131–140 of 637 posts
For those who don't know her, quite an interesting person. She was notoriously fired from GitHub after a year after being hired to work on their anti-harassment platform.
What's with the recurring comments about corporations and businesses? > Some people may have views that when expressed, may be harmful to the interest of particular groups of people like big corporations. This has to be taken into account. > universally accepted corporate values > That's California Core Corporate Policies in work > For instance, members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected cl…
I find it confusing too, but my reading of this is that @hmdne is trolling, but the actual changes @hmdne wants to make are fine and defensible in their own right and in fact make it easier to kick out trolls like @hmdne (e.g., a troll can claim that their trollish proposition is an "opposing view" that one needs to be respectful of), and so people are engaging in good faith to try to deflate the troll. Some of these…
Almost more surprising is that this was removed: > When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants should always assume good intentions. In favor of this: > Participants should speak and act with good intentions, but understand that intent and impact are not equivalent. Also changed yesterday: > Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated. became: > Behaviour which ca…
"Protected class" means stuff like race, sex or veteran status. So if you harass a random conference-goer at a Ruby-focused event, that cannot be addressed under the CoC because you haven't evidenced harassment towards a protected class as a whole (e.g. all veterans)? How does that even make sense?
“Protected class” is an (American) legal term, with situation-specific definitions. (It means different things in federal employment law, federal public accommodation law, federal fair housing law, and the various states employment, public accommodation, and fair housing laws of each of the States.)
It is entirely unclear what it means in the Ruby CoC, and the explanation in the discussion thread is literally “everyone knows what ‘protected class’ means” which is obviously entirely false. Its a term used by someone who has some overly precise, overly generalized idea of what it means, doesn’t realize that they are wrong, and thinks everyone agrees with them.
What's with the recurring comments about corporations and businesses? > Some people may have views that when expressed, may be harmful to the interest of particular groups of people like big corporations. This has to be taken into account. > universally accepted corporate values > That's California Core Corporate Policies in work > For instance, members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected cl…
It's not just you... I was unable to follow it either. I kept going back and forth trying to figure out which "side" the commenters were on, trying to find hidden meanings and running the various points through a sarcasm filter... nothing worked. I'm left to conclude that they are just simply "out to lunch," to put it politely.
What's with the recurring comments about corporations and businesses? > Some people may have views that when expressed, may be harmful to the interest of particular groups of people like big corporations. This has to be taken into account. > universally accepted corporate values > That's California Core Corporate Policies in work > For instance, members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected cl…
No search results for California Core Corporate Policies. But CCCP looks just like the Russian initials for the Soviet Union. Someone with the same name invoked the old good intentions clause on the mailing list.[1] Apparently sincerely. [1] http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/...
The new version > "Participants should speak and act with good intentions, but understand that intent and impact are not equivalent." Huh. That's interesting phrasing. I don't think i like it. Literally nobody thinks impact & intent are equivalent, the sticky point in human interaction and morality is to what extent do we take results instead of intentions into account when evaluating the morality of an action. The s…
It's just laying out exactly what you seem to agree with, and that good intentions aren't a shield for bad results. Someone might say "you look really sexy today" and intend it as a compliment, but even if it is a compliment it almost certainly isn't going to be received as one.
> what you seem to agree with, that good intentions aren't a shield for bad results
I wasn't giving my opinion so much as sumarizing its an unsolved problem with no obvious correct answer.
If you want my personal view. I don't believe actual results should be taken into account at all.
"you look really sexy today" isn't wrong to say because the recipent was offended. It's wrong to say because a reasonably acculturized person would know that there is a high chance it would be offensive in context. If the dice were on your side, and for some reason the recipent was delighted at your "compliment", i would still say it was wrong because you had no way of knowing that that would be the outcome. The wrongness has nothing to do with what actually happened, only with what was reasonably predictable to happen.
There are pros and cons to this view, and reasonable people do disagree.
[And to be clear, even if something was not predictable and therefore not "wrong", that doesn't absolve you from having to apologize/make it right if you accidentally hurt someone]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You viewpoint don't seem to be very convincing if snark is your best response to that question.
.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really odd to make fundamental rule changes to respond to things like that rather than carving out exceptions for sexist remarks specifically if those are the problem. 'This section shall not be interpreted to defend any communication reasonably seen as sexist, racist, or otherwise discriminatory' is much clearer than changing from 'assume good faith' to 'assume nothing, intent doesn't matter as much as impact.…
The PR author elaborated further in the linked Twitter thread: he believes that a policy of assuming good faith is bad on its own merits because it tends to benefit white men. ( https://twitter.com/JakeHerrington/status/144328685321023079... )