Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Users

Stream >> <<

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

109 messages Options

123456

Ben Coman

Re: Code of Conduct

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 01:35, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

Its all too easy for threads to drag out tit for tat.

I'd be impressed to see who can take the high road to wrap this up.

btw, you know why my wife always gets the last word in an argument?

Because the next thing I say is the start of a new argument.

It's fairly obvious now, the Pharo leadership is occupied by left wing progressives who are intent on bringing identity politics into the community.

Thats not the impression I get, otherwise the full Contributor Covenant would still be being rammed down your throat.

The impression I get is that its easy to think the full CC is a good thing without being aware of its negative perceptions and consequences.

The original PR seems to have been accepted on that basis (and maybe even submitted on that basis)

The board seems to have now taken account of opposing viewpoints and determined a middle path.

That seems far from being a left wing progressive.

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.

In a broad community like ours there will always be diverse opinions. Often the only way forward is compromise.

If you are not compromising, then you are dictating, and there is no place for that on non-technical topics.

A good compromise is sometimes said to be when opposing parties are **equally** dissatisfied.

So if you are remain dissatisfied with the current simplified Code of Conduct,

please balance how dissatisfied your nemesis would be with the result.

Any calls to respect someone's identity are thinly veiled attempts to impose objectionable left wing political language onto the community.

That feels to me like an extreme interpretation.

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.

Agreed, except contending the Pharo leadership are left wing progressives and "progressives a ruining everything" is getting close...

I'm saying this here because the pull request to remove the word identity was rejected without explanation, discussion, or comment.

...when I'd guess it was more likely:

* they feel what they now have is a sufficiently good compromise

* the term "identity" didn't carry the same weight with them so the PR seemed frivolous

* want to back to real work quick as possible

* felt under no obligation to play along with every extreme viewpoint (your viewpoint is valid for you, but is at the other extreme from progressives)

That said, some comment would have helped

Overall I believe the board did a good job determining a middle path and want to thank them for their decisive action.

I will finish by saying, going forward I hope we don't have a hair trigger sensitivity against the odd slip.

That has its own consequence in not being welcoming of diverse people.

We're not robots and its hard to be completely mindful all the time. Its more about pattern of behaviour.

Also, if you do slip and are called out on something, take a moment to consider that others may have personal experience that makes them sensitivite.

So when someone's toes are stepped on, its okay for them to say "Ow" and then both parties leave it at that.

Lets get back to work.

cheers -ben

Ramon Leon-5

Re: Code of Conduct

On 2019-09-20 12:33 p.m., Ben Coman wrote:

A fair response Ben.

> A good compromise is sometimes said to be when opposing parties are> **equally** dissatisfied.

The new version is much better, I believe I said that. James and Norbert made some final and excellent changes that mostly fixed what was wrong and removed the overreach and the lack of due process.

> That feels to me like an extreme interpretation.

It's not, identity politics are left wing politics and putting them in the CoC is absolutely imposing them on the community. I guess we'll see how it goes.

--
Ramón León

Steve Quezadas

Re: Code of Conduct

I think the "covenant" should be a single line: "keep the subject matter on pharo, anything else is off-topic".

This list should be politically neutral. I personally hate politics because neither side ever gets the other side to "see the light". It's a religous argument basically. The problem is is that people tend to believe whatever everyone else believes in their particular culture/time and you get this militant ideology based out of it. And that's fine and dandy, but it has no place here. The reason I come here is of the helpful community full of bright programmers who are using the right paradigms of thought.

- Steve

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 2:59 PM Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 2019-09-20 12:33 p.m., Ben Coman wrote:

A fair response Ben.

> A good compromise is sometimes said to be when opposing parties are> **equally** dissatisfied.

The new version is much better, I believe I said that. James and Norbert made some final and excellent changes that mostly fixed what was wrong and removed the overreach and the lack of due process.

> That feels to me like an extreme interpretation.

It's not, identity politics are left wing politics and putting them in the CoC is absolutely imposing them on the community. I guess we'll see how it goes.

--
Ramón León

Ramon Leon-5

Re: Code of Conduct

On 2019-09-20 3:03 p.m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
> I think the "covenant" should be a single line: "keep the subject matter on
> pharo, anything else is off-topic".
>
> This list should be politically neutral.

I agree. The leadership apparently does not, left wing social justice identity politics is now embedded into the community rules. Guess we'll see what happens when outsiders start trying to use it to cancel people as is happening just about everywhere these CoC's are introduced.

--
Ramón León

Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas-2

Re: Code of Conduct

In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5

Hi,

For me is kind of curious how all this discussion on the Code of Conduct
has showed some hidden assumptions. For example, it seems that having
one and mentioning identity in it shows from a left wing progressive
agenda, but not having any or not talking about identity doesn't show
a... "right wing regressive agenda", is just normal. Also the hidden
agendas when identity is mentioned are for the Pharo Community, no for
the ACM or hundreds of technical communities out there that exist
decades ago and even have the word "identity" before the times when
there is a direct causal relation between such world and hidden agendas.

Technology and code exist "ex nihilo", without any context to be
considered. I would like that the immigration guards think the same, any
time I go to a technical conference and I almost always get the totally
random and "lucky" extra line because my Colombian password and the
eventual "joke" about Pablo Escobar from some people at immigration.
Fortunately my code talks for me because is just a technical community
meeting in another country and this extra immigration time and paperwork
is just in my imagination in this neutral and apolitical world where
technology is developed. Ohh and funding and free time for development,
is so not related on where are you located. Ethnicity is just a happy
accident that has no relation with identity.

After my argumentation by counter example, is good to see that some
other people is willing to compromise, and think outside their own
(privileged?) position. I don't want my code to be accepted because of
my passport, but I don't think neither that code exists ex nihilo, as
experience have showed me how context influences the time/resources I
can put behind my code and participation in community spaces.

I think that a community that recognizes diversity and is willing to
compromise is being showed in the CoC construction process: I like the
way the original punitive tone was replaced with a specific suggestion
giving opportunity for both sides, how this was taken into account by
the board and the feedback was constructive in the PR and its acceptance.

Cheers,

Offray

On 20/09/19 12:34 p. m., Ramon Leon wrote:

> 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.
>

Steve Quezadas

Re: Code of Conduct

In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5

FYI, Richard Stallman got "cancelled" out of his life's work because some silly side-comment trigged some "woke" individual out there. In the real world, covenants are often used as an excuse to silence someone with an implicit threat because he said something that someone didn't want to hear, whatever that may be.

This list was fine without it, we don't have any problems, just replace it with "keep the subject matter on pharo, anything else is off-topic"

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 3:11 PM Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 2019-09-20 3:03 p.m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
> I think the "covenant" should be a single line: "keep the subject matter on
> pharo, anything else is off-topic".
>
> This list should be politically neutral.

I agree. The leadership apparently does not, left wing social justice identity politics is now embedded into the community rules. Guess we'll see what happens when outsiders start trying to use it to cancel people as is happening just about everywhere these CoC's are introduced.

--
Ramón León

HilaireFernandes

Re: Code of Conduct

In reply to this post by EstebanLM

Le 19/09/2019 à 21:20, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :
>
> 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
>
Hello,

Given the heat up on the ml, I took a look on the PR. It looks honest
and simple for but...

...I am really surprised -- worried will be more accurate ! -- by the
second part of this sentence[1]. I think it is even dangerous! What is
happening outside of the Pharo community should not be ruled by the
'WE'. The 'WE' is not the universal moral police or justice. If you
think a bit about the Richard Stallman event, he was forced to withdraw
of the Free Software Foundation because comments he made in a mailing
list not related to FSF. He wrote his email contents were misinterpreted
(and we know it happens often) and used against him. Whatever it is true
or not, I don't see why you should be socially banned (or socially
killed) from one place (or more like all place) because of what happen
in another place. This kind of important decision can only be taken by
the justice where all matter are taken in consideration. Imagine one of
you kicked out of Pharo community because you loose your mind in another
channel? It makes me feel a bit like the Aldous Huxley world.

[1] /We will not tolerate harassment from anyone in the Pharo community,
even outside of Pharo’s public communication channels./

Hilaire

--
Dr. Geo
http://drgeo.eu

http://drgeo.eu

Stephan Eggermont-3

Re: Code of Conduct

In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5

Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> It's not, identity politics are left wing politics

That requires using a definition of left wing politics where neo-nazis and
alt-right are left wing. That definition is not common here in Western
Europe.

I’m happy for you and that you have enough privilege that you can afford to
ignore politics.

Stephan

jgfoster

Re: Code of Conduct

In reply to this post by HilaireFernandes

A nice thing about open source and the use of Git is that changes can be proposed and adopted quickly. Any proposal should be judged, not on whether it is perfect, but whether it makes an improvement. As a corollary, don’t assume that the current state is the ideal, but treat it as a platform for continuous improvements.

In this case, the phrase you objected to was removed before you made your comment.

James

> On Sep 20, 2019, at 11:43 PM, Hilaire <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Le 19/09/2019 à 21:20, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :
>>
>> 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
>>
> Hello,
>
> Given the heat up on the ml, I took a look on the PR. It looks honest
> and simple for but...
>
> ...I am really surprised -- worried will be more accurate ! -- by the
> second part of this sentence[1]. I think it is even dangerous! What is
> happening outside of the Pharo community should not be ruled by the
> 'WE'. The 'WE' is not the universal moral police or justice. If you
> think a bit about the Richard Stallman event, he was forced to withdraw
> of the Free Software Foundation because comments he made in a mailing
> list not related to FSF. He wrote his email contents were misinterpreted
> (and we know it happens often) and used against him. Whatever it is true
> or not, I don't see why you should be socially banned (or socially
> killed) from one place (or more like all place) because of what happen
> in another place. This kind of important decision can only be taken by
> the justice where all matter are taken in consideration. Imagine one of
> you kicked out of Pharo community because you loose your mind in another
> channel? It makes me feel a bit like the Aldous Huxley world.
>
> [1] /We will not tolerate harassment from anyone in the Pharo community,
> even outside of Pharo’s public communication channels./
>
> Hilaire
>
> --
> Dr. Geo
> http://drgeo.eu
>
>
>
>

Steve Quezadas

Re: Code of Conduct

My issue is that this covenant is selectively applied to some things, but not others. The wording might change, but the cultural attitude will prevail on how it gets "enforced". Again, the best thing to do is simply keep it neutral and anything not related to pharo get thrown out as "off-topic".

Harassment has never been a problem with this list. And any talk about the danger of "nazis" or "thugs" is irrelevent and should be thrown out. I, for one, don't want to see it on this list.

On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:36 AM James Foster <[hidden email]> wrote:

A nice thing about open source and the use of Git is that changes can be proposed and adopted quickly. Any proposal should be judged, not on whether it is perfect, but whether it makes an improvement. As a corollary, don’t assume that the current state is the ideal, but treat it as a platform for continuous improvements.

In this case, the phrase you objected to was removed before you made your comment.

James

> On Sep 20, 2019, at 11:43 PM, Hilaire <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Le 19/09/2019 à 21:20, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :
>>
>> 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
>>
> Hello,
>
> Given the heat up on the ml, I took a look on the PR. It looks honest
> and simple for but...
>
> ...I am really surprised -- worried will be more accurate ! -- by the
> second part of this sentence[1]. I think it is even dangerous! What is
> happening outside of the Pharo community should not be ruled by the
> 'WE'. The 'WE' is not the universal moral police or justice. If you
> think a bit about the Richard Stallman event, he was forced to withdraw
> of the Free Software Foundation because comments he made in a mailing
> list not related to FSF. He wrote his email contents were misinterpreted
> (and we know it happens often) and used against him. Whatever it is true
> or not, I don't see why you should be socially banned (or socially
> killed) from one place (or more like all place) because of what happen
> in another place. This kind of important decision can only be taken by
> the justice where all matter are taken in consideration. Imagine one of
> you kicked out of Pharo community because you loose your mind in another
> channel? It makes me feel a bit like the Aldous Huxley world.
>
> [1] /We will not tolerate harassment from anyone in the Pharo community,
> even outside of Pharo’s public communication channels./
>
> Hilaire
>
> --
> Dr. Geo
> http://drgeo.eu
>
>
>
>

Jerry Kott-3

Re: Code of Conduct

Just… WOW.

I’ve been fighting the urge to add my two cents to the discussion, but didn’t feel ‘qualified’ - I’ve been just lurking here, both on the mailing list and this topic. I haven’t contributed to Pharo (yet), but any discussion that involves freedom of expression (which this is I believe) naturally piques my interest.

I only read the Code of Conduct version as of today, and while on surface it’s not that controversial (any longer), if I had any say in the subject, I would vote against any form or shape of it. Many have expressed their reasons, here are just some of mine:

The wording can change at any time (as we have seen over last couple of weeks), without any real accountability of the CoC authors/editors to the community. That alone should be a red flag. I have a somewhat remotely related example of that: In 1948, a single added sentence in the Constitution of my country changed it from a fledgling democracy to a brutal dictatorship that lasted forty years. ‘Foundational documents’ are extremely difficult to get right - whatever ‘right’ means.
Almost every CoC I have seen in recent times, in communities online and in the real world, reminds me this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Code_of_the_Builder_of_Communism . Read the twelve rules. Shivers run up my spine when I see the similarities between that and modern Code of Conduct wordings. This was displayed in schools and other public building when I was growing up. Nobody I knew followed it, but it could be used arbitrarily to mark people as ‘enemies’ and discriminate against them - the very antithesis of tolerance and inclusivity.
(I repeat what others said) This is a predominantly technical forum, albeit with some creative aspects. I borrow a phrase here: ‘Any good idea withstands scrutiny’. Knowing that should be enough of an incentive to be thoughtful and respectful. That doesn’t mean you can’t fight for your idea (on the contrary), and fighting sometimes requires some strong words. Get over it. Life’s not ‘easy’, ’safe’, or ‘fair’.
I don’t see a problem on this list (or even in the wider Pharo/Smalltalk community) that needs solving or gets solved by a CoC. Why waste our energy on something that is not a problem?

If everything else got half of attention as this topic, wouldn’t that be awesome? Ultimately this is about human behviour, and as we know, that’s always the hardest thing to change/influence in any field. Speaking of which:

How is that security stuff coming along, Pharo community? Two years in the row my ESUG presentations included screenshots of a Pharo-backed web site, pointing out how insecure the site is. Details have been blurred to protect the site, but anyone who does Pharo/Seaside work should be alerted if they paid attention. I know that the maintainers of the site were in the audience, and I am amazed that they have not checked their site to see if they have some work to do to address the vulnerabilities. Note: this is not unique to Pharo. It’s a simple change in behaviour that should have happened, but it has not.

The point here is: as a community, Pharo (and other Smalltalk groups) has a lot of work to do. Code of Conduct is an unnecessary and wasteful distraction. In the meantime, I see no discussions here about how are we going to address the world-wide crisis of Privacy Erosion, or how to establish ethical coding best practices. How can we ensure that information collected as a result of our work remains confidential and secure where needed, and is used ethically for the betterment of the planet and the human race?

I don't give a rat’s ass about following a community Code of Conduct if it silences what I or others have to say in public, while our most private, personal data is harvested left and right by unscrupulous geeks in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. That’s a problem we should be trying to solve.

There. Stepping down from the soap box.

Happy Autumnal Equinox, everyone!

Jerry Kott

This message has been digitally signed.

PGP Fingerprint:

A9181736DD2F1B6CC7CF9E51AC8514F48C0979A5

On 21-09-2019, at 9:51 AM, Steve Quezadas <[hidden email]> wrote:

My issue is that this covenant is selectively applied to some things, but not others. The wording might change, but the cultural attitude will prevail on how it gets "enforced". Again, the best thing to do is simply keep it neutral and anything not related to pharo get thrown out as "off-topic".

Harassment has never been a problem with this list. And any talk about the danger of "nazis" or "thugs" is irrelevent and should be thrown out. I, for one, don't want to see it on this list.

On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:36 AM James Foster <[hidden email]> wrote:
A nice thing about open source and the use of Git is that changes can be proposed and adopted quickly. Any proposal should be judged, not on whether it is perfect, but whether it makes an improvement. As a corollary, don’t assume that the current state is the ideal, but treat it as a platform for continuous improvements.

In this case, the phrase you objected to was removed before you made your comment.

James

> On Sep 20, 2019, at 11:43 PM, Hilaire <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Le 19/09/2019 à 21:20, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :
>>
>> 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
>>
> Hello,
>
> Given the heat up on the ml, I took a look on the PR. It looks honest
> and simple for but...
>
> ...I am really surprised -- worried will be more accurate ! -- by the
> second part of this sentence[1]. I think it is even dangerous! What is
> happening outside of the Pharo community should not be ruled by the
> 'WE'. The 'WE' is not the universal moral police or justice. If you
> think a bit about the Richard Stallman event, he was forced to withdraw
> of the Free Software Foundation because comments he made in a mailing
> list not related to FSF. He wrote his email contents were misinterpreted
> (and we know it happens often) and used against him. Whatever it is true
> or not, I don't see why you should be socially banned (or socially
> killed) from one place (or more like all place) because of what happen
> in another place. This kind of important decision can only be taken by
> the justice where all matter are taken in consideration. Imagine one of
> you kicked out of Pharo community because you loose your mind in another
> channel? It makes me feel a bit like the Aldous Huxley world.
>
> [1] /We will not tolerate harassment from anyone in the Pharo community,
> even outside of Pharo’s public communication channels./
>
> Hilaire
>
> --
> Dr. Geo
> http://drgeo.eu
>
>
>
>

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment

Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas-2

Re: Code of Conduct

Hi,

On 21/09/19 11:38 p. m., Jerry Kott wrote:

> The point here is: as a community, Pharo (and other Smalltalk groups)
> has a lot of work to do. Code of Conduct is an unnecessary and
> wasteful distraction. In the meantime, I see no discussions here about
> how are we going to address the world-wide crisis of Privacy Erosion,
> or how to establish ethical coding best practices. How can we ensure
> that information collected as a result of our work remains
> confidential and secure where needed, and is used ethically for the
> betterment of the planet and the human race?
>
> [...]
>
> Happy Autumnal Equinox, everyone!

The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many and
the ones who think so, should be leading by not being distracted with
long threads and emails, and also showing how to start and continue the
discussions and projects on the topics they care about here and in the
repositories. I, for example, have a concern about data and privacy and
the way it influences our vision and shape of the world. Maybe we can
share some interest and projects on that front.

Here, we don't have proper seasons, but I wish everyone interesting and
insightful times where ever you are.

Cheers,

Offray

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment

Steve Quezadas

Re: Code of Conduct

> The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many

Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to many".

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 10:12 AM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

On 21/09/19 11:38 p. m., Jerry Kott wrote:
> The point here is: as a community, Pharo (and other Smalltalk groups)
> has a lot of work to do. Code of Conduct is an unnecessary and
> wasteful distraction. In the meantime, I see no discussions here about
> how are we going to address the world-wide crisis of Privacy Erosion,
> or how to establish ethical coding best practices. How can we ensure
> that information collected as a result of our work remains
> confidential and secure where needed, and is used ethically for the
> betterment of the planet and the human race?
>
> [...]
>
> Happy Autumnal Equinox, everyone!

The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many and
the ones who think so, should be leading by not being distracted with
long threads and emails, and also showing how to start and continue the
discussions and projects on the topics they care about here and in the
repositories. I, for example, have a concern about data and privacy and
the way it influences our vision and shape of the world. Maybe we can
share some interest and projects on that front.

Here, we don't have proper seasons, but I wish everyone interesting and
insightful times where ever you are.

Cheers,

Offray

Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas-2

Re: Code of Conduct

On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
> > The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many
>
> Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to many".

Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others
don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on
that and invest time and effort accordingly.

Cheers,

Offray

Steve Quezadas

Re: Code of Conduct

I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This should be a democracy.

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
> > The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many
>
> Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to many".

Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others
don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on
that and invest time and effort accordingly.

Cheers,

Offray

Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas-2

Re: Code of Conduct

There is no data to support such supposed majority. But even so, free, libre, open source communities are not democracies. Imagine the quality of code or argumentation based on perceived majorities? If science would be a democracy, the earth would be "still" flat.

On 22/09/19 6:04 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:

I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This should be a democracy.

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
> > The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many
>
> Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to many".

Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others
don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on
that and invest time and effort accordingly.

Cheers,

Offray

Steve Quezadas

Re: Code of Conduct

This isn't science, this is a community. We don't need a CoC, there haven't been any problems on this list regarding nazis or whatever. This is just a group of people trying to enforce their political ideologies on everyone else. Let's just remove the CoC altogether and just replace it with one line: "this maillist is about Pharo, anything else is offtopic".

If you want to debate on the merits of Islam vs Christianity/ right vs left / thugs vs racists , you are free to hold your opinion on some other sub, but it's offtopic here.

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:

There is no data to support such supposed majority. But even so, free, libre, open source communities are not democracies. Imagine the quality of code or argumentation based on perceived majorities? If science would be a democracy, the earth would be "still" flat.

On 22/09/19 6:04 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:

I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This should be a democracy.

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
> > The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many
>
> Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to many".

Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others
don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on
that and invest time and effort accordingly.

Cheers,

Offray

Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas-2

Re: Code of Conduct

My point was that this community, as a the big majority of FLOSS ones, is not a democracy and *not* having a democracy has shown its benefits in human endeavors like science, technology, hackerspaces and so on.

I'll keep the rest of the conversation with you on the source code repository and the PR. See you there.

On 22/09/19 6:40 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:

This isn't science, this is a community. We don't need a CoC, there haven't been any problems on this list regarding nazis or whatever. This is just a group of people trying to enforce their political ideologies on everyone else. Let's just remove the CoC altogether and just replace it with one line: "this maillist is about Pharo, anything else is offtopic".

If you want to debate on the merits of Islam vs Christianity/ right vs left / thugs vs racists , you are free to hold your opinion on some other sub, but it's offtopic here.

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:

There is no data to support such supposed majority. But even so, free, libre, open source communities are not democracies. Imagine the quality of code or argumentation based on perceived majorities? If science would be a democracy, the earth would be "still" flat.

On 22/09/19 6:04 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:

I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This should be a democracy.

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
> > The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many
>
> Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to many".

Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others
don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on
that and invest time and effort accordingly.

Cheers,

Offray

Richard O'Keefe

Re: Code of Conduct

This is not a question of left vs right. It's a question of
authoritarian vs libertarian.
And this is very relevant to the community.
It's also not a question of democracy vs central authority.
It's a question of vs παρρησία vs goodspeak.
And this is very relevant to the community also.

Pharo is "owned" by the people who do the bulk of the work on it,
and they are kind enough to share it with us. That there is such a
thing as a *Pharo* community is the result of their work.

That there is such a thing as a Pharo *community* depends on the ability of
that community to communicate freely. This cuts BOTH ways. If people are
scared off by incivility, that's bad. If people are driven away by incivility,
that's bad. But when you stop seeing rudeness as rudeness, which may be
amended, and start seeing it as crimethink, you drive people away, and that
is bad too.

Let's consider a recent thread. I took the position that << and putOn: were
confusing, unreliable, and unnecessary. The unreliability issue has been
addressed in Pharo 8; had I not been able to speak I would never have learned
that. Some people apparently think that it improves readability, where I find
that << impairs my ability to understand. The fact that BOTH sides were able
to speak freely means that we now know (a) that there is no consensus for
removing them from the system and (b) if you want other people to read your
code you might want to think twice before using them, and we are all better off.
But if criticising someone's opinion were construed as harassment, the thread
would have been shut down before I displayed my code with a generalisation
that is worth having if << is worth having at all.

I probably should have mentioned the Erlang code of conduct
http://erlang.org/download/erlang_org_code_of_conduct.txt
It is pretty a-political, has graduated response, and potential for forgiveness.

A code of conduct for *events* is another matter, which is why I bring
Erlang up.
http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2015-March/083849.html
is eye-opening. (It's mainly about Ruby community issues.)

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 11:51, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> My point was that this community, as a the big majority of FLOSS ones, is not a democracy and *not* having a democracy has shown its benefits in human endeavors like science, technology, hackerspaces and so on.
>
> I'll keep the rest of the conversation with you on the source code repository and the PR. See you there.
>
>
> On 22/09/19 6:40 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
>
> This isn't science, this is a community. We don't need a CoC, there haven't been any problems on this list regarding nazis or whatever. This is just a group of people trying to enforce their political ideologies on everyone else. Let's just remove the CoC altogether and just replace it with one line: "this maillist is about Pharo, anything else is offtopic".
>
> If you want to debate on the merits of Islam vs Christianity/ right vs left / thugs vs racists , you are free to hold your opinion on some other sub, but it's offtopic here.
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> There is no data to support such supposed majority. But even so, free, libre, open source communities are not democracies. Imagine the quality of code or argumentation based on perceived majorities? If science would be a democracy, the earth would be "still" flat.
>>
>> On 22/09/19 6:04 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
>>
>> I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This should be a democracy.
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
>>> > > The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many
>>> >
>>> > Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to many".
>>>
>>> Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others
>>> don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on
>>> that and invest time and effort accordingly.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Offray
>>>
>>>
>>>

Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas-2

Re: Code of Conduct

I agreed that the last decision should be on the ones who made the bulk
of the work. But I don't see relationship between a code of conduct and
not being able to talk about code or contributions quality. Just looking
at the FAQ of the original CoC that originated the whole think, I see a
lot of answers about the stuff being said on this thread (minorities,
left wing progressive agenda, diminish of code quality because of it,
mixing tech with non-tech stuff), so I will refer to it, because as I
said, I think that the PR should be the place for the bulk of the
discussion:

https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq

The FAQ name goes pretty well, considering the amount of repeated
arguments they deal with. I think that many of the FAQ apply for other
CoCs, despite of the possible different nature of CoC for the online
community and the CoC for other face to face events. BTW, Thanks for the
links, both provide a better context for the emergence of the CoC in the
Erlang community.

As said, I will try to see for specific contributions in the
correspondent PR in the repo, and made some if I have a one. For the
moment I'm trying to make my contributions on this thread, but is taking
a lot.

Cheers,

Offray

On 22/09/19 7:40 p. m., Richard O'Keefe wrote:

> This is not a question of left vs right. It's a question of
> authoritarian vs libertarian.
> And this is very relevant to the community.
> It's also not a question of democracy vs central authority.
> It's a question of vs παρρησία vs goodspeak.
> And this is very relevant to the community also.
>
> Pharo is "owned" by the people who do the bulk of the work on it,
> and they are kind enough to share it with us. That there is such a
> thing as a *Pharo* community is the result of their work.
>
> That there is such a thing as a Pharo *community* depends on the ability of
> that community to communicate freely. This cuts BOTH ways. If people are
> scared off by incivility, that's bad. If people are driven away by incivility,
> that's bad. But when you stop seeing rudeness as rudeness, which may be
> amended, and start seeing it as crimethink, you drive people away, and that
> is bad too.
>
> Let's consider a recent thread. I took the position that << and putOn: were
> confusing, unreliable, and unnecessary. The unreliability issue has been
> addressed in Pharo 8; had I not been able to speak I would never have learned
> that. Some people apparently think that it improves readability, where I find
> that << impairs my ability to understand. The fact that BOTH sides were able
> to speak freely means that we now know (a) that there is no consensus for
> removing them from the system and (b) if you want other people to read your
> code you might want to think twice before using them, and we are all better off.
> But if criticising someone's opinion were construed as harassment, the thread
> would have been shut down before I displayed my code with a generalisation
> that is worth having if << is worth having at all.
>
> I probably should have mentioned the Erlang code of conduct
> http://erlang.org/download/erlang_org_code_of_conduct.txt
> It is pretty a-political, has graduated response, and potential for forgiveness.
>
> A code of conduct for *events* is another matter, which is why I bring
> Erlang up.
> http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2015-March/083849.html
> is eye-opening. (It's mainly about Ruby community issues.)
>
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 11:51, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> My point was that this community, as a the big majority of FLOSS ones, is not a democracy and *not* having a democracy has shown its benefits in human endeavors like science, technology, hackerspaces and so on.
>>
>> I'll keep the rest of the conversation with you on the source code repository and the PR. See you there.
>>
>>
>> On 22/09/19 6:40 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
>>
>> This isn't science, this is a community. We don't need a CoC, there haven't been any problems on this list regarding nazis or whatever. This is just a group of people trying to enforce their political ideologies on everyone else. Let's just remove the CoC altogether and just replace it with one line: "this maillist is about Pharo, anything else is offtopic".
>>
>> If you want to debate on the merits of Islam vs Christianity/ right vs left / thugs vs racists , you are free to hold your opinion on some other sub, but it's offtopic here.
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> There is no data to support such supposed majority. But even so, free, libre, open source communities are not democracies. Imagine the quality of code or argumentation based on perceived majorities? If science would be a democracy, the earth would be "still" flat.
>>>
>>> On 22/09/19 6:04 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
>>>
>>> I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This should be a democracy.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
>>>>>> The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many
>>>>> Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to many".
>>>> Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others
>>>> don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on
>>>> that and invest time and effort accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Offray
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>

123456