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

281–288 of 288 posts

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#281

Post by btilly »

gojomo wrote: post #248
btilly wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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!

The problem is that when you list your acknowledgements and chosen actions, you're implicitly refusing to acknowledge anything else and are indicating that no further actions will be taken.

When the apology is open-ended, and includes further specific actions such as an independent investigation, then you've done none of that.

The social function of apologies also requires gracious acceptance of actual admissions of error.

When the apology performs the social functions of apologies, it only works when the recipient graciously accepts.

But when the apology fails to perform the social functions of an apology, there is no obligation on the recipient to pretend acceptance.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#282

Post by wvenable »

Yetanfou wrote: post #276
wvenable wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that is the point: we need to get back to a situation where something like don't be a jerk is seen as just that, a simple suggestion not to be a jerk . As long as simple suggestions like this lead to cancellations the public discourse is on the wrong track, the one with the sign 'Warning: weak bridge'. We - as in those of us who are favour true intellectual discourse over partisan/polarised rhetoric - need to tak…

You're arguing a meta-point rather than the issue in question. That sexism, racism, and harassment is not uncommon enough and these are real issues that need real solutions.

Arguing about the meaning of words couldn't possibly be less to the point.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#283

Post by gojomo »

IshKebab wrote: post #224
gojomo wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 Howar…

If you have to supply your own less-apologetic paraphrase ("sorry you feel offended"), rather than quote any such constructions in the actual text, is that really a fair reading?

Other than the apparently-magic word 'sorry', your suggested wording doesn't address most of the specific asks of ~btilly's complaint above. (Don't worry, his proposed rewording didn't, either!) Perhaps, because it's exactly tuned to what you saw as worst about his treatment, it'd adequate for you. But not necessarily for any others demanding more groveling.

It's also not consistent with the NumFOCUS committee's substantive position, which is not that they had prematurely concluded anything, but rather that they had erroneously communicated that they'd concluded something. That's a salient difference, even though the two errors look the same from Howard's perspective! (The two distinct failures would require different internal correctives, too.) You wouldn't want a public apology to lie about the actual internal errors identified just to be extra-palatable to third parties, would you?

So, don't quit your day job to specialize in public apology writing just yet!

And to entertain that idea of professionally-improved apologies a bit a more, realize that in certain situations, no matter how good the apology, or how well it hits certain notes, some on the warpath will always want X% more, & be able to find specific faults.

Short & emphatic, as per your (& ~btilly's) rewrites? "Wasn't specific enough, too patronizing."

Detailed with even a whiff of actual analysis as to the real org/psych reasons for an error? "Not empathetic enough, making excuses, rationalizing the behavior".

Long enough to include all of the emotional cloying, and the exhaustive victim's-viewpoint confession of sins, and promises for changes? "Tone-deaf, insincere because if they really believed this they couldn't have made the error in the 1st place, seems over-wordsmithed." (But also: risks setting unrealistic expectations for the future.)

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#284

Post by skinkestek »

omginternets wrote: post #273
skinkestek wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

I did not know this! Thanks!

Happy to help!

Please use, and use it with caution :-)

(Also now that you know the timestamp trick: there's also a "favorite" link there to mark the link as a favorite. You can find favorited posts and comments in your profile page.)

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#285

Post by Yetanfou »

wvenable wrote: post #282
Yetanfou wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that is the point: we need to get back to a situation where something like don't be a jerk is seen as just that, a simple suggestion not to be a jerk . As long as simple suggestions like this lead to cancellations the public discourse is on the wrong track, the one with the sign 'Warning: weak bridge'. We - as in those of us who are favour true intellectual discourse over partisan/polarised rhetoric - need to tak…

You're arguing a meta-point rather than the issue in question. That sexism, racism, and harassment is not uncommon enough and these are real issues that need real solutions. Arguing about the meaning of words couldn't possibly be less to the point.

Is is very much the point here since it is these words, and the way their meaning has been made malleable to fit the narrative of the day, which enables these practices. As long as this practice is tolerated it will be difficult if not impossible to agree to a basic level of civic discourse. Without such an agreement it is impossible to 'agree to disagree' which has been one of the tenets of liberal democracies since the concept was first implemented.

Just like he who controls the present controls the past, he who controls the dictionary controls the discourse.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#286

Post by shadowgovt »

Veen wrote: post #133
notJim wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those are all valuable tools to have in a system where the law can deprive a person of property, liberty, and life.

It's not necessarily the case that you have to spend nearly as much on a code of conduct system where the ultimate worst-case scenario is that an innocent person is denied a platform or has the reputation tarnished in a reversible way.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#287

Post by 1123581321 »

tchaffee wrote: post #272
1123581321 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People don't want empathy. They want solutions that fix the existing and long-standing problems. Lacking a better solution, CoCs are here to stay. So if you really oppose CoCs, the burden of creating a better solution is on you.

If you’re referring to me personally, I agree with you. The groups I personally organized have arrived at that better resolution, as we of course did see our responsibility there. However, we have not arrived at a solution that can be quickly communicated to other groups, which is the strength of CoCs as they can be copied and adopted without much thought (not saying that pejoratively.)

Strongly disagree that empathy is unwanted, though; perhaps you are laboring under a narrow definition. Empathy cannot coexist with inaction.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#288

Post by slightwinder »

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.

Remember, this is just one side. Is there any detailed response from the other side? With something like this the tone and atmosphere has a grave weight on the perception. Like you can say someone is wrong in a nice, professional way, but also in a meany, bullying way.

And it doesn't even need to be seen by the involved people as mean, if they have such a "toxic" type relationship. But a Code of Conduct is also a bit about the perception of others, and how it sells a project.

In his statement there are hints indicating in this direction. He mentions his talk was made as a parody. Parodies by nature are on a thin line between being funny englightment, and being mean bullying. So it can be the case that his see himself as funny, while other might see it as a mean insult.

And he mentions some unwritten rules which were applied to him specifically because his talk was somewhat special because it was an opener(?) or something. Which means he got more attention than your regular talk.

Post reply on HN