4 ms·

Ok, but seriously, what's the alternative? Should literally _everything_ be an fully transparent democratic process (and good luck keeping it fair when bad act

by lukev 6y ago

Ok, but seriously, what's the alternative? Should literally _everything_ be an fully transparent democratic process (and good luck keeping it fair when bad actors show up en masse)? Having a CoC is at least an improvement on the previous status quo, which was some group of individuals making arbitrary decisions in secret without any justification for their actions _at all_. CoC's don't give anyone more power than they already had; they just clearly express the principles that the group already in power will (ostensibly) use to make choices.

anonymousiam 6y ago
Democratic processes have been proven to be exploitable. A good example is Microsoft's stacking of the ISO OOXML committee: https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-accused-of-stacking-iso-committee/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-accused-of-stacking-... So are we stuck between a choice of democracy, dictatorship, or a politburo? Maybe the organizers of events like this should stick to organizing the event and not trying to regulate the behavior of presenters and attendees.
- lukev 6y ago
  Choosing which talks have the tone and content you want for your conference is an integral part of organizing an event. I'm not sure what you're actually advocating here.
  - anonymousiam 6y ago
    Free speech.
hprotagonist 6y ago
a COC as such is fine, but most implementations are godawful and that _must_ change. Most people are not trained to run them, but do so anyway, and that's clearly what's gone on here. The committee that is responsible for judging COC violations must: - operate transparently: no star chambers! - have a real, actual, not-just-we-checked-a-box culture of engineering ethics where individuals on the committee can say "no, this complaint is obvious bullshit, let's move on" without fear of reprisal from the committee members themselves, or the organizational power structure they report to. >CoC's don't give anyone more power than they already had Nonsense. Formation of a committee as such is implicit power; formation of a committee to adjudicate politically sensitive and fraught matters is explicit power.
rleigh 6y ago
Not "democratic", but "fair and accountable". You are effectively reinventing a legal system with the CoC rules and its enforcement. But it's a "kangaroo court". In the real world, we realised that power needs checks and balances. Justice must be seen to have been served in a fair and proportionate manner. That's why we have public hearings, jury trials, the defendant has the right to put forward their side of the story with legal representation, evidence is submitted by both sides, we have cross-examination, sentences are passed with reference to established precedent, and there is also the right to appeal a judgement. If organisations take it upon themselves to invent a faux legal system under which to operate, they can not omit the checks and balances without creating a system ripe for abuse and miscarriage of justice. The problem with CoC "enforcement" is that it is done behind closed doors with no oversight or accountability. The "defendant" has no right to properly hear the charges, or to present their case, or to appeal against it. It is manifestly unfair. As for "not giving anyone more power than they already had", this is also untrue. Committees and individuals have been explicitly bestowed with the power to enforce CoCs by pronouncing judgements and inflicting their will upon the members of their organisations. They have great power, but not the corresponding requirement for accountability to their members.

by lukev 6y ago

anonymousiam 6y ago

Democratic processes have been proven to be exploitable. A good example is Microsoft's stacking of the ISO OOXML committee: https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-accused-of-stacking-iso-committee/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-accused-of-stacking-... So are we stuck between a choice of democracy, dictatorship, or a politburo? Maybe the organizers of events like this should stick to organizing the event and not trying to regulate the behavior of presenters and attendees.

lukev 6y ago
Choosing which talks have the tone and content you want for your conference is an integral part of organizing an event. I'm not sure what you're actually advocating here.
- anonymousiam 6y ago
  Free speech.

hprotagonist 6y ago

a COC as such is fine, but most implementations are godawful and that _must_ change. Most people are not trained to run them, but do so anyway, and that's clearly what's gone on here. The committee that is responsible for judging COC violations must: - operate transparently: no star chambers! - have a real, actual, not-just-we-checked-a-box culture of engineering ethics where individuals on the committee can say "no, this complaint is obvious bullshit, let's move on" without fear of reprisal from the committee members themselves, or the organizational power structure they report to. >CoC's don't give anyone more power than they already had Nonsense. Formation of a committee as such is implicit power; formation of a committee to adjudicate politically sensitive and fraught matters is explicit power.

rleigh 6y ago

Not "democratic", but "fair and accountable". You are effectively reinventing a legal system with the CoC rules and its enforcement. But it's a "kangaroo court". In the real world, we realised that power needs checks and balances. Justice must be seen to have been served in a fair and proportionate manner. That's why we have public hearings, jury trials, the defendant has the right to put forward their side of the story with legal representation, evidence is submitted by both sides, we have cross-examination, sentences are passed with reference to established precedent, and there is also the right to appeal a judgement. If organisations take it upon themselves to invent a faux legal system under which to operate, they can not omit the checks and balances without creating a system ripe for abuse and miscarriage of justice. The problem with CoC "enforcement" is that it is done behind closed doors with no oversight or accountability. The "defendant" has no right to properly hear the charges, or to present their case, or to appeal against it. It is manifestly unfair. As for "not giving anyone more power than they already had", this is also untrue. Committees and individuals have been explicitly bestowed with the power to enforce CoCs by pronouncing judgements and inflicting their will upon the members of their organisations. They have great power, but not the corresponding requirement for accountability to their members.