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

171–180 of 288 posts

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#171

Post by lr »

1propionyl wrote: post #164
lr wrote: post #149

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 wor…

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 pruden…

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.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#172

Post by free_rms »

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.

This situation looks exactly like the people in charge doing whatever they want IMO.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#173

Post by adamcharnock »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #162
Spinnaker_ wrote: post #139

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…

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

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#174

Post by kodah »

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 ...".

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.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#175

Post by bryanlarsen »

jf- wrote: post #12
SommaRaikkonen wrote: post #5

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

> 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.

AFAICT, according to the apology he had been accused but not convicted of the violation.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#176

Post by wk_end »

pstuart wrote: post #129
wk_end wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

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 arbitrar…

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...

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#177

Post by CJefferson »

phkahler wrote: post #105
kennywinker wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#178

Post by xab31 »

btilly wrote: post #170
xab31 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 talkin…

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).

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#179

Post by bryanlarsen »

marcinzm wrote: post #137

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. e…

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.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#180

Post by vkgfx »

ksdale wrote: post #124
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…

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…

I see the same thing in CS:GO. Then people wonder why no women stick with it long enough to go pro.
Post reply on HN