Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

numfocus.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 288 posts

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#151

Post by Veen »

notJim wrote: post #144
Veen wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thr…

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.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#152

Post by xienze »

g42gregory wrote: post #134

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?

> 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.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#154

Post by frereubu »

GiorgioG wrote: post #3

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 intende…

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.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#155

Post by notJim »

Veen wrote: post #151
notJim wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thr…

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.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#157

Post by dahfizz »

notJim wrote: post #126
closeparen wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

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.

> 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.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#158

Post by criddell »

part1of2 wrote: post #51
greenburger wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#159

Post by sweetheart »

aroundtown wrote: post #156

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?

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#160

Post by Wowfunhappy »

xab31 wrote: post #94
SommaRaikkonen wrote: post #5

The context for those out of the loop: https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/

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.…

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.

Post reply on HN