how did I do capturing them?)
> Not so easy to do, right?
Well, there was a time when I was actually really excited about the promise of open-source software, and kept looking for ways to contribute and "join the revolution". There was a time when the thought of gathering together in a room or even a conference hall full of people who were as passionate about software development as I was sounded amazing. Now? I'll write code if you pay me to do it, otherwise I'll find other things to do with my time. Conferences? Not even for money.
The problem here isn't primarily the Code of Conduct itself, but rather how it was applied (and by extension those applying it).
The real challenge to building better communities isn't writing up a list of things that people shouldn't do. (Though that is a first step.)
The real challenge is building (and _maintaining_) social structures, culture, and institutions that members trust to apply the rules fairly and prudently.
I do agree, but I was referring to all of the comments from people who are saying that CoCs are worse than the problem they are trying to solve. I don't agree with that. As for building things fairly and prudently, well, that, sadly, is something humans are very bad at. Life on Earth could be so much better for so many people, yet there are too many (powerful) people who just don't care about anything other than themselves.