Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Users

Stream >> <<

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

109 messages Options

123456

Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list

Re: Code of Conduct

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:35:51AM -0500, Offray Vladimir Luna C??rdenas wrote:
> The post was deleted not because of the CoC, but because of an

Allright, but this is what GitHub told me 3 hours ago:

A maintainer of the @pharo-project organization has blocked you because of this content.
For more information please see the code of conduct.
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/blob/Pharo8.0/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

You might want to clarify that the CoC is not yet in force,
since GitHub thinks it is.

> unrespectful treatment of one of the members of the community, as the
> conversation here shows. And in fact what this probe that we care as a
> community for the well being of the community and its members, specially
> when complex matters are addressed, and not only for commits or some
> future possible porting and that such promises or technical prowess
> don't entitled anyone to insult others.

Ben Coman

Re: Code of Conduct

In reply to this post by Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list

makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:

Let's see, I've posted one email to this list describing the dangers
of abusing CoCs

I guess you refer to this one...

> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 19:39, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree. Technical people are too easy to exploit by malignant manipulators of people.
> All too often they don't even realize it after the fact.

Thats fairly benign and doubt it had anything to do with being blocked on github.

and one post to GitHub describing the motivations of
people who introduce CoCs, and immediately get banned on GitHub from

Note, the board member who blocked your GIthub account and deleted your post there

also voiced their opinion as being...

For me a "welcome and be nice" should be enough to just continue as before.

I find the introduction of CoC was a noise we didn't need,

our community was doing well and self-regulated without problem until now.

So in spite of your implication, I doubt there is anything sinister from the CoC in play here.

Comments such as "makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot."

have been consistently condemned years before thought of a CoC.

I'm getting called a troll and a nobody in public by members of the project,

Its not that you are a "nobody", but actually you were "unknown to us" two days ago.

Maybe you don't know Serge, but we've know him for years and his good work including governance of our GSoC participation

so please consider why such comments from a newcomer may be dealt with as a troll.

Community standards do not maintain themselves: They're maintained by people actively applying them, visibly, in public.

Now personally I'm not going to condemn you on one slip.

I've been told to pull my head in before and they were right - I was venting after a bad day at work. But no one held it against me long.

These nontechnical and emotion-charge debates are infrequent and I hope get a chance to see how things normally run once we are past it.

cheers -ben

EstebanLM

Re: Code of Conduct

Hello,

I’m talking on behalf of the Pharo Board here.

As start, we accepted Serge’s proposition without actually discussing it much because we didn’t think it was going to be really a problem. Our community has been self-regulating since the beginning and we were doing it fine until now. Once or twice we (the board) needed to act, but never had a real situation as the ones the CoC tries to cover.

So, we can say we opened the umbrella without rain, just in case.

Now, after observe the situation, we have decided to retract the code. But sadly, we cannot just remove it and let things continue as before because as it’s know “it you open a can or worms, you will need a bigger can to put them back in”. Which means now we need a code of conduct.

So we are going to take the simplest one we could find that still can serve our community, you can see it here:

https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4660

This PR will be accepted, but as anything in our community, you can still discuss it and propose modifications.

Just remember be respectful of people disagreeing with your ideas :)

Cheers,

Esteban

PS: As personal note: I blocked a github user that insulted a member of our community, a user who did not had history with us (or any other visible project), who did not had a name or ways to contact him so I assumed it was just another troll. Now, he identifies himself here... I will unblock him, but that does not means the kind of disrespectful messages he sent can be sent :)

On 19 Sep 2019, at 19:47, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:

makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
Let's see, I've posted one email to this list describing the dangers
of abusing CoCs

I guess you refer to this one...
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 19:39, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I agree. Technical people are too easy to exploit by malignant manipulators of people.
> All too often they don't even realize it after the fact.

Thats fairly benign and doubt it had anything to do with being blocked on github.

and one post to GitHub describing the motivations of
people who introduce CoCs, and immediately get banned on GitHub from

Note, the board member who blocked your GIthub account and deleted your post there
also voiced their opinion as being...
For me a "welcome and be nice" should be enough to just continue as before.
I find the introduction of CoC was a noise we didn't need,
our community was doing well and self-regulated without problem until now.

So in spite of your implication, I doubt there is anything sinister from the CoC in play here.
Comments such as "makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot."
have been consistently condemned years before thought of a CoC.

I'm getting called a troll and a nobody in public by members of the project,

Its not that you are a "nobody", but actually you were "unknown to us" two days ago.
Maybe you don't know Serge, but we've know him for years and his good work including governance of our GSoC participation
so please consider why such comments from a newcomer may be dealt with as a troll.
Community standards do not maintain themselves: They're maintained by people actively applying them, visibly, in public.

Now personally I'm not going to condemn you on one slip.
I've been told to pull my head in before and they were right - I was venting after a bad day at work. But no one held it against me long.
These nontechnical and emotion-charge debates are infrequent and I hope get a chance to see how things normally run once we are past it.

cheers -ben

Richard O'Keefe

Re: Code of Conduct

On the whole, the new code is pretty good.

There was one thing that troubled me, though:

"even outside of Pharo's public communication channels."

What business is it of the Pharo Board what anyone says in any

other community?  I've heard too many cases where A says something

to B and C complains about it as harassment when B didn't mind.

I have personally known people *affectionately* address each other

in terms that most would consider a deadly insult.

My behaviour in all digital media is subject to the

Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015.  See

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html

which extends the Harassment Act 1997.  See

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1997/0092/latest/whole.html

for a definition of harassment.

If I harass anyone according to these Acts, they have a legal remedy.

I understand the the UK and the EU have similar laws.

So I don't understand why the Pharo Board want to extend their reach.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 07:21, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

I’m talking on behalf of the Pharo Board here.
As start, we accepted Serge’s proposition without actually discussing it much because we didn’t think it was going to be really a problem. Our community has been self-regulating since the beginning and we were doing it fine until now. Once or twice we (the board) needed to act, but never had a real situation as the ones the CoC tries to cover.
So, we can say we opened the umbrella without rain, just in case.

Now, after observe the situation, we have decided to retract the code. But sadly, we cannot just remove it and let things continue as before because as it’s know “it you open a can or worms, you will need a bigger can to put them back in”. Which means now we need a code of conduct.

So we are going to take the simplest one we could find that still can serve our community, you can see it here:

https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4660

This PR will be accepted, but as anything in our community, you can still discuss it and propose modifications.
Just remember be respectful of people disagreeing with your ideas :)

Cheers,
Esteban

PS: As personal note: I blocked a github user that insulted a member of our community, a user who did not had history with us (or any other visible project), who did not had a name or ways to contact him so I assumed it was just another troll. Now, he identifies himself here... I will unblock him, but that does not means the kind of disrespectful messages he sent can be sent :)

On 19 Sep 2019, at 19:47, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:

makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
Let's see, I've posted one email to this list describing the dangers
of abusing CoCs

I guess you refer to this one...
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 19:39, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I agree. Technical people are too easy to exploit by malignant manipulators of people.
> All too often they don't even realize it after the fact.

Thats fairly benign and doubt it had anything to do with being blocked on github.

and one post to GitHub describing the motivations of
people who introduce CoCs, and immediately get banned on GitHub from

Note, the board member who blocked your GIthub account and deleted your post there
also voiced their opinion as being...
For me a "welcome and be nice" should be enough to just continue as before.
I find the introduction of CoC was a noise we didn't need,
our community was doing well and self-regulated without problem until now.

So in spite of your implication, I doubt there is anything sinister from the CoC in play here.
Comments such as "makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot."
have been consistently condemned years before thought of a CoC.

I'm getting called a troll and a nobody in public by members of the project,

Its not that you are a "nobody", but actually you were "unknown to us" two days ago.
Maybe you don't know Serge, but we've know him for years and his good work including governance of our GSoC participation
so please consider why such comments from a newcomer may be dealt with as a troll.
Community standards do not maintain themselves: They're maintained by people actively applying them, visibly, in public.

Now personally I'm not going to condemn you on one slip.
I've been told to pull my head in before and they were right - I was venting after a bad day at work. But no one held it against me long.
These nontechnical and emotion-charge debates are infrequent and I hope get a chance to see how things normally run once we are past it.

cheers -ben

John Pfersich

Re: Code of Conduct

And I don’t intend to abide by it. I’ll cancel my Pharo Association contribution and my contribution to Stephane’s Spec book. I have no interest in supporting a left-wing snowflake “Code of Conduct”.

/*—————————————————-*/

Sent from my iPhone

https://boincstats.com/signature/-1/user/51616339056/sig.png

See https://objectnets.net and https://objectnets.org

On Sep 19, 2019, at 20:44, Richard O'Keefe <[hidden email]> wrote:

On the whole, the new code is pretty good.

There was one thing that troubled me, though:
"even outside of Pharo's public communication channels."
What business is it of the Pharo Board what anyone says in any
other community? I've heard too many cases where A says something
to B and C complains about it as harassment when B didn't mind.
I have personally known people *affectionately* address each other
in terms that most would consider a deadly insult.

My behaviour in all digital media is subject to the
Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. See
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html
which extends the Harassment Act 1997. See
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1997/0092/latest/whole.html
for a definition of harassment.
If I harass anyone according to these Acts, they have a legal remedy.
I understand the the UK and the EU have similar laws.

So I don't understand why the Pharo Board want to extend their reach.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 07:21, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

I’m talking on behalf of the Pharo Board here.
As start, we accepted Serge’s proposition without actually discussing it much because we didn’t think it was going to be really a problem. Our community has been self-regulating since the beginning and we were doing it fine until now. Once or twice we (the board) needed to act, but never had a real situation as the ones the CoC tries to cover.
So, we can say we opened the umbrella without rain, just in case.

Now, after observe the situation, we have decided to retract the code. But sadly, we cannot just remove it and let things continue as before because as it’s know “it you open a can or worms, you will need a bigger can to put them back in”. Which means now we need a code of conduct.

So we are going to take the simplest one we could find that still can serve our community, you can see it here:

https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4660

This PR will be accepted, but as anything in our community, you can still discuss it and propose modifications.
Just remember be respectful of people disagreeing with your ideas :)

Cheers,
Esteban

PS: As personal note: I blocked a github user that insulted a member of our community, a user who did not had history with us (or any other visible project), who did not had a name or ways to contact him so I assumed it was just another troll. Now, he identifies himself here... I will unblock him, but that does not means the kind of disrespectful messages he sent can be sent :)

On 19 Sep 2019, at 19:47, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:

makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
Let's see, I've posted one email to this list describing the dangers
of abusing CoCs

I guess you refer to this one...
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 19:39, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I agree. Technical people are too easy to exploit by malignant manipulators of people.
> All too often they don't even realize it after the fact.

Thats fairly benign and doubt it had anything to do with being blocked on github.

and one post to GitHub describing the motivations of
people who introduce CoCs, and immediately get banned on GitHub from

Note, the board member who blocked your GIthub account and deleted your post there
also voiced their opinion as being...
For me a "welcome and be nice" should be enough to just continue as before.
I find the introduction of CoC was a noise we didn't need,
our community was doing well and self-regulated without problem until now.

So in spite of your implication, I doubt there is anything sinister from the CoC in play here.
Comments such as "makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot."
have been consistently condemned years before thought of a CoC.

I'm getting called a troll and a nobody in public by members of the project,

Its not that you are a "nobody", but actually you were "unknown to us" two days ago.
Maybe you don't know Serge, but we've know him for years and his good work including governance of our GSoC participation
so please consider why such comments from a newcomer may be dealt with as a troll.
Community standards do not maintain themselves: They're maintained by people actively applying them, visibly, in public.

Now personally I'm not going to condemn you on one slip.
I've been told to pull my head in before and they were right - I was venting after a bad day at work. But no one held it against me long.
These nontechnical and emotion-charge debates are infrequent and I hope get a chance to see how things normally run once we are past it.

cheers -ben

jgfoster

Re: Code of Conduct

Before doing that would you be willing to submit a PR with a proposed improvement (and a discussion of why)?

On Sep 19, 2019, at 9:17 PM, john pfersich <[hidden email]> wrote:

And I don’t intend to abide by it. I’ll cancel my Pharo Association contribution and my contribution to Stephane’s Spec book. I have no interest in supporting a left-wing snowflake “Code of Conduct”.

/*—————————————————-*/
Sent from my iPhone
https://boincstats.com/signature/-1/user/51616339056/sig.png
See https://objectnets.net and https://objectnets.org

On Sep 19, 2019, at 20:44, Richard O'Keefe <[hidden email]> wrote:

On the whole, the new code is pretty good.

There was one thing that troubled me, though:
"even outside of Pharo's public communication channels."
What business is it of the Pharo Board what anyone says in any
other community? I've heard too many cases where A says something
to B and C complains about it as harassment when B didn't mind.
I have personally known people *affectionately* address each other
in terms that most would consider a deadly insult.

My behaviour in all digital media is subject to the
Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. See
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html
which extends the Harassment Act 1997. See
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1997/0092/latest/whole.html
for a definition of harassment.
If I harass anyone according to these Acts, they have a legal remedy.
I understand the the UK and the EU have similar laws.

So I don't understand why the Pharo Board want to extend their reach.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 07:21, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

I’m talking on behalf of the Pharo Board here.
As start, we accepted Serge’s proposition without actually discussing it much because we didn’t think it was going to be really a problem. Our community has been self-regulating since the beginning and we were doing it fine until now. Once or twice we (the board) needed to act, but never had a real situation as the ones the CoC tries to cover.
So, we can say we opened the umbrella without rain, just in case.

Now, after observe the situation, we have decided to retract the code. But sadly, we cannot just remove it and let things continue as before because as it’s know “it you open a can or worms, you will need a bigger can to put them back in”. Which means now we need a code of conduct.

So we are going to take the simplest one we could find that still can serve our community, you can see it here:

https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4660

This PR will be accepted, but as anything in our community, you can still discuss it and propose modifications.
Just remember be respectful of people disagreeing with your ideas :)

Cheers,
Esteban

PS: As personal note: I blocked a github user that insulted a member of our community, a user who did not had history with us (or any other visible project), who did not had a name or ways to contact him so I assumed it was just another troll. Now, he identifies himself here... I will unblock him, but that does not means the kind of disrespectful messages he sent can be sent :)

On 19 Sep 2019, at 19:47, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:

makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
Let's see, I've posted one email to this list describing the dangers
of abusing CoCs

I guess you refer to this one...
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 19:39, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I agree. Technical people are too easy to exploit by malignant manipulators of people.
> All too often they don't even realize it after the fact.

Thats fairly benign and doubt it had anything to do with being blocked on github.

and one post to GitHub describing the motivations of
people who introduce CoCs, and immediately get banned on GitHub from

Note, the board member who blocked your GIthub account and deleted your post there
also voiced their opinion as being...
For me a "welcome and be nice" should be enough to just continue as before.
I find the introduction of CoC was a noise we didn't need,
our community was doing well and self-regulated without problem until now.

So in spite of your implication, I doubt there is anything sinister from the CoC in play here.
Comments such as "makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot."
have been consistently condemned years before thought of a CoC.

I'm getting called a troll and a nobody in public by members of the project,

Its not that you are a "nobody", but actually you were "unknown to us" two days ago.
Maybe you don't know Serge, but we've know him for years and his good work including governance of our GSoC participation
so please consider why such comments from a newcomer may be dealt with as a troll.
Community standards do not maintain themselves: They're maintained by people actively applying them, visibly, in public.

Now personally I'm not going to condemn you on one slip.
I've been told to pull my head in before and they were right - I was venting after a bad day at work. But no one held it against me long.
These nontechnical and emotion-charge debates are infrequent and I hope get a chance to see how things normally run once we are past it.

cheers -ben

jgfoster

Re: Code of Conduct

In reply to this post by Richard O'Keefe

First, my guess is that it was part of the thing they copied and that aspect might not have gotten as much thought as you’ve given it.

Second, this is an international organization and maybe the intent (by the original author(s)) was to extend the reach of the NZ/UK/EU-style laws to apply to those in jurisdictions with less strict speech codes or where the legal remedy is impractical. That is, maybe the author(s) don’t feel it is sufficient to tell someone who is harassed, “We can’t do anything about it. Hire a NZ lawyer.”

These are speculations on my part and, as a US citizen, I’m partial to our free speech protections. I’d prefer to have private organizations practice ostracization rather than have the government put rude people in jail. I say this, not to start a political discussion, but to point out that some harassment that would be illegal in NZ might not have a legal remedy if the actor was a US citizen.

In any case, I found that when I submitted a PR then something happened pretty quickly. So, I’d suggest that you channel your analysis and concerns into a proposed improvement.

James

On Sep 19, 2019, at 8:44 PM, Richard O'Keefe <[hidden email]> wrote:

On the whole, the new code is pretty good.

There was one thing that troubled me, though:
"even outside of Pharo's public communication channels."
What business is it of the Pharo Board what anyone says in any
other community? I've heard too many cases where A says something
to B and C complains about it as harassment when B didn't mind.
I have personally known people *affectionately* address each other
in terms that most would consider a deadly insult.

My behaviour in all digital media is subject to the
Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. See
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html
which extends the Harassment Act 1997. See
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1997/0092/latest/whole.html
for a definition of harassment.
If I harass anyone according to these Acts, they have a legal remedy.
I understand the the UK and the EU have similar laws.

So I don't understand why the Pharo Board want to extend their reach.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 07:21, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

I’m talking on behalf of the Pharo Board here.
As start, we accepted Serge’s proposition without actually discussing it much because we didn’t think it was going to be really a problem. Our community has been self-regulating since the beginning and we were doing it fine until now. Once or twice we (the board) needed to act, but never had a real situation as the ones the CoC tries to cover.
So, we can say we opened the umbrella without rain, just in case.

Now, after observe the situation, we have decided to retract the code. But sadly, we cannot just remove it and let things continue as before because as it’s know “it you open a can or worms, you will need a bigger can to put them back in”. Which means now we need a code of conduct.

So we are going to take the simplest one we could find that still can serve our community, you can see it here:

https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4660

This PR will be accepted, but as anything in our community, you can still discuss it and propose modifications.
Just remember be respectful of people disagreeing with your ideas :)

Cheers,
Esteban

PS: As personal note: I blocked a github user that insulted a member of our community, a user who did not had history with us (or any other visible project), who did not had a name or ways to contact him so I assumed it was just another troll. Now, he identifies himself here... I will unblock him, but that does not means the kind of disrespectful messages he sent can be sent :)

On 19 Sep 2019, at 19:47, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:

makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
Let's see, I've posted one email to this list describing the dangers
of abusing CoCs

I guess you refer to this one...
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 19:39, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I agree. Technical people are too easy to exploit by malignant manipulators of people.
> All too often they don't even realize it after the fact.

Thats fairly benign and doubt it had anything to do with being blocked on github.

and one post to GitHub describing the motivations of
people who introduce CoCs, and immediately get banned on GitHub from

Note, the board member who blocked your GIthub account and deleted your post there
also voiced their opinion as being...
For me a "welcome and be nice" should be enough to just continue as before.
I find the introduction of CoC was a noise we didn't need,
our community was doing well and self-regulated without problem until now.

So in spite of your implication, I doubt there is anything sinister from the CoC in play here.
Comments such as "makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot."
have been consistently condemned years before thought of a CoC.

I'm getting called a troll and a nobody in public by members of the project,

Its not that you are a "nobody", but actually you were "unknown to us" two days ago.
Maybe you don't know Serge, but we've know him for years and his good work including governance of our GSoC participation
so please consider why such comments from a newcomer may be dealt with as a troll.
Community standards do not maintain themselves: They're maintained by people actively applying them, visibly, in public.

Now personally I'm not going to condemn you on one slip.
I've been told to pull my head in before and they were right - I was venting after a bad day at work. But no one held it against me long.
These nontechnical and emotion-charge debates are infrequent and I hope get a chance to see how things normally run once we are past it.

cheers -ben

Steve Quezadas

Re: Code of Conduct

Yeah, I agree, what I say or do outside the Pharo channels is completely my business. this 'code' has no place here. Hell, Richard Stallman got deprived out of his LIFE'S WORK over a technical definition of what constitutes statutory rape, which is silly.

Please remove this nonsense out of the pharo community, it has no place here.

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 9:45 PM James Foster <[hidden email]> wrote:

First, my guess is that it was part of the thing they copied and that aspect might not have gotten as much thought as you’ve given it.

Second, this is an international organization and maybe the intent (by the original author(s)) was to extend the reach of the NZ/UK/EU-style laws to apply to those in jurisdictions with less strict speech codes or where the legal remedy is impractical. That is, maybe the author(s) don’t feel it is sufficient to tell someone who is harassed, “We can’t do anything about it. Hire a NZ lawyer.”

These are speculations on my part and, as a US citizen, I’m partial to our free speech protections. I’d prefer to have private organizations practice ostracization rather than have the government put rude people in jail. I say this, not to start a political discussion, but to point out that some harassment that would be illegal in NZ might not have a legal remedy if the actor was a US citizen.

In any case, I found that when I submitted a PR then something happened pretty quickly. So, I’d suggest that you channel your analysis and concerns into a proposed improvement.

James

On Sep 19, 2019, at 8:44 PM, Richard O'Keefe <[hidden email]> wrote:

On the whole, the new code is pretty good.

There was one thing that troubled me, though:
"even outside of Pharo's public communication channels."
What business is it of the Pharo Board what anyone says in any
other community? I've heard too many cases where A says something
to B and C complains about it as harassment when B didn't mind.
I have personally known people *affectionately* address each other
in terms that most would consider a deadly insult.

My behaviour in all digital media is subject to the
Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. See
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html
which extends the Harassment Act 1997. See
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1997/0092/latest/whole.html
for a definition of harassment.
If I harass anyone according to these Acts, they have a legal remedy.
I understand the the UK and the EU have similar laws.

So I don't understand why the Pharo Board want to extend their reach.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 07:21, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

I’m talking on behalf of the Pharo Board here.
As start, we accepted Serge’s proposition without actually discussing it much because we didn’t think it was going to be really a problem. Our community has been self-regulating since the beginning and we were doing it fine until now. Once or twice we (the board) needed to act, but never had a real situation as the ones the CoC tries to cover.
So, we can say we opened the umbrella without rain, just in case.

Now, after observe the situation, we have decided to retract the code. But sadly, we cannot just remove it and let things continue as before because as it’s know “it you open a can or worms, you will need a bigger can to put them back in”. Which means now we need a code of conduct.

So we are going to take the simplest one we could find that still can serve our community, you can see it here:

https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4660

This PR will be accepted, but as anything in our community, you can still discuss it and propose modifications.
Just remember be respectful of people disagreeing with your ideas :)

Cheers,
Esteban

PS: As personal note: I blocked a github user that insulted a member of our community, a user who did not had history with us (or any other visible project), who did not had a name or ways to contact him so I assumed it was just another troll. Now, he identifies himself here... I will unblock him, but that does not means the kind of disrespectful messages he sent can be sent :)

On 19 Sep 2019, at 19:47, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:

makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
Let's see, I've posted one email to this list describing the dangers
of abusing CoCs

I guess you refer to this one...
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 19:39, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I agree. Technical people are too easy to exploit by malignant manipulators of people.
> All too often they don't even realize it after the fact.

Thats fairly benign and doubt it had anything to do with being blocked on github.

and one post to GitHub describing the motivations of
people who introduce CoCs, and immediately get banned on GitHub from

Note, the board member who blocked your GIthub account and deleted your post there
also voiced their opinion as being...
For me a "welcome and be nice" should be enough to just continue as before.
I find the introduction of CoC was a noise we didn't need,
our community was doing well and self-regulated without problem until now.

So in spite of your implication, I doubt there is anything sinister from the CoC in play here.
Comments such as "makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot."
have been consistently condemned years before thought of a CoC.

I'm getting called a troll and a nobody in public by members of the project,

Its not that you are a "nobody", but actually you were "unknown to us" two days ago.
Maybe you don't know Serge, but we've know him for years and his good work including governance of our GSoC participation
so please consider why such comments from a newcomer may be dealt with as a troll.
Community standards do not maintain themselves: They're maintained by people actively applying them, visibly, in public.

Now personally I'm not going to condemn you on one slip.
I've been told to pull my head in before and they were right - I was venting after a bad day at work. But no one held it against me long.
These nontechnical and emotion-charge debates are infrequent and I hope get a chance to see how things normally run once we are past it.

cheers -ben

NorbertHartl

Re: Code of Conduct

In reply to this post by jgfoster

Am 20.09.2019 um 06:45 schrieb James Foster <[hidden email]>:

First, my guess is that it was part of the thing they copied and that aspect might not have gotten as much thought as you’ve given it.

That is right. I wondered myself about the last part but did not think about it too much.

Second, this is an international organization and maybe the intent (by the original author(s)) was to extend the reach of the NZ/UK/EU-style laws to apply to those in jurisdictions with less strict speech codes or where the legal remedy is impractical. That is, maybe the author(s) don’t feel it is sufficient to tell someone who is harassed, “We can’t do anything about it. Hire a NZ lawyer.”

It doesn’t matter. We are _not_ an international organization that needs to fit in all participating nations laws. We are a community with plenty of nations participating and we are free to define our own culture. Everyone might have additional restrictions how to interpret „free speech“ but that is duty of the particular individual and the laws in the country he/she lives in.

These are speculations on my part and, as a US citizen, I’m partial to our free speech protections. I’d prefer to have private organizations practice ostracization rather than have the government put rude people in jail. I say this, not to start a political discussion, but to point out that some harassment that would be illegal in NZ might not have a legal remedy if the actor was a US citizen.

This part in the text is vague and you acknowledge just that it welcomes speculation about it. In particular people put a lot of their opinion/believe/… into those speculations and I would like to see that minimized in this community. And I really don’t see a benefit having those.

In any case, I found that when I submitted a PR then something happened pretty quickly. So, I’d suggest that you channel your analysis and concerns into a proposed improvement.

It is always good to go pro-active on topics rather than just writing mails and complain. In your case it was more of coincidence. We were discussing that for a longer time and your PR just met our time frame of getting a decision ready.

I will discuss about removing that last part of the text.

Norbert

James

On Sep 19, 2019, at 8:44 PM, Richard O'Keefe <[hidden email]> wrote:

On the whole, the new code is pretty good.

There was one thing that troubled me, though:
"even outside of Pharo's public communication channels."
What business is it of the Pharo Board what anyone says in any
other community? I've heard too many cases where A says something
to B and C complains about it as harassment when B didn't mind.
I have personally known people *affectionately* address each other
in terms that most would consider a deadly insult.

My behaviour in all digital media is subject to the
Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. See
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html
which extends the Harassment Act 1997. See
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1997/0092/latest/whole.html
for a definition of harassment.
If I harass anyone according to these Acts, they have a legal remedy.
I understand the the UK and the EU have similar laws.

So I don't understand why the Pharo Board want to extend their reach.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 07:21, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

I’m talking on behalf of the Pharo Board here.
As start, we accepted Serge’s proposition without actually discussing it much because we didn’t think it was going to be really a problem. Our community has been self-regulating since the beginning and we were doing it fine until now. Once or twice we (the board) needed to act, but never had a real situation as the ones the CoC tries to cover.
So, we can say we opened the umbrella without rain, just in case.

Now, after observe the situation, we have decided to retract the code. But sadly, we cannot just remove it and let things continue as before because as it’s know “it you open a can or worms, you will need a bigger can to put them back in”. Which means now we need a code of conduct.

So we are going to take the simplest one we could find that still can serve our community, you can see it here:

https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4660

This PR will be accepted, but as anything in our community, you can still discuss it and propose modifications.
Just remember be respectful of people disagreeing with your ideas :)

Cheers,
Esteban

PS: As personal note: I blocked a github user that insulted a member of our community, a user who did not had history with us (or any other visible project), who did not had a name or ways to contact him so I assumed it was just another troll. Now, he identifies himself here... I will unblock him, but that does not means the kind of disrespectful messages he sent can be sent :)

On 19 Sep 2019, at 19:47, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:

makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
Let's see, I've posted one email to this list describing the dangers
of abusing CoCs

I guess you refer to this one...
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 19:39, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I agree. Technical people are too easy to exploit by malignant manipulators of people.
> All too often they don't even realize it after the fact.

Thats fairly benign and doubt it had anything to do with being blocked on github.

and one post to GitHub describing the motivations of
people who introduce CoCs, and immediately get banned on GitHub from

Note, the board member who blocked your GIthub account and deleted your post there
also voiced their opinion as being...
For me a "welcome and be nice" should be enough to just continue as before.
I find the introduction of CoC was a noise we didn't need,
our community was doing well and self-regulated without problem until now.

So in spite of your implication, I doubt there is anything sinister from the CoC in play here.
Comments such as "makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot."
have been consistently condemned years before thought of a CoC.

I'm getting called a troll and a nobody in public by members of the project,

Its not that you are a "nobody", but actually you were "unknown to us" two days ago.
Maybe you don't know Serge, but we've know him for years and his good work including governance of our GSoC participation
so please consider why such comments from a newcomer may be dealt with as a troll.
Community standards do not maintain themselves: They're maintained by people actively applying them, visibly, in public.

Now personally I'm not going to condemn you on one slip.
I've been told to pull my head in before and they were right - I was venting after a bad day at work. But no one held it against me long.
These nontechnical and emotion-charge debates are infrequent and I hope get a chance to see how things normally run once we are past it.

cheers -ben

NorbertHartl

Re: Code of Conduct

https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4663

Norbert

Am 20.09.2019 um 08:51 schrieb Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:

Am 20.09.2019 um 06:45 schrieb James Foster <[hidden email]>:

First, my guess is that it was part of the thing they copied and that aspect might not have gotten as much thought as you’ve given it.

That is right. I wondered myself about the last part but did not think about it too much.

Second, this is an international organization and maybe the intent (by the original author(s)) was to extend the reach of the NZ/UK/EU-style laws to apply to those in jurisdictions with less strict speech codes or where the legal remedy is impractical. That is, maybe the author(s) don’t feel it is sufficient to tell someone who is harassed, “We can’t do anything about it. Hire a NZ lawyer.”

It doesn’t matter. We are _not_ an international organization that needs to fit in all participating nations laws. We are a community with plenty of nations participating and we are free to define our own culture. Everyone might have additional restrictions how to interpret „free speech“ but that is duty of the particular individual and the laws in the country he/she lives in.

These are speculations on my part and, as a US citizen, I’m partial to our free speech protections. I’d prefer to have private organizations practice ostracization rather than have the government put rude people in jail. I say this, not to start a political discussion, but to point out that some harassment that would be illegal in NZ might not have a legal remedy if the actor was a US citizen.

This part in the text is vague and you acknowledge just that it welcomes speculation about it. In particular people put a lot of their opinion/believe/… into those speculations and I would like to see that minimized in this community. And I really don’t see a benefit having those.

In any case, I found that when I submitted a PR then something happened pretty quickly. So, I’d suggest that you channel your analysis and concerns into a proposed improvement.

It is always good to go pro-active on topics rather than just writing mails and complain. In your case it was more of coincidence. We were discussing that for a longer time and your PR just met our time frame of getting a decision ready.

I will discuss about removing that last part of the text.

Norbert

James

On Sep 19, 2019, at 8:44 PM, Richard O'Keefe <[hidden email]> wrote:

On the whole, the new code is pretty good.

There was one thing that troubled me, though:
"even outside of Pharo's public communication channels."
What business is it of the Pharo Board what anyone says in any
other community? I've heard too many cases where A says something
to B and C complains about it as harassment when B didn't mind.
I have personally known people *affectionately* address each other
in terms that most would consider a deadly insult.

My behaviour in all digital media is subject to the
Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. See
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html
which extends the Harassment Act 1997. See
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1997/0092/latest/whole.html
for a definition of harassment.
If I harass anyone according to these Acts, they have a legal remedy.
I understand the the UK and the EU have similar laws.

So I don't understand why the Pharo Board want to extend their reach.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 07:21, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

I’m talking on behalf of the Pharo Board here.
As start, we accepted Serge’s proposition without actually discussing it much because we didn’t think it was going to be really a problem. Our community has been self-regulating since the beginning and we were doing it fine until now. Once or twice we (the board) needed to act, but never had a real situation as the ones the CoC tries to cover.
So, we can say we opened the umbrella without rain, just in case.

Now, after observe the situation, we have decided to retract the code. But sadly, we cannot just remove it and let things continue as before because as it’s know “it you open a can or worms, you will need a bigger can to put them back in”. Which means now we need a code of conduct.

So we are going to take the simplest one we could find that still can serve our community, you can see it here:

https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4660

This PR will be accepted, but as anything in our community, you can still discuss it and propose modifications.
Just remember be respectful of people disagreeing with your ideas :)

Cheers,
Esteban

PS: As personal note: I blocked a github user that insulted a member of our community, a user who did not had history with us (or any other visible project), who did not had a name or ways to contact him so I assumed it was just another troll. Now, he identifies himself here... I will unblock him, but that does not means the kind of disrespectful messages he sent can be sent :)

On 19 Sep 2019, at 19:47, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:

makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
Let's see, I've posted one email to this list describing the dangers
of abusing CoCs

I guess you refer to this one...
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 19:39, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I agree. Technical people are too easy to exploit by malignant manipulators of people.
> All too often they don't even realize it after the fact.

Thats fairly benign and doubt it had anything to do with being blocked on github.

and one post to GitHub describing the motivations of
people who introduce CoCs, and immediately get banned on GitHub from

Note, the board member who blocked your GIthub account and deleted your post there
also voiced their opinion as being...
For me a "welcome and be nice" should be enough to just continue as before.
I find the introduction of CoC was a noise we didn't need,
our community was doing well and self-regulated without problem until now.

So in spite of your implication, I doubt there is anything sinister from the CoC in play here.
Comments such as "makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot."
have been consistently condemned years before thought of a CoC.

I'm getting called a troll and a nobody in public by members of the project,

Its not that you are a "nobody", but actually you were "unknown to us" two days ago.
Maybe you don't know Serge, but we've know him for years and his good work including governance of our GSoC participation
so please consider why such comments from a newcomer may be dealt with as a troll.
Community standards do not maintain themselves: They're maintained by people actively applying them, visibly, in public.

Now personally I'm not going to condemn you on one slip.
I've been told to pull my head in before and they were right - I was venting after a bad day at work. But no one held it against me long.
These nontechnical and emotion-charge debates are infrequent and I hope get a chance to see how things normally run once we are past it.

cheers -ben

Torsten Bergmann

Re: Code of Conduct

In reply to this post by EstebanLM

A wish from my side: please spend half of your energy you want to spend on this thread
into fixing bugs or contributing a PR. Thanks!

Bye

EstebanLM

Re: Code of Conduct

On 20 Sep 2019, at 09:55, Torsten Bergmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

A wish from my side: please spend half of your energy you want to spend on this thread
into fixing bugs or contributing a PR. Thanks!

+42 :)

Bye

T.

cedreek

Re: Code of Conduct

Before this thread CoC was actually Clash of Clans for me, it turns out there could be some connections ^_^.

I learned a lot reading this thread and this is really interesting in understanding how communities work (how collaboration works).

I will talk to student about that in a lecture we do about Open Source so thanks !

Still this is a highly touchy topic especially in this period where the world seems… fragile. This seems nevertheless important to have… Ben proposed a version that seems « lighter ». I think we need to KISS on that topic so that the 0.01% percent problem that it adresses doesn’t have any bad side effect as refraining people from being part of the community (at least 2 in the thread).

My 2 cents (going to follow the discussion on GitHub),

Cédrick

Le 20 sept. 2019 à 10:01, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> a écrit :

On 20 Sep 2019, at 09:55, Torsten Bergmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

A wish from my side: please spend half of your energy you want to spend on this thread
into fixing bugs or contributing a PR. Thanks!

+42 :)

Bye

T.

Sven Van Caekenberghe-2

Re: Code of Conduct

In reply to this post by John Pfersich

> On 20 Sep 2019, at 06:17, john pfersich <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I have no interest in supporting a left-wing snowflake “Code of Conduct”.

You are violating the implicit rules of engagement in this mailing list: you are going off topic, you are using this platform to talk about politics and you are giving value judgements about others. Please stop.

Peter Kenny

Re: Code of Conduct

Sven
I think all your complaints against John Pfersich are misconceived:
1. He is talking about the content of the code, which is exactly the topic of the thread.
2. He is claiming that the code as drafted has a political slant. This may be true, false or a matter of opinion, but to discuss whether it is so is not in any way introducing politics.
3. I see nothing in his words which makes a value judgement about anybody.
I see a censoriousness in your comments which is worrying. Just recently you said, 'Guns have no place in a civilised society', which was certainly a value judgement, specifically about John Pfersich. Please stop.

Peter Kenny

-----Original Message-----
From: Pharo-users <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Sven Van Caekenberghe
Sent: 20 September 2019 10:11
To: Any question about pharo is welcome <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct

> On 20 Sep 2019, at 06:17, john pfersich <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I have no interest in supporting a left-wing snowflake “Code of Conduct”.

You are violating the implicit rules of engagement in this mailing list: you are going off topic, you are using this platform to talk about politics and you are giving value judgements about others. Please stop.

Sven Van Caekenberghe-2

Re: Code of Conduct

I carefully worded my reply:

saying "I have no interest in supporting a left-wing snowflake “Code of Conduct”.

- is off topic
- is political
- implies a value judgement

I tried to not reason against it, I am just saying that it has no place here.

> On 20 Sep 2019, at 12:30, PBKResearch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Sven
> I think all your complaints against John Pfersich are misconceived:
> 1. He is talking about the content of the code, which is exactly the topic of the thread.
> 2. He is claiming that the code as drafted has a political slant. This may be true, false or a matter of opinion, but to discuss whether it is so is not in any way introducing politics.
> 3. I see nothing in his words which makes a value judgement about anybody.
> I see a censoriousness in your comments which is worrying. Just recently you said, 'Guns have no place in a civilised society', which was certainly a value judgement, specifically about John Pfersich. Please stop.
>
> Peter Kenny
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pharo-users <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Sven Van Caekenberghe
> Sent: 20 September 2019 10:11
> To: Any question about pharo is welcome <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct
>
>
>
>> On 20 Sep 2019, at 06:17, john pfersich <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I have no interest in supporting a left-wing snowflake “Code of Conduct”.
>
> You are violating the implicit rules of engagement in this mailing list: you are going off topic, you are using this platform to talk about politics and you are giving value judgements about others. Please stop.
>
>

EstebanLM

Re: Code of Conduct

In reply to this post by Peter Kenny

You are wrong.

You can favour or be against a code of conduct.
You can have any judgement about the community and how the community work/should work.
You can leave or you can stay in places that matches 100% or just partially your ideology.

What you cannot do is to bash people because they think differently.

And that phrase was meant to bash an ideology, not to argument against the CoC.

So yes, he is out of place.

> On 20 Sep 2019, at 12:30, PBKResearch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Sven
> I think all your complaints against John Pfersich are misconceived:
> 1. He is talking about the content of the code, which is exactly the topic of the thread.

Yes, and he is insulting the people sustaining it.

> 2. He is claiming that the code as drafted has a political slant. This may be true, false or a matter of opinion, but to discuss whether it is so is not in any way introducing politics.

introducing it as a negative fact is misleading.
Also it was phrased in a way that despise others.

> 3. I see nothing in his words which makes a value judgement about anybody.

Then I recommend you to read again more carefully:
- That wording is an insult to all people that support a leftist vision of the world.
- That wording bashes a position without argument (is bad because is from the left).

> I see a censoriousness in your comments which is worrying. Just recently you said, 'Guns have no place in a civilised society', which was certainly a value judgement, specifically about John Pfersich. Please stop.

Using some older discussion as a way to create arguments into a new discussion is called “fallacy ad hominem” and is not a good way to defend your arguments.
So, I ask you: Please stop.

Esteban

>
> Peter Kenny
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pharo-users <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Sven Van Caekenberghe
> Sent: 20 September 2019 10:11
> To: Any question about pharo is welcome <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct
>
>
>
>> On 20 Sep 2019, at 06:17, john pfersich <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I have no interest in supporting a left-wing snowflake “Code of Conduct”.
>
> You are violating the implicit rules of engagement in this mailing list: you are going off topic, you are using this platform to talk about politics and you are giving value judgements about others. Please stop.
>
>

CyrilFerlicot

Re: Code of Conduct

In reply to this post by EstebanLM

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 9:21 PM Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> I’m talking on behalf of the Pharo Board here.
> As start, we accepted Serge’s proposition without actually discussing it much because we didn’t think it was going to be really a problem. Our community has been self-regulating since the beginning and we were doing it fine until now. Once or twice we (the board) needed to act, but never had a real situation as the ones the CoC tries to cover.
> So, we can say we opened the umbrella without rain, just in case.
>
> Now, after observe the situation, we have decided to retract the code. But sadly, we cannot just remove it and let things continue as before because as it’s know “it you open a can or worms, you will need a bigger can to put them back in”. Which means now we need a code of conduct.
>
> So we are going to take the simplest one we could find that still can serve our community, you can see it here:
>
> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4660
>
> This PR will be accepted, but as anything in our community, you can still discuss it and propose modifications.
> Just remember be respectful of people disagreeing with your ideas :)
>
> Cheers,
> Esteban
>
> PS: As personal note: I blocked a github user that insulted a member of our community, a user who did not had history with us (or any other visible project), who did not had a name or ways to contact him so I assumed it was just another troll. Now, he identifies himself here... I will unblock him, but that does not means the kind of disrespectful messages he sent can be sent :)
>
>

Hi,

Thank you for taking care of this.

I find this CoC better than the previous one but there is one point
that I would like to discuss.

> «removing issues, comments, and PRs or blocking accounts as deemed appropriate.»

I am not sure that removing completly the content is good. I already
saw communities using this as a way of moderating content and it
caused two unwanted consequences:
- The moderators deleted abusivly contents saying it did not respect
the CoC without letting the person explain itself or discuting if if
was a real disrespect of the CoC
- The people getting their post removed used that to act as a martyr
since the proof of their disrespect vanished and since they say they
are victim of censure.

I am the most worried about the second consequence.

I solution adopted by some communities is to remove the messages from
the original source to not promote disrespect, but keep a version in a
"Moderated content" section.

For the Pharo community we could for example have a github repository,
or a folder files.pharo.org or any other public solution called
"Moderated content" were we could save the screens of the removed
comments.
This would act as proof of the disespect and prevent the apparition of martyrs.

What do you think about this?

--
Cyril Ferlicot
https://ferlicot.fr

Steve Quezadas

Re: Code of Conduct

In reply to this post by Sven Van Caekenberghe-2

> That wording is an insult to all people that support a leftist vision of the world.

Or maybe you're too easily offended and the problem lies with you.

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 3:56 AM Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:

I carefully worded my reply:

saying "I have no interest in supporting a left-wing snowflake “Code of Conduct”.

- is off topic
- is political
- implies a value judgement

I tried to not reason against it, I am just saying that it has no place here.

> On 20 Sep 2019, at 12:30, PBKResearch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Sven
> I think all your complaints against John Pfersich are misconceived:
> 1. He is talking about the content of the code, which is exactly the topic of the thread.
> 2. He is claiming that the code as drafted has a political slant. This may be true, false or a matter of opinion, but to discuss whether it is so is not in any way introducing politics.
> 3. I see nothing in his words which makes a value judgement about anybody.
> I see a censoriousness in your comments which is worrying. Just recently you said, 'Guns have no place in a civilised society', which was certainly a value judgement, specifically about John Pfersich. Please stop.
>
> Peter Kenny
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pharo-users <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Sven Van Caekenberghe
> Sent: 20 September 2019 10:11
> To: Any question about pharo is welcome <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct
>
>
>
>> On 20 Sep 2019, at 06:17, john pfersich <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I have no interest in supporting a left-wing snowflake “Code of Conduct”.
>
> You are violating the implicit rules of engagement in this mailing list: you are going off topic, you are using this platform to talk about politics and you are giving value judgements about others. Please stop.
>
>

Ramon Leon-5

Re: Code of Conduct

On 2019-09-20 7:44 a.m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
> Or maybe you're too easily offended and the problem lies with you.

It's fairly obvious now, the Pharo leadership is occupied by left wing progressives who are intent on bringing identity politics into the community. While the new CoC is vastly better in its current state, it still insists one the left wing political ideology of respecting people's chosen identities as if that has any bearing at all on anything.

* One's identity is not relevant in a technical forum.
* One's code is not better because of one's identity.
* One's arguments are not more sound because of one's identity.
* Ones point of view are not more important because of one's identity.

Any calls to respect someone's identity are thinly veiled attempts to impose objectionable left wing political language onto the community. I don't care how anyone identifies, but I'm under no obligation to play along and it is not disrespectful to disagree with these political beliefs. The maintenance of ones identity and self image is theirs to worry about, I have no obligation to support the maintenance of someone else's ego. You can identify as a pink unicorn for all I care, but no I do not have to respect that or play along. Nor will I.

I'm saying this here because the pull request to remove the word identity was rejected without explanation, discussion, or comment. Progressives seem intent on ruining everything.

--
Ramón León

123456