37 ms·

No more rock stars: how to stop abuse in tech communities

102 points by exolymph 10y ago

cheez 10y ago
Overreact much? One guy did some shit. Maybe a bunch of people did some shit. GTFO with your moral policing and let the real police handle any crimes.
- some-guy 10y ago
  Overreact much?
  - guitarbill 10y ago
    and we've done better by censoring the guy? it wasn't an enlightened comment, but it wasn't even close to offensive.
    - cheez 10y ago
      They don't like swear words.
tptacek 10y ago
Even if it hadn't resulted in a rash of sexual assaults in the security/privacy community, much of the advice in this post about avoiding rock star dynamics would be well taken. Rockstarism is a scourge in software security. It's probably bad everywhere it crops up, including the music industry.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  It certainly did nothing good for the video-game industry. cough Daikatana cough I think you're right, and the "rock star" pattern looks similar wherever it crops up, with similar fallout. It's only the tolerance for it which varies.
  - minimaxir 10y ago
    John Romero was a rockstar, but his attitude only affected Ion Storm/Daikatana, not other people. And that was more than a decade ago.
    - Aelinsaar 10y ago
      Those two qualifiers don't change anything, and since I never specified anything relating to either...
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
      Ion Storm had more than one employee.
- DanBC 10y ago
  Meatball wiki has something they call "Vested Contributor" which is similar. http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/VestedContributor http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/VestedContributor https://web.archive.org/web/20160318184830/http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/VestedContributor https://web.archive.org/web/20160318184830/http://meatballwi... > The vested contributor is someone who believes they are entitled to a degree of indulgence or bending of the rules because of the duration and extent of their past contributions. In some cases, this view may be shared by other community members. The indulgence of vested contributors undermines FairProcess and the WikiNow. It is demoralizing to those who have made less widely recognized contributions, and to recent arrivals. An inside club or "cabal" can arise where there are a number of vested contributors who mutually reinforce.
matthewmacleod 10y ago
There should be no abuse - sexual or otherwise - in tech communities. Please call it out whenever you see it, in a polite but firm manner, and don't be afraid or intimidated by it. The vast majority of people will support you, and it's important to do so not only for your own protection but for others that might not be so willing or able to do the same. That said, something about the tone of this blog post is utterly repellent to me and I'm struggling to put my finger on the reason why.
- pkaeding 10y ago
  I agree, such abuse should be called out. I also agree that the way this article is written makes me want to disagree with it (even though the message on the surface is a good one). It just sounds like "Just say no to rockstars!". Yes, it goes deeper, and outlines why rockstars are a problem, but the 'just say no' message makes me a bit uneasy.
- sowhatquestion 10y ago
  >something about the tone of this blog post is utterly repellent to me and I'm struggling to put my finger on the reason why. Points for honesty. Drawing from my own experience: sometimes this feeling happens for a reason, and sometimes it happens gratuitously when we encounter a perspective we're not used to hearing. As Daniel Kahneman (among many others) has pointed out: "familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth."
- exstudent2 10y ago
  I think this post is way off base because it equates being a difficult employee with being a sexual predator and full blown criminal. It then outlines how to "fix" the problem with some decent solutions combined with very specific politically motivated initiatives (many links to feminist sites...). It also has a tone of absolute authority that is mirrored in the flagging and downvoting of comments happening in this very thread. There can and should be discussion and debate around this issue especially when it casually calls for things like tossing due process and burden of proof out the window.
  - 10y ago
mcguire 10y ago
"Watch for smaller signs of boundary pushing and react strongly" But we'd have to fire all the first-level problem report handlers of most of the open source projects I've dealt with.
exstudent2 10y ago
> One of the authors of this post believed every first-person allegation of abuse and assault by Jacob Appelbaum – including the anonymous ones – immediately. Why? Among many other signs, she saw him break different, smaller rules in a way that showed his complete and total disregard for other people’s time, work, and feelings – and everyone supported him doing so. For example, she once attended a series of five minute lightning talks at the Noisebridge hackerspace, where speakers sign up in advance. Jacob arrived unannounced and jumped in after the first couple of talks with a forty-five minute long boring rambling slideshow about a recent trip he took. The person running the talks – someone with considerable power and influence in the same community – rolled his eyes but let Jacob talk for nine times the length of other speakers. The message was clear: rules don’t apply to Jacob, and even powerful people were afraid to cross him. This is a really dangerous line of thinking. Just because someone is a "jerk" does not mean that they're a criminal and the burden of proof for accusations goes out the window. This whole post, and the site it links to reeks of vigilantism. If he really did do the things he's accused of (I've never heard of Jacob before so can't comment), he should be dealt with by the proper authorities. It's not up to employers to act as judge, jury and executioners. I would also add that people who engage in these types of public witch hunts and calls for codes of conduct, new rules... are very much showing signs of the narcissism they claim to be against.
tenementfunster 10y ago
'Start with the assumption that harassment reports are true and investigate them thoroughly' Sorry, what? We have this whole ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" in America (and many other places) so you can kindly take this nonsense elsewhere.
- ksenzee 10y ago
  Remember, this is aimed at employers and open-source projects, not the justice system. Besides, what alternative are you suggesting? Start with the assumption that harassment reports are false, and throw them in the trash?
  - exstudent2 10y ago
    It's not up to open source maintainers to act as a poor mirror of the judicial system. If someone is breaking the law, the authorities should handle it. If the accused is found guilty, then they can be kicked out of the project/fired...
    - ksenzee 10y ago
      I can't agree with you. Open-source communities have both the right and the responsibility to protect themselves from toxic people. If I showed up in, say, the Firefox issue tracker and started trolling people and insulting their contributors, they'd ban me without thinking twice. I wouldn't have broken any laws, but they'd still be well within their rights to get rid of me.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      Criminal law uses the "beyond all reasonable doubt" burden of proof. Civil law uses the "balance of probabilities" burden of proof. A project kicking out a member doesn't have to meet any burden of proof, they just have to show that they're not being discriminatory.
  - subjectsigma 10y ago
    Perhaps they should start with no assumptions, thoroughly investigate the issue, and let the evidence speak for itself. Why does this 'rule' applying to organizations make it any different? It is always morally shady (at least, unfair) to assume by default that someone is guilty without any sort of process.
NetTechM 10y ago
A fairly boring Op-ed with some dangerous ideas about automatic guilt, using twitter as a source... Well, for you 4 disagreeing, give me your thoughts on this? At first pass it is exactly what I said.
- prawn 10y ago
  The author uses first-hand experience as a source: https://hypatia.ca/2016/06/07/he-said-they-said/ https://hypatia.ca/2016/06/07/he-said-they-said/ And criticising something important as "boring" is very dismissive.
  - NetTechM 10y ago
    So, perhaps that would explain the extreme jump from jerk to sexual deviant and the clear tone being taken in the opening. However great first hand experience is for ted talks, it is generally relegated to very low on the quantifiable scale for corporations and the business community in general.
    - prawn 10y ago
      If the author must ignore third-party reports and first-hand experience (including a witness), what's left? Many internal business investigations rely on exactly those things to make judgements that protect their work environment.
      - NetTechM 10y ago
        Who said they have to ignore third party reports? I was simply saying that the aggregate would logically be a much larger number than any number of "rockstars" that happened to be caught in wrongdoing. A bit like the focus on Mass shootings for gun related violence when the overwhelming majority of gun related deaths are suicide or lawful use. Sensational and yet not indicative of the bigger issues. If you mean using random Twitter posts as a "third party" obviously you haven't seen how many troll accounts are on Twitter... Reliable or even gasp confirmed third party sources would be preferable.
Animats 10y ago
Reworking entire organizations to deal with one jerk is overkill. Applebaum has a Wikipedia entry, which is worth reading.[1] He's been kicked out of the Tor Project, the Cult of the Dead Cow (an old and respected hacking group), and Noisebridge. They all seem to have dealt with the problem. But he does have his supporters.[2] Reading all this, it looks like a routine jerk problem. None of this has led to criminal charges. I dunno. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum [2] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2858953/Statement-Appelbaum-11-06.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2858953/Statement...
- tptacek 10y ago
  "None of this has led to criminal charges. I dunno." Can you just come right out and say whatever it is you're implying with those last two sentences? Thanks!
  - MagnumOpus 10y ago
    He implies the obvious: the evidence is hearsay that hasn't stood up in court (and apparently nobody is even trying) - though it seems to suffice to ruin the guy's life.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Maybe we should let him answer for himself? Thanks.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
tekacs 10y ago
I absolutely agree that 'rockstarism' is hugely problematic (I agree with tptacek's sibling post on the topic). That said, some of this post feels worryingly like it's pushing 'truth by association' to me. I'd love to hear each of the recommendations herein discussed on their own merit and with clear reasons given for each one. That is, I wouldn't encourage anyone to conflate fighting narcissism and arrogance with quashing openness, confidence and self-respect in a demographic (engineers) which arguably already has trouble with those - irrespective of the gender of the engineer.
mnarayan01 10y ago
In the list describing "a few signs that help you identify when you have a rock star instead of a plumber", it seems like you could replace every occurrence of "rock star" with "jerk".
- tptacek 10y ago
  No, you can't, because most jerks do not have fandoms, and most jerks don't generate fawning media coverage. The social power abusive rock stars accumulate is what makes them so problematic.
protomyth 10y ago
It seems like they are redefining rock star in the "A rock star likes to be the center of attention." paragraph. I am getting a little sick of the trend[1] of redefining a word to mean something else. Given this, a genuine complement of calling someone a "rock star" should probably be met with a hostility. The line "A rock star appears in dozens of magazine profiles – and never, ever tells the journalist to talk to the people actually doing the practical everyday work." is particularly galling. If you are not doing the work, how the heck would you legitimately be called a rock star? I think the love of tearing down people is echoed in the love of taking words that meant exceptional and making them mean destructive things. Hero and hero words die far too often. 1) its been going on a long time and sometimes I think its an insider trick to know who to award grants to (e.g. "empowerment" was my personal favorite).
- tptacek 10y ago
  I don't know why people who don't do the real work get the magazine articles and conference talks, but if we're talking about security --- the community being criticized (from the inside) in this post --- it seems like a spot-on observation.
- chris_7 10y ago
  It's somewhat true that lead singers and guitarists are lionized over drummers and bassists, but they're still doing relatively equal work (and in many cases the singer is also the writer). There's also the sound/lights/crew/merch people, but they wouldn't have a reason to be there without the rock stars.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    I think in your first example, I can name a lot more bands that have been able to replace drummers and bassists than lead singers and guitarists, but all of them are considered rock stars. With a bit of unequal fame (well except for the obvious such as Santana). The crew is important, but so is the electric company that provides the power. They are, as you say, only there because of the rock stars.
- Animats 10y ago
chris_7 10y ago
This one: Avoid organizations becoming too central to people’s lives Seems at odds with this one: Enforce strict policies around sexual or romantic relationships within power structures Due to the use of the terms "organization" and "community" instead of "company" or an equivalent, it's unclear if they are referring entirely to employment (where such a prohibition would be pretty common and mundane), or if they are also including open-source projects, where it would seem like a huge intrusion. Submitting an issue or pull request shouldn't have any effect on your ability to date someone.
- yawaramin 10y ago
  I think it makes sense if you interpret it as having rules against seeing someone if you're in a position of power over them. If you happen to be in same organisation but have no power over them, there isn't a conflict.
  - chris_7 10y ago
    Right, and that makes sense for companies, but someone should be able to make a PR against a Github project for which their wife is a maintainer.
    - yawaramin 10y ago
      I think these rules kind of all cease to apply at the marital boundary, and there new and equally troublesome rules take over :-)
shrewduser 10y ago
That is an extremely long bow to draw... the author seems to have picked up on a case of a narcissistic possibly deviant and then tarnished all people who excel / lead with the same brush. this reeks of tall poppy syndrome, i can't even believe what i'm reading.
ktRolster 10y ago
Some programmers are dramatically better than others......some of those top programmers are jerks, some aren't (just like every segment of society). I always called those top programmers rockstars, but apparently that's the wrong term.....what should they be called then?
- exstudent2 10y ago
  > I always called those top programmers rockstars That was a well known usage for the term. This blog post is trying to redefine "rockstar" but you/we don't have to go along with the language policing.
Saturnaut 10y ago
Don't sleep with people you work with. Don't drink if you can't control yourself or can't trust the people you are with. Don't do drugs if you can't control yourself or trust the people you are with. Problem solved!
- prawn 10y ago
  Wow, that's hugely insensitive. Why not try it from another angle and save on typing: "Don't abuse people. Problem solved!"
  - Saturnaut 10y ago
    Well I agree with that statement as well. However, it never hurts to take preventative measures in one's own life, instead of letting yourself get screwed over and then wondering why it happened and who to blame.
    - prawn 10y ago
      Victim blaming is pretty insensitive though, as is "letting yourself get screwed over". There was an infamous case in Australia where a cleric responded to gang-rape by members of his community by labelling young girls in skirts as being like raw meat attracting animals. The implication was "of course the animals will want to eat the meat". Yes, the reality is that if you never leave the house, live in a panic room, cover your entire self at all hours, etc you reduce the risk, but ultimately the action is on the abuser rather than the one being abused and that is where we should direct criticism, especially in immediate/direct response to something like this IMO. What are we ideally working towards? A world where everyone must avoid a defined level of risk (including certain level of dress!), or one where any of us can walk anywhere with an expectation that we won't be abused by another one of us? I'd like to think the latter.
      - Saturnaut 10y ago
        Yes, but young girls being forcibly gang raped is a far cry from what is laid out in this article. Yes, the action is on the abuser. I never once said the blame is on the victim. However, most of what the author has laid out is "He is a jerk, people have said he is a jerk, he takes advantage of people, etc". Not "He forcibly raped me and others." So - as an individual - taking very simple steps, like the ones I outlined in my first comment, are only common sense, and can only work in said individual's favor. I've read some of this author's other posts, including the one that talks specifically about her relationship with Appelbaum (including consensual sexual acts). Calling her a victim because she was taken advantage of, on the same level the girls in Australia you mentioned who were forcibly gang raped are victims, is absurd. Edit: Leaving the above alone, but on further inspection, it looks like several people have claimed that he "sexually assaulted" them. Now, if true, they should have reported these things to the police immediately. However, I went ahead and read through the stories on the Appelbaum shame website. In every one of the instances, the victim put themselves in a situation to be taken advantage of by this scumbag - drinking heavily enough to black out with him, sleeping in the same bed as him, etc. Am I defending him? Hell no. But something has to be said about taking responsibility for one's own safety and well being, and being intelligent about not getting into situations like these.
jondubois 10y ago
I'm really glad that someone is raising this issue. This 'rock star worship' culture is rampant in Open Source communities. What's worse is that many of these 'rock stars' don't do anything except blog and give talks at conferences - Their main goal is self-promotion. They don't give a shit about the actual project or the community. You rarely hear about open source developers who focus on one project and produce amazing work over many years - These developers are too busy actually writing code and promoting the project to care about promoting themselves - Because they understand that their project is more important. A good open source developer sees themselves as a servant to the project, not the master. I think a big problem in the tech industry in general is that there is too much focus on people - I'm sick of hearing investors say "We invest in people, not products" - I think this sends the wrong message and attracts the wrong people. The product should always be more important than the people who built it - People who agree with this statement are the ones we should invest in because they're the ones who will actually create value for society (as opposed to merely capturing value which others have created).
- exstudent2 10y ago
  That's a separate issue from saying that rockstar syndrome leads to sexual abuse though. It's not really fair to use a boogieman like that to make the case against rockstar worship. If it's a bad idea, it can be argued against without the rhetorical leap made here.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    One problem with rockstarism is that it can create safe havens for abusers. But there are all sorts of other concerns. I'm surprised to see people defending it here; HN has always struck me as a community that is pretty cynical about rock stars.
    - NetTechM 10y ago
      Cynical yes, but some people do really good work and just end up in the position because of it. Too much painting with a broad brush and trying to redefine a word normally reserved for an Ace team member.
barozi 10y ago
I am probably the a rare person who has been sexually assaulted by a woman. And I have had 2 women falsely accuse me of rape over a 10-year period. In short, people are irrational and do weird things out of shame, anger or spite. I put myself in the situation with the girl who assaulted me twice. We had kissed a few times and I stayed over at her place, more out of necessity than a romantic intention. She got completely naked, groped me, jumped on top of me, and I basically wrestled he away for 15 minutes. She insulted me, said I should just be a man, called me gay and on and on. The next month she did the same thing; naked, grabbing me, and I pushed her away for 20 minutes or so. Yes I had "led her on", and kissed her but she was a turnoff to me for a variety of reasons, and I didn't want to have sex with her. Other times, I had a girl mess around with me, get too excited, we had sex, she freaks out, tells her friend I raped her, and then came over the next night. I only mention this because the above blog seems quite dubious. Obviously when the girl assaulted me, it is a different situation when a guy does it to a girl because of obvious reasons. I wasn't scared for my life or of being forcefully penetrated. The cops didn't get involved in any of the situations. I have no idea if this guy Jacob is guilty or not. He seems like an insensitive person though. When I read things like in the first link and first accusation of the blog above, that Jacob told people about a girl's sex act, I become skeptical. If they want to include that, do it last, after the actual accusations of rape or sexual assault. And the original 3 people who accused Jacob misunderstood the situation and were wrong. Sex is a tricky thing about what is right and what is wrong. Jacob didn't listen to a girl's safe word? He talked openly about sex inappropriately? He raped a girl in front of a group? Man, if I was in that group of people both Jacob and I would be in jail; me for assault. Today, people have expanded the definition of rape to being drunk and having regrets or being lied to. For the sake of everyone, if you are accusing Jacob Appelbum of rape or sexual assault, file a police report, or publicly write about it.
jimrandomh 10y ago
To keep out bad actors, it's very important to have an accurate model of what those bad actors are like and how to recognize them. The correct word for this is not "rock star", it's "psychopath". Equating the term "rock star" with bad actors is not going to accurately guide people's attention where it needs to go; instead, it'll lead to attacks on honest people who happen to have accumulated prestige. Those are the very people who have the ability to spot and push out the psychopaths. But if they're forced into conflict with feminists, they won't be doing that.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  "Rock star" isn't a description of what a bad actor looks like, but it is a description of treatment of people who have high performance on one axis which empowers those that happen to be bad actors in manners unrelated to that axis and disempowers their victims. Keeping out bad actors is desirable, but never going to be 100%. Avoiding creating the power dynamic which enables abusers to flourish is also important.
chroma 10y ago
With the exception of the "assume guilt" recommendation (which seems ripe for abuse), I think these guidelines are mostly fine. But calling abusive people "rock stars" seems unnecessarily controversial. Better to use the accurate and unambiguous "abuser". That describes Jacob Applebaum far more clearly than "rock star". Also, I think a term like "rock star" (in the benevolent sense) is a useful one. There are people who are really talented (and know it), who love the limelight, who sometimes say controversial things, and who have contributed more to our industry than any of us could hope to. I'm talking about people like Daniel J. Bernstein, David Heinemeier Hansson, Theo de Raadt, and (of course) Linus Torvalds. If we're going to give "rock star" purely negative connotations, I'm not sure what what to call these people. "Badass" would work, except some social circles frown upon profanity.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Rock star abusers are a subset of abusers, so your proposed change doesn't work. Try to give the piece the most charitable possible interpretation. Leigh Honeywell knows more about Daniel J. Bernstein and Theo de Raadt than most people on HN. There's an interpretation of this post that suggests she's claiming that DJB and Theo are abusers, but common sense --- we don't even need charity! --- tells us that's probably not what she's saying.
  - MBCook 10y ago
    Abusers who are not rock stars are not as much of a problem because the community is much more willing to throw them out. They just seem like a troll. But if they are also a rock star they often get tolerated/encouraged. Their value appears to mean the community is willing to put up it. And THATS where rock stars are a problem. You can call Carmack a rock star, he's earned it. I don't think I've ever heard anything other than he's a nice guy (I hope that's not from lack of people speaking up).
  - chroma 10y ago
    If you want to just focus on what you call "abusive rock stars", then I think the most accurate term is "abusive charlatan". That covers the lack of skill as well as the fame-seeking. In terms of reading charitably, I'm sorry to say that you're the one who needs to do more of it. I never implied that the author might be accusing those people of abusive behavior. In fact, that idea didn't even occur to me until you mentioned it. I was just giving examples of good "rock stars" in our field. My issue is this: There are plenty of existing terms that accurately describe what the author is talking about. If she manages to redefine "rock star" to be purely negative, it robs us of a useful word. And because of that, a lot of people are going to be against her definitional change. (As evidence, just look at this HN thread.) She could gain more support by avoiding this definitional fight.
yanilkr 10y ago
Rock stars are good at what they do and most of the time earn that label. Don't form a gang and hurt productivity of your team/company. If someone is working hard to earn a rockstar label don't penalize them. You will probably need rock stars and plumbers getting along well. If someone is a bad employee rockstar or otherwise that needs to be dealt properly.
- kasey_junk 10y ago
  I'd say my biggest complaint about the term "rock star" is that its nonstandard. This article uses a definition, which describes a set of people I know in tech communities. Your comment is probably referring to something else. Regardless, the article is spot on in describing what to do to produce healthy environments, whereas most uses of the term rock star that I've found come from unhealthy ones.
super_id 10y ago
Stopped reading at the trigger warning. When did the whole internet become a joke from PCU?
- some-guy 10y ago
  I suppose then you were "triggered" by the warning?
  - hypatiadotca 10y ago
    Some people are so sensitive, dontchaknow ;)
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    This is a difficult problem to solve. Presumably a trigger warning about trigger warnings would also trigger?
- lukeasrodgers 10y ago
  Personally I find trigger warnings annoying sometimes as well, though I believe it is mostly for irrational reasons and so I don't let it stop me from reading anything preceded by a trigger warning. Even if you believe you have good reasons for being offended/annoyed by trigger warnings, it's unfortunate that this would cause you to dismiss the text/opinion out of hand. Perhaps we need trigger warning trigger warnings for people who are triggered by trigger warnings?
  - serge2k 10y ago
    > so I don't let it stop me from reading anything preceded by a trigger warning I often do. It varies, this article is mostly fine. Some good points in general about organizations. When you get to codes of conduct and changing the PRs to remove master/slave terminology you pretty much lose me. I guess a CoC is useful as it puts things in writing, but it still feels like PC overkill. If you aren't able to treat people with respect/professionalism then leave. Does it really need to be called out that you need to do that regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc... To be quite frank, some of the things brought up just seem like they really aren't a big deal. Someone is harassing people then yes, absolutely go after them. Gender neutrality in your new press release, yeah sure that is sensible. Complaining because some database system uses master/slave terminology... does it really matter? Of course that goes both ways, something trivial can probably just be changed. Even if the only real reason is to get someone to quit complaining.
auganov 10y ago
It's decent advice for larger organizations. At startup-sized orgs you're bound to have people with disproportionate amounts of power (and often it's a good thing). I hate to be pessimistic but I think instilling a deep sense of moral wrongness of certain actions and behaviors is what you have to do in order to have real impact.
LELISOSKA 10y ago
i read the allegations, he's a funny guy if its true.
jondubois 10y ago
Was this just taken off the HN front page?
- tptacek 10y ago
  Almost definitely not; rather, the post was probably flagged by users. This happens all the time, and your question is a very common one.
  - jondubois 10y ago
    'Flagged by users' - Interesting. Do some of these users happen to be friends with 'Jacob Appelbaum'? I understand, the whole system is rigged to praise rock stars and screw the plumbers.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      No. Not only don't they, but that argument (that a thread or story is being propelled in some direction by shillage) is per se uncivil on HN. You're not allowed to make it at all. It turns out to be one of our better rules. People flag stories for all sorts of reasons on HN. Some people don't want non-tech or political or current-events stories of any sort on the front page. Some people don't want to see threads descend into the inevitably shitshows that these threads descend into. Some people disagree with the story. If you think something's been flagged unfairly, rather than litigating it on the threads, you should mail hn@ycombinator.com. We have one of the more reasonable moderation teams on the Internet here, but they can't be everywhere all at once.
    - throwllll 10y ago
      I flag (using my non-throaway account) any article that only results in mob-and-pitchfork style discussion. Many comments in here are advocating that we should abandon the court and justice system (because its unfair to the victim, its too high requirements for conviction, ectra) in favor of just punishing the assumed guilty. I will keep flagging stories like this as long as that opinion still runs popular.
peterwwillis 10y ago
First off, there is lots of different potential abuse in a tech community. Second, not all of it comes from "rock stars" - the aggregate cases of abuse probably greatly outweigh rockstardom-enabled abuse. Third, the abuse was perpetuated not because Jake was a "rock star", but because your community's values suck and nobody would stand up and call him out, AND nobody cared once they did. This was primarily a failure of your community. But like I keep saying, this is a feature of all in-groups. "Why are rock stars so common and successful?" Because communities like "leaders", and they have shit heuristics to determine it. And everyone loves an asshole, and there's tons of asshole hackers. "How do we as a community prevent rock stars?" Stop being a community. I'm serious. Communities breed power in individuals and it's been proven time and again (and "in studies", no less) that in an in-group, a person with power and low morals is more likely to abuse their power. It's inherent to in-groups. Remove the community, you remove the power, you remove the social and other influences that bring the immoral, not-powerful person into contact with the vulnerable. No community, no abuse. "Our recommendations can be summarized as: decentralizing points of failure," ....What? This isn't an Active Directory tree, these are humans. Every node in your network is a point of failure. "increasing transparency," And what would that look like? Sending an e-mail to a listserv every time someone says something passive-aggressive to you? Again, there is no simple way to police the myriad of potential abuses, micro or macro, from all sorts of personalities. "improving accountability," Which, for a community that shuns the police, looks like what? K-lining him from your IRC server? "supporting private and anonymous communication," You already have that. This whole debacle has shown how anonymous communication is dismissed until a real face is put to a complaint, and many of them, all at once. This is pretty standard group dynamics, again. "reducing power differentials," So... everyone is an op. Nobody is allowed to like anyone else more, and everyone has to be invited to your party. "and avoiding situations that make violating boundaries more likely." No more alcohol or drugs and nobody is allowed to be in a room alone with one other person, AND no PMs allowed, everything in-chat and logged. Got it. -- The points, one by one: Codes of conduct won't be followed if the people enforcing the code of conduct don't enforce it. This is why there are police that police the police. "Start with the assumption that harassment reports are true" - if Jake had made the first report against his victim, now we would have to believe Jake. Default assumption of guilt doesn't work - this is why our own country's laws do the opposite. All the examples given of "investigating for bad behavior" are things regular non-rapey people do all the time. "nasty emails, stolen credit, rude behavior, and unethical acts big and small" ? That's every fucking hacker troll alive. Making it easy for victims to find each other is not a good idea, because coordination leads, again, to failed heuristics: one person felt uncomfortable with a consensual act, another was actually violently sexually assaulted, and now the first changes their story so they're taken more seriously. (This is not something i'm making up to gaslight an invisible person, btw, this happens to real victims) It would, however, be GREAT if there were a community-specific organization that anyone could contact to discuss how they feel in a safe way. Watching for boundary pushing and react strongly - yes, 100%. Call people out for "monopolizing attention" - uh.... Right, popular female hacker scenester. Let's police the social convention of "taking credit for work" or "being loud and outgoing". You and I both know nobody's going to shout down the hacker media whores - and there are so, so many. The "deep bench of talent" thing is again, almost completely irrelevant to generally preventing abuse in communities. You basically explained why your point about hierarchies is invalid, so no need to comment. "Failing up" is a minor aspect of corporate hierarchy and has nothing to do with social or personal power in in-groups, this is not relevant to the subject. And, sure, "no relationships in the workplace". You go ahead and explain to Sally and Joe (or Jane, or Zed, or whatever) that Sally is going to have to support her kids without Joe's help because Joe needs to leave the company because you feel uncomfortable that they might one day have a domestic dispute. "Avoid organizations becoming too central to people's lives" - this really has zero to do with the subject. "Distribute the keys to the kingdom" - Same. "Don't create environments for potential boundary violation" - Like I said above - no drugs, no alcohol, never leave anyone alone with another person. Your parties are gonna be a blast. Chiptune, diet shasta orange, and vacation slides. Wheeeee. -- "We waited too long to do something about it." Correct. Now, next time, do something about it. That is really all that needed to be said and all that needs to be done.

102 points by exolymph 10y ago

cheez 10y ago

Overreact much? One guy did some shit. Maybe a bunch of people did some shit. GTFO with your moral policing and let the real police handle any crimes.

some-guy 10y ago
Overreact much?
- guitarbill 10y ago
  and we've done better by censoring the guy? it wasn't an enlightened comment, but it wasn't even close to offensive.
  - cheez 10y ago
    They don't like swear words.

tptacek 10y ago

Even if it hadn't resulted in a rash of sexual assaults in the security/privacy community, much of the advice in this post about avoiding rock star dynamics would be well taken. Rockstarism is a scourge in software security. It's probably bad everywhere it crops up, including the music industry.

Aelinsaar 10y ago
It certainly did nothing good for the video-game industry. cough Daikatana cough I think you're right, and the "rock star" pattern looks similar wherever it crops up, with similar fallout. It's only the tolerance for it which varies.
- minimaxir 10y ago
  John Romero was a rockstar, but his attitude only affected Ion Storm/Daikatana, not other people. And that was more than a decade ago.
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    Those two qualifiers don't change anything, and since I never specified anything relating to either...
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
    Ion Storm had more than one employee.
DanBC 10y ago
Meatball wiki has something they call "Vested Contributor" which is similar. http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/VestedContributor http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/VestedContributor https://web.archive.org/web/20160318184830/http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/VestedContributor https://web.archive.org/web/20160318184830/http://meatballwi... > The vested contributor is someone who believes they are entitled to a degree of indulgence or bending of the rules because of the duration and extent of their past contributions. In some cases, this view may be shared by other community members. The indulgence of vested contributors undermines FairProcess and the WikiNow. It is demoralizing to those who have made less widely recognized contributions, and to recent arrivals. An inside club or "cabal" can arise where there are a number of vested contributors who mutually reinforce.

matthewmacleod 10y ago

There should be no abuse - sexual or otherwise - in tech communities. Please call it out whenever you see it, in a polite but firm manner, and don't be afraid or intimidated by it. The vast majority of people will support you, and it's important to do so not only for your own protection but for others that might not be so willing or able to do the same. That said, something about the tone of this blog post is utterly repellent to me and I'm struggling to put my finger on the reason why.

pkaeding 10y ago
I agree, such abuse should be called out. I also agree that the way this article is written makes me want to disagree with it (even though the message on the surface is a good one). It just sounds like "Just say no to rockstars!". Yes, it goes deeper, and outlines why rockstars are a problem, but the 'just say no' message makes me a bit uneasy.
sowhatquestion 10y ago
>something about the tone of this blog post is utterly repellent to me and I'm struggling to put my finger on the reason why. Points for honesty. Drawing from my own experience: sometimes this feeling happens for a reason, and sometimes it happens gratuitously when we encounter a perspective we're not used to hearing. As Daniel Kahneman (among many others) has pointed out: "familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth."
exstudent2 10y ago
I think this post is way off base because it equates being a difficult employee with being a sexual predator and full blown criminal. It then outlines how to "fix" the problem with some decent solutions combined with very specific politically motivated initiatives (many links to feminist sites...). It also has a tone of absolute authority that is mirrored in the flagging and downvoting of comments happening in this very thread. There can and should be discussion and debate around this issue especially when it casually calls for things like tossing due process and burden of proof out the window.
- 10y ago

mcguire 10y ago

"Watch for smaller signs of boundary pushing and react strongly" But we'd have to fire all the first-level problem report handlers of most of the open source projects I've dealt with.

exstudent2 10y ago

> One of the authors of this post believed every first-person allegation of abuse and assault by Jacob Appelbaum – including the anonymous ones – immediately. Why? Among many other signs, she saw him break different, smaller rules in a way that showed his complete and total disregard for other people’s time, work, and feelings – and everyone supported him doing so. For example, she once attended a series of five minute lightning talks at the Noisebridge hackerspace, where speakers sign up in advance. Jacob arrived unannounced and jumped in after the first couple of talks with a forty-five minute long boring rambling slideshow about a recent trip he took. The person running the talks – someone with considerable power and influence in the same community – rolled his eyes but let Jacob talk for nine times the length of other speakers. The message was clear: rules don’t apply to Jacob, and even powerful people were afraid to cross him. This is a really dangerous line of thinking. Just because someone is a "jerk" does not mean that they're a criminal and the burden of proof for accusations goes out the window. This whole post, and the site it links to reeks of vigilantism. If he really did do the things he's accused of (I've never heard of Jacob before so can't comment), he should be dealt with by the proper authorities. It's not up to employers to act as judge, jury and executioners. I would also add that people who engage in these types of public witch hunts and calls for codes of conduct, new rules... are very much showing signs of the narcissism they claim to be against.

tenementfunster 10y ago

'Start with the assumption that harassment reports are true and investigate them thoroughly' Sorry, what? We have this whole ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" in America (and many other places) so you can kindly take this nonsense elsewhere.

ksenzee 10y ago
Remember, this is aimed at employers and open-source projects, not the justice system. Besides, what alternative are you suggesting? Start with the assumption that harassment reports are false, and throw them in the trash?
- exstudent2 10y ago
  It's not up to open source maintainers to act as a poor mirror of the judicial system. If someone is breaking the law, the authorities should handle it. If the accused is found guilty, then they can be kicked out of the project/fired...
  - ksenzee 10y ago
    I can't agree with you. Open-source communities have both the right and the responsibility to protect themselves from toxic people. If I showed up in, say, the Firefox issue tracker and started trolling people and insulting their contributors, they'd ban me without thinking twice. I wouldn't have broken any laws, but they'd still be well within their rights to get rid of me.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    Criminal law uses the "beyond all reasonable doubt" burden of proof. Civil law uses the "balance of probabilities" burden of proof. A project kicking out a member doesn't have to meet any burden of proof, they just have to show that they're not being discriminatory.
- subjectsigma 10y ago
  Perhaps they should start with no assumptions, thoroughly investigate the issue, and let the evidence speak for itself. Why does this 'rule' applying to organizations make it any different? It is always morally shady (at least, unfair) to assume by default that someone is guilty without any sort of process.

NetTechM 10y ago

A fairly boring Op-ed with some dangerous ideas about automatic guilt, using twitter as a source... Well, for you 4 disagreeing, give me your thoughts on this? At first pass it is exactly what I said.

prawn 10y ago
The author uses first-hand experience as a source: https://hypatia.ca/2016/06/07/he-said-they-said/ https://hypatia.ca/2016/06/07/he-said-they-said/ And criticising something important as "boring" is very dismissive.
- NetTechM 10y ago
  So, perhaps that would explain the extreme jump from jerk to sexual deviant and the clear tone being taken in the opening. However great first hand experience is for ted talks, it is generally relegated to very low on the quantifiable scale for corporations and the business community in general.
  - prawn 10y ago
    If the author must ignore third-party reports and first-hand experience (including a witness), what's left? Many internal business investigations rely on exactly those things to make judgements that protect their work environment.
    - NetTechM 10y ago
      Who said they have to ignore third party reports? I was simply saying that the aggregate would logically be a much larger number than any number of "rockstars" that happened to be caught in wrongdoing. A bit like the focus on Mass shootings for gun related violence when the overwhelming majority of gun related deaths are suicide or lawful use. Sensational and yet not indicative of the bigger issues. If you mean using random Twitter posts as a "third party" obviously you haven't seen how many troll accounts are on Twitter... Reliable or even gasp confirmed third party sources would be preferable.

Animats 10y ago

Reworking entire organizations to deal with one jerk is overkill. Applebaum has a Wikipedia entry, which is worth reading.[1] He's been kicked out of the Tor Project, the Cult of the Dead Cow (an old and respected hacking group), and Noisebridge. They all seem to have dealt with the problem. But he does have his supporters.[2] Reading all this, it looks like a routine jerk problem. None of this has led to criminal charges. I dunno. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum [2] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2858953/Statement-Appelbaum-11-06.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2858953/Statement...

tptacek 10y ago
"None of this has led to criminal charges. I dunno." Can you just come right out and say whatever it is you're implying with those last two sentences? Thanks!
- MagnumOpus 10y ago
  He implies the obvious: the evidence is hearsay that hasn't stood up in court (and apparently nobody is even trying) - though it seems to suffice to ruin the guy's life.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Maybe we should let him answer for himself? Thanks.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

tekacs 10y ago

I absolutely agree that 'rockstarism' is hugely problematic (I agree with tptacek's sibling post on the topic). That said, some of this post feels worryingly like it's pushing 'truth by association' to me. I'd love to hear each of the recommendations herein discussed on their own merit and with clear reasons given for each one. That is, I wouldn't encourage anyone to conflate fighting narcissism and arrogance with quashing openness, confidence and self-respect in a demographic (engineers) which arguably already has trouble with those - irrespective of the gender of the engineer.

mnarayan01 10y ago

In the list describing "a few signs that help you identify when you have a rock star instead of a plumber", it seems like you could replace every occurrence of "rock star" with "jerk".

tptacek 10y ago
No, you can't, because most jerks do not have fandoms, and most jerks don't generate fawning media coverage. The social power abusive rock stars accumulate is what makes them so problematic.

protomyth 10y ago

It seems like they are redefining rock star in the "A rock star likes to be the center of attention." paragraph. I am getting a little sick of the trend[1] of redefining a word to mean something else. Given this, a genuine complement of calling someone a "rock star" should probably be met with a hostility. The line "A rock star appears in dozens of magazine profiles – and never, ever tells the journalist to talk to the people actually doing the practical everyday work." is particularly galling. If you are not doing the work, how the heck would you legitimately be called a rock star? I think the love of tearing down people is echoed in the love of taking words that meant exceptional and making them mean destructive things. Hero and hero words die far too often. 1) its been going on a long time and sometimes I think its an insider trick to know who to award grants to (e.g. "empowerment" was my personal favorite).

tptacek 10y ago
I don't know why people who don't do the real work get the magazine articles and conference talks, but if we're talking about security --- the community being criticized (from the inside) in this post --- it seems like a spot-on observation.
chris_7 10y ago
It's somewhat true that lead singers and guitarists are lionized over drummers and bassists, but they're still doing relatively equal work (and in many cases the singer is also the writer). There's also the sound/lights/crew/merch people, but they wouldn't have a reason to be there without the rock stars.
- protomyth 10y ago
  I think in your first example, I can name a lot more bands that have been able to replace drummers and bassists than lead singers and guitarists, but all of them are considered rock stars. With a bit of unequal fame (well except for the obvious such as Santana). The crew is important, but so is the electric company that provides the power. They are, as you say, only there because of the rock stars.
Animats 10y ago

chris_7 10y ago

This one: Avoid organizations becoming too central to people’s lives Seems at odds with this one: Enforce strict policies around sexual or romantic relationships within power structures Due to the use of the terms "organization" and "community" instead of "company" or an equivalent, it's unclear if they are referring entirely to employment (where such a prohibition would be pretty common and mundane), or if they are also including open-source projects, where it would seem like a huge intrusion. Submitting an issue or pull request shouldn't have any effect on your ability to date someone.

yawaramin 10y ago
I think it makes sense if you interpret it as having rules against seeing someone if you're in a position of power over them. If you happen to be in same organisation but have no power over them, there isn't a conflict.
- chris_7 10y ago
  Right, and that makes sense for companies, but someone should be able to make a PR against a Github project for which their wife is a maintainer.
  - yawaramin 10y ago
    I think these rules kind of all cease to apply at the marital boundary, and there new and equally troublesome rules take over :-)

shrewduser 10y ago

That is an extremely long bow to draw... the author seems to have picked up on a case of a narcissistic possibly deviant and then tarnished all people who excel / lead with the same brush. this reeks of tall poppy syndrome, i can't even believe what i'm reading.

ktRolster 10y ago

Some programmers are dramatically better than others......some of those top programmers are jerks, some aren't (just like every segment of society). I always called those top programmers rockstars, but apparently that's the wrong term.....what should they be called then?

exstudent2 10y ago
> I always called those top programmers rockstars That was a well known usage for the term. This blog post is trying to redefine "rockstar" but you/we don't have to go along with the language policing.

Saturnaut 10y ago

Don't sleep with people you work with. Don't drink if you can't control yourself or can't trust the people you are with. Don't do drugs if you can't control yourself or trust the people you are with. Problem solved!

prawn 10y ago
Wow, that's hugely insensitive. Why not try it from another angle and save on typing: "Don't abuse people. Problem solved!"
- Saturnaut 10y ago
  Well I agree with that statement as well. However, it never hurts to take preventative measures in one's own life, instead of letting yourself get screwed over and then wondering why it happened and who to blame.
  - prawn 10y ago
    Victim blaming is pretty insensitive though, as is "letting yourself get screwed over". There was an infamous case in Australia where a cleric responded to gang-rape by members of his community by labelling young girls in skirts as being like raw meat attracting animals. The implication was "of course the animals will want to eat the meat". Yes, the reality is that if you never leave the house, live in a panic room, cover your entire self at all hours, etc you reduce the risk, but ultimately the action is on the abuser rather than the one being abused and that is where we should direct criticism, especially in immediate/direct response to something like this IMO. What are we ideally working towards? A world where everyone must avoid a defined level of risk (including certain level of dress!), or one where any of us can walk anywhere with an expectation that we won't be abused by another one of us? I'd like to think the latter.
    - Saturnaut 10y ago
      Yes, but young girls being forcibly gang raped is a far cry from what is laid out in this article. Yes, the action is on the abuser. I never once said the blame is on the victim. However, most of what the author has laid out is "He is a jerk, people have said he is a jerk, he takes advantage of people, etc". Not "He forcibly raped me and others." So - as an individual - taking very simple steps, like the ones I outlined in my first comment, are only common sense, and can only work in said individual's favor. I've read some of this author's other posts, including the one that talks specifically about her relationship with Appelbaum (including consensual sexual acts). Calling her a victim because she was taken advantage of, on the same level the girls in Australia you mentioned who were forcibly gang raped are victims, is absurd. Edit: Leaving the above alone, but on further inspection, it looks like several people have claimed that he "sexually assaulted" them. Now, if true, they should have reported these things to the police immediately. However, I went ahead and read through the stories on the Appelbaum shame website. In every one of the instances, the victim put themselves in a situation to be taken advantage of by this scumbag - drinking heavily enough to black out with him, sleeping in the same bed as him, etc. Am I defending him? Hell no. But something has to be said about taking responsibility for one's own safety and well being, and being intelligent about not getting into situations like these.

jondubois 10y ago

I'm really glad that someone is raising this issue. This 'rock star worship' culture is rampant in Open Source communities. What's worse is that many of these 'rock stars' don't do anything except blog and give talks at conferences - Their main goal is self-promotion. They don't give a shit about the actual project or the community. You rarely hear about open source developers who focus on one project and produce amazing work over many years - These developers are too busy actually writing code and promoting the project to care about promoting themselves - Because they understand that their project is more important. A good open source developer sees themselves as a servant to the project, not the master. I think a big problem in the tech industry in general is that there is too much focus on people - I'm sick of hearing investors say "We invest in people, not products" - I think this sends the wrong message and attracts the wrong people. The product should always be more important than the people who built it - People who agree with this statement are the ones we should invest in because they're the ones who will actually create value for society (as opposed to merely capturing value which others have created).

exstudent2 10y ago
That's a separate issue from saying that rockstar syndrome leads to sexual abuse though. It's not really fair to use a boogieman like that to make the case against rockstar worship. If it's a bad idea, it can be argued against without the rhetorical leap made here.
- tptacek 10y ago
  One problem with rockstarism is that it can create safe havens for abusers. But there are all sorts of other concerns. I'm surprised to see people defending it here; HN has always struck me as a community that is pretty cynical about rock stars.
  - NetTechM 10y ago
    Cynical yes, but some people do really good work and just end up in the position because of it. Too much painting with a broad brush and trying to redefine a word normally reserved for an Ace team member.

barozi 10y ago

I am probably the a rare person who has been sexually assaulted by a woman. And I have had 2 women falsely accuse me of rape over a 10-year period. In short, people are irrational and do weird things out of shame, anger or spite. I put myself in the situation with the girl who assaulted me twice. We had kissed a few times and I stayed over at her place, more out of necessity than a romantic intention. She got completely naked, groped me, jumped on top of me, and I basically wrestled he away for 15 minutes. She insulted me, said I should just be a man, called me gay and on and on. The next month she did the same thing; naked, grabbing me, and I pushed her away for 20 minutes or so. Yes I had "led her on", and kissed her but she was a turnoff to me for a variety of reasons, and I didn't want to have sex with her. Other times, I had a girl mess around with me, get too excited, we had sex, she freaks out, tells her friend I raped her, and then came over the next night. I only mention this because the above blog seems quite dubious. Obviously when the girl assaulted me, it is a different situation when a guy does it to a girl because of obvious reasons. I wasn't scared for my life or of being forcefully penetrated. The cops didn't get involved in any of the situations. I have no idea if this guy Jacob is guilty or not. He seems like an insensitive person though. When I read things like in the first link and first accusation of the blog above, that Jacob told people about a girl's sex act, I become skeptical. If they want to include that, do it last, after the actual accusations of rape or sexual assault. And the original 3 people who accused Jacob misunderstood the situation and were wrong. Sex is a tricky thing about what is right and what is wrong. Jacob didn't listen to a girl's safe word? He talked openly about sex inappropriately? He raped a girl in front of a group? Man, if I was in that group of people both Jacob and I would be in jail; me for assault. Today, people have expanded the definition of rape to being drunk and having regrets or being lied to. For the sake of everyone, if you are accusing Jacob Appelbum of rape or sexual assault, file a police report, or publicly write about it.

jimrandomh 10y ago

To keep out bad actors, it's very important to have an accurate model of what those bad actors are like and how to recognize them. The correct word for this is not "rock star", it's "psychopath". Equating the term "rock star" with bad actors is not going to accurately guide people's attention where it needs to go; instead, it'll lead to attacks on honest people who happen to have accumulated prestige. Those are the very people who have the ability to spot and push out the psychopaths. But if they're forced into conflict with feminists, they won't be doing that.

dragonwriter 10y ago
"Rock star" isn't a description of what a bad actor looks like, but it is a description of treatment of people who have high performance on one axis which empowers those that happen to be bad actors in manners unrelated to that axis and disempowers their victims. Keeping out bad actors is desirable, but never going to be 100%. Avoiding creating the power dynamic which enables abusers to flourish is also important.

chroma 10y ago

With the exception of the "assume guilt" recommendation (which seems ripe for abuse), I think these guidelines are mostly fine. But calling abusive people "rock stars" seems unnecessarily controversial. Better to use the accurate and unambiguous "abuser". That describes Jacob Applebaum far more clearly than "rock star". Also, I think a term like "rock star" (in the benevolent sense) is a useful one. There are people who are really talented (and know it), who love the limelight, who sometimes say controversial things, and who have contributed more to our industry than any of us could hope to. I'm talking about people like Daniel J. Bernstein, David Heinemeier Hansson, Theo de Raadt, and (of course) Linus Torvalds. If we're going to give "rock star" purely negative connotations, I'm not sure what what to call these people. "Badass" would work, except some social circles frown upon profanity.

tptacek 10y ago
Rock star abusers are a subset of abusers, so your proposed change doesn't work. Try to give the piece the most charitable possible interpretation. Leigh Honeywell knows more about Daniel J. Bernstein and Theo de Raadt than most people on HN. There's an interpretation of this post that suggests she's claiming that DJB and Theo are abusers, but common sense --- we don't even need charity! --- tells us that's probably not what she's saying.
- MBCook 10y ago
  Abusers who are not rock stars are not as much of a problem because the community is much more willing to throw them out. They just seem like a troll. But if they are also a rock star they often get tolerated/encouraged. Their value appears to mean the community is willing to put up it. And THATS where rock stars are a problem. You can call Carmack a rock star, he's earned it. I don't think I've ever heard anything other than he's a nice guy (I hope that's not from lack of people speaking up).
- chroma 10y ago
  If you want to just focus on what you call "abusive rock stars", then I think the most accurate term is "abusive charlatan". That covers the lack of skill as well as the fame-seeking. In terms of reading charitably, I'm sorry to say that you're the one who needs to do more of it. I never implied that the author might be accusing those people of abusive behavior. In fact, that idea didn't even occur to me until you mentioned it. I was just giving examples of good "rock stars" in our field. My issue is this: There are plenty of existing terms that accurately describe what the author is talking about. If she manages to redefine "rock star" to be purely negative, it robs us of a useful word. And because of that, a lot of people are going to be against her definitional change. (As evidence, just look at this HN thread.) She could gain more support by avoiding this definitional fight.

yanilkr 10y ago

Rock stars are good at what they do and most of the time earn that label. Don't form a gang and hurt productivity of your team/company. If someone is working hard to earn a rockstar label don't penalize them. You will probably need rock stars and plumbers getting along well. If someone is a bad employee rockstar or otherwise that needs to be dealt properly.

kasey_junk 10y ago
I'd say my biggest complaint about the term "rock star" is that its nonstandard. This article uses a definition, which describes a set of people I know in tech communities. Your comment is probably referring to something else. Regardless, the article is spot on in describing what to do to produce healthy environments, whereas most uses of the term rock star that I've found come from unhealthy ones.

super_id 10y ago

Stopped reading at the trigger warning. When did the whole internet become a joke from PCU?

some-guy 10y ago
I suppose then you were "triggered" by the warning?
- hypatiadotca 10y ago
  Some people are so sensitive, dontchaknow ;)
- jessaustin 10y ago
  This is a difficult problem to solve. Presumably a trigger warning about trigger warnings would also trigger?
lukeasrodgers 10y ago
Personally I find trigger warnings annoying sometimes as well, though I believe it is mostly for irrational reasons and so I don't let it stop me from reading anything preceded by a trigger warning. Even if you believe you have good reasons for being offended/annoyed by trigger warnings, it's unfortunate that this would cause you to dismiss the text/opinion out of hand. Perhaps we need trigger warning trigger warnings for people who are triggered by trigger warnings?
- serge2k 10y ago
  > so I don't let it stop me from reading anything preceded by a trigger warning I often do. It varies, this article is mostly fine. Some good points in general about organizations. When you get to codes of conduct and changing the PRs to remove master/slave terminology you pretty much lose me. I guess a CoC is useful as it puts things in writing, but it still feels like PC overkill. If you aren't able to treat people with respect/professionalism then leave. Does it really need to be called out that you need to do that regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc... To be quite frank, some of the things brought up just seem like they really aren't a big deal. Someone is harassing people then yes, absolutely go after them. Gender neutrality in your new press release, yeah sure that is sensible. Complaining because some database system uses master/slave terminology... does it really matter? Of course that goes both ways, something trivial can probably just be changed. Even if the only real reason is to get someone to quit complaining.

auganov 10y ago

It's decent advice for larger organizations. At startup-sized orgs you're bound to have people with disproportionate amounts of power (and often it's a good thing). I hate to be pessimistic but I think instilling a deep sense of moral wrongness of certain actions and behaviors is what you have to do in order to have real impact.

LELISOSKA 10y ago

i read the allegations, he's a funny guy if its true.

jondubois 10y ago

Was this just taken off the HN front page?

tptacek 10y ago
Almost definitely not; rather, the post was probably flagged by users. This happens all the time, and your question is a very common one.
- jondubois 10y ago
  'Flagged by users' - Interesting. Do some of these users happen to be friends with 'Jacob Appelbaum'? I understand, the whole system is rigged to praise rock stars and screw the plumbers.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No. Not only don't they, but that argument (that a thread or story is being propelled in some direction by shillage) is per se uncivil on HN. You're not allowed to make it at all. It turns out to be one of our better rules. People flag stories for all sorts of reasons on HN. Some people don't want non-tech or political or current-events stories of any sort on the front page. Some people don't want to see threads descend into the inevitably shitshows that these threads descend into. Some people disagree with the story. If you think something's been flagged unfairly, rather than litigating it on the threads, you should mail hn@ycombinator.com. We have one of the more reasonable moderation teams on the Internet here, but they can't be everywhere all at once.
  - throwllll 10y ago
    I flag (using my non-throaway account) any article that only results in mob-and-pitchfork style discussion. Many comments in here are advocating that we should abandon the court and justice system (because its unfair to the victim, its too high requirements for conviction, ectra) in favor of just punishing the assumed guilty. I will keep flagging stories like this as long as that opinion still runs popular.

peterwwillis 10y ago

First off, there is lots of different potential abuse in a tech community. Second, not all of it comes from "rock stars" - the aggregate cases of abuse probably greatly outweigh rockstardom-enabled abuse. Third, the abuse was perpetuated not because Jake was a "rock star", but because your community's values suck and nobody would stand up and call him out, AND nobody cared once they did. This was primarily a failure of your community. But like I keep saying, this is a feature of all in-groups. "Why are rock stars so common and successful?" Because communities like "leaders", and they have shit heuristics to determine it. And everyone loves an asshole, and there's tons of asshole hackers. "How do we as a community prevent rock stars?" Stop being a community. I'm serious. Communities breed power in individuals and it's been proven time and again (and "in studies", no less) that in an in-group, a person with power and low morals is more likely to abuse their power. It's inherent to in-groups. Remove the community, you remove the power, you remove the social and other influences that bring the immoral, not-powerful person into contact with the vulnerable. No community, no abuse. "Our recommendations can be summarized as: decentralizing points of failure," ....What? This isn't an Active Directory tree, these are humans. Every node in your network is a point of failure. "increasing transparency," And what would that look like? Sending an e-mail to a listserv every time someone says something passive-aggressive to you? Again, there is no simple way to police the myriad of potential abuses, micro or macro, from all sorts of personalities. "improving accountability," Which, for a community that shuns the police, looks like what? K-lining him from your IRC server? "supporting private and anonymous communication," You already have that. This whole debacle has shown how anonymous communication is dismissed until a real face is put to a complaint, and many of them, all at once. This is pretty standard group dynamics, again. "reducing power differentials," So... everyone is an op. Nobody is allowed to like anyone else more, and everyone has to be invited to your party. "and avoiding situations that make violating boundaries more likely." No more alcohol or drugs and nobody is allowed to be in a room alone with one other person, AND no PMs allowed, everything in-chat and logged. Got it. -- The points, one by one: Codes of conduct won't be followed if the people enforcing the code of conduct don't enforce it. This is why there are police that police the police. "Start with the assumption that harassment reports are true" - if Jake had made the first report against his victim, now we would have to believe Jake. Default assumption of guilt doesn't work - this is why our own country's laws do the opposite. All the examples given of "investigating for bad behavior" are things regular non-rapey people do all the time. "nasty emails, stolen credit, rude behavior, and unethical acts big and small" ? That's every fucking hacker troll alive. Making it easy for victims to find each other is not a good idea, because coordination leads, again, to failed heuristics: one person felt uncomfortable with a consensual act, another was actually violently sexually assaulted, and now the first changes their story so they're taken more seriously. (This is not something i'm making up to gaslight an invisible person, btw, this happens to real victims) It would, however, be GREAT if there were a community-specific organization that anyone could contact to discuss how they feel in a safe way. Watching for boundary pushing and react strongly - yes, 100%. Call people out for "monopolizing attention" - uh.... Right, popular female hacker scenester. Let's police the social convention of "taking credit for work" or "being loud and outgoing". You and I both know nobody's going to shout down the hacker media whores - and there are so, so many. The "deep bench of talent" thing is again, almost completely irrelevant to generally preventing abuse in communities. You basically explained why your point about hierarchies is invalid, so no need to comment. "Failing up" is a minor aspect of corporate hierarchy and has nothing to do with social or personal power in in-groups, this is not relevant to the subject. And, sure, "no relationships in the workplace". You go ahead and explain to Sally and Joe (or Jane, or Zed, or whatever) that Sally is going to have to support her kids without Joe's help because Joe needs to leave the company because you feel uncomfortable that they might one day have a domestic dispute. "Avoid organizations becoming too central to people's lives" - this really has zero to do with the subject. "Distribute the keys to the kingdom" - Same. "Don't create environments for potential boundary violation" - Like I said above - no drugs, no alcohol, never leave anyone alone with another person. Your parties are gonna be a blast. Chiptune, diet shasta orange, and vacation slides. Wheeeee. -- "We waited too long to do something about it." Correct. Now, next time, do something about it. That is really all that needed to be said and all that needs to be done.