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

41–50 of 288 posts

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#41

Post by StreamBright »

torstenvl wrote: post #33
eckza wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm probably going to go down with you; but can you elaborate on that a little?

I'm not the OP but: - There is no presumption of innocence. - There are no formal rights of an accused. - There is no clear delineation of what constitutes a violation. - There is no right to confront those making an allegation. - There are no negative consequences for making a false allegation. - All of which leads to a system whereby people are subjected to ostracism and official censure for violating unwritten rul…

Exactly.

> All of which leads to a system whereby people are subjected to ostracism and official censure for violating unwritten rules, all without proof

Aka which hunt.

The downvoter crew has already arrived though.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#42

Post by notJim »

eznzt wrote: post #27
Xavdidtheshadow wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm guessing you haven't been harassed/given unwanted attention at a conference. It's easy to see codes of conduct as draconian or unnecessary if you can't empathize with the people they're designed to protect. I'm not saying the CoC system is perfect or that there aren't false positives, but your statement here is _dramatically_ privileged.

If you need a CoC to get rid of someone who harasses others what you have is a deeper problem

If you need a system of written laws that apply to everyone what you have is a deeper problem

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#43

Post by kennywinker »

eznzt wrote: post #27
Xavdidtheshadow wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm guessing you haven't been harassed/given unwanted attention at a conference. It's easy to see codes of conduct as draconian or unnecessary if you can't empathize with the people they're designed to protect. I'm not saying the CoC system is perfect or that there aren't false positives, but your statement here is _dramatically_ privileged.

If you need a CoC to get rid of someone who harasses others what you have is a deeper problem

Cue the cries of "I broke no rules!" when someone is "gotten rid of" without a CoC.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#44

Post by luckylion »

dagmx wrote: post #37
eznzt wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you need a CoC to get rid of someone who harasses others what you have is a deeper problem

How else would you codify what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour? Is it just arbitrary? Do you just depend on more people enforcing their views out to stop harassment? If so, then why not codify it?

> Is it just arbitrary?

Yes. Just as "kind" is. To the reporters and the officials, "saying somebody is wrong" is unkind, so it's clearly arbitrary.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#45

Post by smeeth »

Ok, I'm not heavily steeped in this, but at first glance this seems like total bullshit.

Note that the original complaint was both 1) that the code of conduct people were being, well, total assholes, and 2) that the complaints were so obviously ridiculous that the entire exercise seemed like it could only be a power trip for those involved.

The apology addressed neither. They apologized for being unclear about what stage of the investigation they were in. No apology for laughing at Jeremy's distress, no apology for the witch hunt, etc.

The grand remedy? Replace 3/4 of the people on the committee.

Did I miss something here?

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#46

Post by GiorgioG »

dylan604 wrote: post #32
Xavdidtheshadow wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm guessing you haven't been harassed/given unwanted attention at a conference. It's easy to see codes of conduct as draconian or unnecessary if you can't empathize with the people they're designed to protect. I'm not saying the CoC system is perfect or that there aren't false positives, but your statement here is _dramatically_ privileged.

I too dislike code of conduct type of stuff, but more along the reasoning you mentioned. I dislike that they are even needed in the first place. The fact that you have to be told to not belittle, harass, abuse, etc another user/participant/person is just difficult to understand.

It shouldn't be that hard to to follow the "Don't be an asshole" rule, unfortunately for the rest of us, 0.001% can't figure out how to get along with other humans.

I think CoCs just become a new tool for a different subset of assholes to abuse. Yes it does suck for those who have a legitimate issue. I've yet to see how CoCs solve that problem in practice.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#47

Post by uberman »

huhtenberg wrote: post #2

Well, who was responsible for this exactly? Given the circumstances, they should do better than an amorphous "we".

The board should make those 4 people (3 staffers and the president) step down. If not, they should abandon any pretext about supporting a code of conduct while they use it to bully others.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#48

Post by wk_end »

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 mean, obviously they’re not worse than the problems they’re trying to solve. Sexual harassment, etc. is worse than someone getting their talk canceled unfairly, distraction, or worry about contributing to a project, full stop.

Whether they’re effective in practice, or if there are more effective methods is another question. But it’s hard to overstate the importance of their intentions.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#49

Post by pstuart »

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…

Yet you participate here on HN, and there is effectively a CoC: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#50

Post by lr »

greenburger wrote: post #7
huhtenberg wrote: post #2

Well, who was responsible for this exactly? Given the circumstances, they should do better than an amorphous "we".

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

That was the committee at the time of writing. If anyone refers to this in, say, a year, they will have no idea who was responsible. As an analogy, transaction histories, if done in a DB, are not normalized because you wouldn't want the price and total sale of a past transaction to change when you later change the price of the items that were in that transaction. Sometimes, it's actually good to duplicate code/data/effort, especially if it helps to make something clear.
Post reply on HN