Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).