5 ms·

I know most of the people involved in this and it's just a shit sandwich. Randi wanted a person crucified, that's not how companies and foundations function, a

by kev009 11y ago

I know most of the people involved in this and it's just a shit sandwich. Randi wanted a person crucified, that's not how companies and foundations function, and thankfully so. I hope she finds success in new endeavors and am sad she had to leave under gross circumstance.

dietrichepp 11y ago
"Randi wanted a person crucified…" I didn't see that in the article, could you point us to that information?
- andallas 11y ago
  I agree with you, but I think they were talking about past events maybe? Their is a history between FreeBSDGirl and the roosh guy. (By history, I mean going back and forth online, not a personal history).
  - freebsdgirl 11y ago
    Citation needed. I've never talked to him (or, for that matter, the person that said they know all the parties involved).
    - andallas 11y ago
      That's a nice trap there. If I don't mention anything, you'll claim (or at least there will be a tacit implication) that you've "won" any argument here. However if I do provide sources (articles written by you and/or rooshv), tweets, whatever, then there is the implication I'm "stalking" you or him. I'd rather not get involved in any such drama. To be clear, by history I meant that the two of you have both written/talked/tweeted about each other (in generally negative ways). My intent there was to agree with the person who commented about how this whole situation is a "shit sandwich".
    - kev009 11y ago
      s/all/most. I'm not notable and am much newer than you to the community.
      - freebsdgirl 11y ago
        If you aren't a part of FreeBSD core or the FreeBSD Foundation, then you don't know much about what's been happening at all. They haven't released any information about this publicly, and it wasn't talked about much at all on the core reports.
- geofft 11y ago
  "Crucified" is an obvious exaggeration, but the article does contain "Last, I wanted this developer removed from the project and the IRC channel." I don't know anything about what happened here more than what's public, but it's totally imaginable to me that if you make that an ultimatum, and the project leadership hasn't given itself a reasonable way to do that, it's difficult for them to respond usefully. Maybe the lesson here is that good projects should give their leadership the explicit ability and the political authority to do that, including for forums like IRC. There are many examples of projects / communities that are wonderful places until things go wrong. (This is, essentially, the argument for having a written code of conduct even though nobody would be violating it.)
  - dietrichepp 11y ago
    I'm sorry, but this post (yours) and the original post (kev009's) seem like unreasonable exaggerations. Emphasis on the "unreasonable". Unreasonable exaggerations of other people's viewpoints fosters low-quality discussion, which is why I don't like it. Banning is a common response to harassment. Hacker News uses it, we even have multiple types of banning, including the shadowban and hellban. We know that "crucifixion" is hyperbolical language, and we can ordinarily forgive someone for being hyperbolical, but in this case it's simply an unreasonable exaggeration. The same applies to your use of the term "ultimatum". That's an unreasonable exaggeration. It depicts the contents of the original article inaccurately. She detailed no consequences nor threatened retaliation in her request that a user be banned. You can call it a "demand" instead of a "request", but "ultimatum" is simply incorrect. Honestly, I can understand and relate to both her request and the core developers' response, but I'm not convinced that a code of conduct is a prerequisite for banning abusive community members. Explicit political authority is great, but we shouldn't be automatically afraid to use implicit political authority.
    - geofft 11y ago
      Yeah, "ultimatum" is a somewhat strong word. I do want to be clear that I don't mean that it was in any way an ridiculous request/demand/ultimatum: expelling them from the community would in my opinion have been the right thing to do, and in my opinion is an entirely fair thing to insist on and not be willing to compromise on. What I mean to convey is that, if someone makes a demand that they're unwilling to compromise on or discuss, and you're are unable to satisfy the demand as stated, regardless of whether you want to seek a resolution along those lines, you have no good options. Of course in a healthy project there wouldn't be much need to discuss banning people who are harassing other community members. But mechanically it still has the downside of an ultimatum, even if the connotation of the term is wrong. That is why I chose that word, and I apologize for not having been clearer about what I meant with it. I do agree that greater willingness to use implicit political authority is generally a good thing for healthy projects. (Though maybe there is something complicated like not actually having technical control of the relevant IRC channels or something annoying like that, I don't know. In some open-source projects I'm active in, the core teams' ability to respond to harassment is somewhat weakened or at least rate-limited by using IRC servers, code-review forums, etc. run by unrelated teams, and I've seen people be hurt by abusers taking advantage of this technical limitation.)
lillian-lemmer 11y ago
A woman wanted recourse for feeling unsafe because of the horribleness someone was spewing. Any real recourse. I outline this in my other comments. I was there for the entire ordeal. They tolerated every infraction with no consequence.
- Amezarak 11y ago
  You don't get to have people punished simply because you feel unsafe. That's absurd. What if your post makes me feel unsafe? Peoples feelings are subjective, people are different, some people have a hair-trigger and others don't care, some people read a lot into words and other people take them at face value. The only reason this individual should have been punished by FreeBSD folks for this alleged harassment is if it was against FreeBSD rules, it occurred in FreeBSD channels or forums, and there was a consensus among other people that it actually constituted harassment. Otherwise, you just have a weapon you can wield to silence all civil discourse (because everyone has a job or a hobby somewhere they don't want to lose) you don't like by claiming you feel unsafe or harassed. And after reading the sources mentioned in this thread, your and Randi's description of events is, to put it very mildly, one-sided. You may win some support from the people who don't dig down, but you're alienating allies with these tactics. I was a proud supporter and ally for about ten years, but over the past year or so I've grown more and more disillusioned. More and more it seems like there's nothing worth fighting for. I would certainly not want to appear to support the hatefulness and bullying Randi has engaged in publicly over this and other issues. FreeBSD is, frankly, better off without the politics and drama.
  - lillian-lemmer 11y ago
    My impression of you: Being dehumanized, threatened with death, rape, is a totally subjective experience and vaguely defined, so we shouldn't stop those things. I offered my conditional support to you people, but now I'm revoking it because I want people to be able to dehumanize and threaten you and ultimately do not care what happens to anyone else. BTW, being picked on and trolling cis men poses the exact scenario as threatening women, minorities, with death, rape, etc. FreeBSD is, frankly, better off making these people feel threatened and dehumanized.
awesomerobot 11y ago
that's not how companies and foundations function What? If a co-worker started disparaging me on Facebook and sharing private chat logs publicly... they'd be reprimanded at the very least, and if the behavior continued they'd be gone. This is exactly why companies have HR policies.
- kev009 11y ago
  They would be quietly let go
  - handelaar 11y ago
    No, out here in the real world they'd be terminated immediately for gross misconduct, and feel lucky if they exited the building on foot instead of head-first.
    - kev009 11y ago
      You're wrong, enterprises aren't in the business of vengeance. Instaterm == quietly letting go. Anything else is a liability nightmare and distraction to the enterprise's goals. That's just the way it is, and it would be terrifying otherwise.

by kev009 11y ago

dietrichepp 11y ago

"Randi wanted a person crucified…" I didn't see that in the article, could you point us to that information?

andallas 11y ago
I agree with you, but I think they were talking about past events maybe? Their is a history between FreeBSDGirl and the roosh guy. (By history, I mean going back and forth online, not a personal history).
- freebsdgirl 11y ago
  Citation needed. I've never talked to him (or, for that matter, the person that said they know all the parties involved).
  - andallas 11y ago
    That's a nice trap there. If I don't mention anything, you'll claim (or at least there will be a tacit implication) that you've "won" any argument here. However if I do provide sources (articles written by you and/or rooshv), tweets, whatever, then there is the implication I'm "stalking" you or him. I'd rather not get involved in any such drama. To be clear, by history I meant that the two of you have both written/talked/tweeted about each other (in generally negative ways). My intent there was to agree with the person who commented about how this whole situation is a "shit sandwich".
  - kev009 11y ago
    s/all/most. I'm not notable and am much newer than you to the community.
    - freebsdgirl 11y ago
      If you aren't a part of FreeBSD core or the FreeBSD Foundation, then you don't know much about what's been happening at all. They haven't released any information about this publicly, and it wasn't talked about much at all on the core reports.
geofft 11y ago
"Crucified" is an obvious exaggeration, but the article does contain "Last, I wanted this developer removed from the project and the IRC channel." I don't know anything about what happened here more than what's public, but it's totally imaginable to me that if you make that an ultimatum, and the project leadership hasn't given itself a reasonable way to do that, it's difficult for them to respond usefully. Maybe the lesson here is that good projects should give their leadership the explicit ability and the political authority to do that, including for forums like IRC. There are many examples of projects / communities that are wonderful places until things go wrong. (This is, essentially, the argument for having a written code of conduct even though nobody would be violating it.)
- dietrichepp 11y ago
  I'm sorry, but this post (yours) and the original post (kev009's) seem like unreasonable exaggerations. Emphasis on the "unreasonable". Unreasonable exaggerations of other people's viewpoints fosters low-quality discussion, which is why I don't like it. Banning is a common response to harassment. Hacker News uses it, we even have multiple types of banning, including the shadowban and hellban. We know that "crucifixion" is hyperbolical language, and we can ordinarily forgive someone for being hyperbolical, but in this case it's simply an unreasonable exaggeration. The same applies to your use of the term "ultimatum". That's an unreasonable exaggeration. It depicts the contents of the original article inaccurately. She detailed no consequences nor threatened retaliation in her request that a user be banned. You can call it a "demand" instead of a "request", but "ultimatum" is simply incorrect. Honestly, I can understand and relate to both her request and the core developers' response, but I'm not convinced that a code of conduct is a prerequisite for banning abusive community members. Explicit political authority is great, but we shouldn't be automatically afraid to use implicit political authority.
  - geofft 11y ago
    Yeah, "ultimatum" is a somewhat strong word. I do want to be clear that I don't mean that it was in any way an ridiculous request/demand/ultimatum: expelling them from the community would in my opinion have been the right thing to do, and in my opinion is an entirely fair thing to insist on and not be willing to compromise on. What I mean to convey is that, if someone makes a demand that they're unwilling to compromise on or discuss, and you're are unable to satisfy the demand as stated, regardless of whether you want to seek a resolution along those lines, you have no good options. Of course in a healthy project there wouldn't be much need to discuss banning people who are harassing other community members. But mechanically it still has the downside of an ultimatum, even if the connotation of the term is wrong. That is why I chose that word, and I apologize for not having been clearer about what I meant with it. I do agree that greater willingness to use implicit political authority is generally a good thing for healthy projects. (Though maybe there is something complicated like not actually having technical control of the relevant IRC channels or something annoying like that, I don't know. In some open-source projects I'm active in, the core teams' ability to respond to harassment is somewhat weakened or at least rate-limited by using IRC servers, code-review forums, etc. run by unrelated teams, and I've seen people be hurt by abusers taking advantage of this technical limitation.)

lillian-lemmer 11y ago

A woman wanted recourse for feeling unsafe because of the horribleness someone was spewing. Any real recourse. I outline this in my other comments. I was there for the entire ordeal. They tolerated every infraction with no consequence.

Amezarak 11y ago
You don't get to have people punished simply because you feel unsafe. That's absurd. What if your post makes me feel unsafe? Peoples feelings are subjective, people are different, some people have a hair-trigger and others don't care, some people read a lot into words and other people take them at face value. The only reason this individual should have been punished by FreeBSD folks for this alleged harassment is if it was against FreeBSD rules, it occurred in FreeBSD channels or forums, and there was a consensus among other people that it actually constituted harassment. Otherwise, you just have a weapon you can wield to silence all civil discourse (because everyone has a job or a hobby somewhere they don't want to lose) you don't like by claiming you feel unsafe or harassed. And after reading the sources mentioned in this thread, your and Randi's description of events is, to put it very mildly, one-sided. You may win some support from the people who don't dig down, but you're alienating allies with these tactics. I was a proud supporter and ally for about ten years, but over the past year or so I've grown more and more disillusioned. More and more it seems like there's nothing worth fighting for. I would certainly not want to appear to support the hatefulness and bullying Randi has engaged in publicly over this and other issues. FreeBSD is, frankly, better off without the politics and drama.
- lillian-lemmer 11y ago
  My impression of you: Being dehumanized, threatened with death, rape, is a totally subjective experience and vaguely defined, so we shouldn't stop those things. I offered my conditional support to you people, but now I'm revoking it because I want people to be able to dehumanize and threaten you and ultimately do not care what happens to anyone else. BTW, being picked on and trolling cis men poses the exact scenario as threatening women, minorities, with death, rape, etc. FreeBSD is, frankly, better off making these people feel threatened and dehumanized.

awesomerobot 11y ago

that's not how companies and foundations function What? If a co-worker started disparaging me on Facebook and sharing private chat logs publicly... they'd be reprimanded at the very least, and if the behavior continued they'd be gone. This is exactly why companies have HR policies.

kev009 11y ago
They would be quietly let go
- handelaar 11y ago
  No, out here in the real world they'd be terminated immediately for gross misconduct, and feel lucky if they exited the building on foot instead of head-first.
  - kev009 11y ago
    You're wrong, enterprises aren't in the business of vengeance. Instaterm == quietly letting go. Anything else is a liability nightmare and distraction to the enterprise's goals. That's just the way it is, and it would be terrifying otherwise.