9 ms·

The context for those out of the loop: https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/ https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/

jf- 6y ago
> NumFOCUS found I violated their Code of Conduct (CoC) at JupyterCon because my talk was not “kind”, because I said Joel Grus was “wrong” regarding his opinion that Jupyter Notebook is not a good software development environment Wow.
- Topgamer7 6y ago
  Excuse me sir, you've committed a thought crime for not following propaganda guidelines on independent thought and expression.
  - dsq 6y ago
    You have violated the CoC by presuming to use the honorific "sir", thus promoting gender opression!
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      FWIW I've got a female friend who was in enlisted the US Navy and she spoke of female naval officers who were addressed as "Sir" rather than "Ma'am" (though most went by "Ma'am"). So I don't know how to feel about anything anymore.
      - SilasX 6y ago
        That's a common trope in sci-fi -- I think Star Trek TNG and Battlestar Gallactica had the female officers addressed as "sir".
    - chowned 6y ago
      We can criticize this specific instance of CoC enforcement without making fun of legitimate gender issues in technology.
      - franga2000 6y ago
        Not OP, but I don't think they were making fun of the legitimate issues. There have been plenty of instances of pronoun-related overreactions in and outside the tech sector - see the recent-ish StackOverflow mess for an example. There are obviously many issues, but there are also many overblown non-issues and I don't see much harm in making fun of those.
        suckitfuckers 6y ago
        Some people make jokes and don't realize the effect they have on the people who have to be the victims of those comments day in and day out. I'm sorry if that's not easy to understand. These are the same people who think women don't belong in tech, or that people who choose pronouns are "snowflakes". It's why we don't have as many women in tech and it really needs to stop.
- akiselev 6y ago
  Don't leave out the best part (the very next sentence) > Joel (who I greatly respect, and consider an asset to the data science community) was not involved in NumFOCUS’s action, was not told about it, and did not support it.
  - hintymad 6y ago
    Wow! Feelings! Feelings! Feelings! Since when have people become like this?
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  AFAICT, according to the apology he had been accused but not convicted of the violation.
  - btilly 6y ago
    According to his account, he was told that he had been convicted. According to him, now, he disagrees with that assertion in their apology. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24946688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24946688.
    - bryanlarsen 6y ago
      > According to his account, he was told that he had been convicted. The apology states that this was a "crucial miscommunication that we take responsibility for" OTOH, from Jeremy Howard's account it really does sound like the committee doubled down on that miscommunication so often that it seems hard to believe that's all it was.
      - btilly 6y ago
        And my judgement after all available information is that they are straight up lying. Here is why. His stated recollection is that they said, “that is what the reporters stated, and what we found” and to his asking why his statement was not requested, “we all watched the video, so we could see for ourselves the violation”. What they said in his version is very clear. That is not a miscommunication. Calling it a "miscommunication" sounds like nothing more than the best excuse that they came up with for themselves. Therefore this reduces down to a simple "he said, she said" type of conflict. What I have to judge on is what is publicly known of his character, their incentives, and indications about their character. He has a solid public reputation as an upstanding person. Their incentives are to minimize perception of wrongdoing in their actions. Both the fact that they got into this mess, and their non-apology in attempting to get out of it, suggests that they lack even a shred of integrity. Therefore it is his word against theirs. He is believable. They are not. And so I conclude that they are lying on this point.
- slightwinder 6y ago
  Remember, this is just one side. Is there any detailed response from the other side? With something like this the tone and atmosphere has a grave weight on the perception. Like you can say someone is wrong in a nice, professional way, but also in a meany, bullying way. And it doesn't even need to be seen by the involved people as mean, if they have such a "toxic" type relationship. But a Code of Conduct is also a bit about the perception of others, and how it sells a project. In his statement there are hints indicating in this direction. He mentions his talk was made as a parody. Parodies by nature are on a thin line between being funny englightment, and being mean bullying. So it can be the case that his see himself as funny, while other might see it as a mean insult. And he mentions some unwritten rules which were applied to him specifically because his talk was somewhat special because it was an opener(?) or something. Which means he got more attention than your regular talk.
type0 6y ago
and discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24926214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24926214
johncena33 6y ago
Whenever I see things like this, it always makes me think out of all the problems we have right now in the world do we really need to spend time in trivial things like this?
xab31 6y ago
It was a very effective response from Jeremy. He clearly describes his side of the story and convincingly explains why he thought he did nothing wrong. What is a little more troubling is that he (A) describes codes of conduct in detail and repeatedly affirms his allegiance to the general idea behind CoCs, including describing "previous sexual assault allegations" as "behaviors" he "strongly agrees" should be stopped. (B) He goes some way towards portraying himself as a victim, describing in graphic detail his lack of "emotional resilience". I wonder if he realized what a thin line he was walking with (A), because he now has a "previous CoC violation allegation" on his permanent record, regardless of his acquittal. In other words, he very strongly backs the spirit, letter, and zeitgeist of CoCs before describing why he thinks he did not violate them in this specific case. I think these were very wise tactical moves, although they leave a bad taste in my mouth, and I can't help but wonder if this approach affected the outcome. I don't recall seeing an apology ever given, let alone changes instituted, for CoC violation allegations.
- sigmaprimus 6y ago
  >>>", because he now has a "previous CoC violation allegation" on his permanent record, regardless of his acquittal." I wonder how much this has affected his lifetime earning potential? Couple that with the "public apology" seems like an open and shut lawsuit that many lawyers would be happy to take on contingency.
  - xab31 6y ago
    EDIT: My reading was wrong, see below. The thing that seemed to me oddest about all this is that Jeremy says the committee spoke to two reporters before hearing his side of the story, and before issuing a judgment. It is not totally clear if they were speaking to those two reporters about his case. I would imagine that an obvious way for CoC committees to minimize their own liability would be to at least avoid talking to reporters before they have issued a judgment. Really, the process should be totally private until a guilty judgment has been made, and if the person is declared innocent, then the whole thing should disappear without ever having been made public.

jf- 6y ago

> NumFOCUS found I violated their Code of Conduct (CoC) at JupyterCon because my talk was not “kind”, because I said Joel Grus was “wrong” regarding his opinion that Jupyter Notebook is not a good software development environment Wow.

Topgamer7 6y ago
Excuse me sir, you've committed a thought crime for not following propaganda guidelines on independent thought and expression.
- dsq 6y ago
  You have violated the CoC by presuming to use the honorific "sir", thus promoting gender opression!
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    FWIW I've got a female friend who was in enlisted the US Navy and she spoke of female naval officers who were addressed as "Sir" rather than "Ma'am" (though most went by "Ma'am"). So I don't know how to feel about anything anymore.
    - SilasX 6y ago
      That's a common trope in sci-fi -- I think Star Trek TNG and Battlestar Gallactica had the female officers addressed as "sir".
  - chowned 6y ago
    We can criticize this specific instance of CoC enforcement without making fun of legitimate gender issues in technology.
    - franga2000 6y ago
      Not OP, but I don't think they were making fun of the legitimate issues. There have been plenty of instances of pronoun-related overreactions in and outside the tech sector - see the recent-ish StackOverflow mess for an example. There are obviously many issues, but there are also many overblown non-issues and I don't see much harm in making fun of those.
      - suckitfuckers 6y ago
        Some people make jokes and don't realize the effect they have on the people who have to be the victims of those comments day in and day out. I'm sorry if that's not easy to understand. These are the same people who think women don't belong in tech, or that people who choose pronouns are "snowflakes". It's why we don't have as many women in tech and it really needs to stop.
akiselev 6y ago
Don't leave out the best part (the very next sentence) > Joel (who I greatly respect, and consider an asset to the data science community) was not involved in NumFOCUS’s action, was not told about it, and did not support it.
- hintymad 6y ago
  Wow! Feelings! Feelings! Feelings! Since when have people become like this?
bryanlarsen 6y ago
AFAICT, according to the apology he had been accused but not convicted of the violation.
- btilly 6y ago
  According to his account, he was told that he had been convicted. According to him, now, he disagrees with that assertion in their apology. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24946688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24946688.
  - bryanlarsen 6y ago
    > According to his account, he was told that he had been convicted. The apology states that this was a "crucial miscommunication that we take responsibility for" OTOH, from Jeremy Howard's account it really does sound like the committee doubled down on that miscommunication so often that it seems hard to believe that's all it was.
    - btilly 6y ago
      And my judgement after all available information is that they are straight up lying. Here is why. His stated recollection is that they said, “that is what the reporters stated, and what we found” and to his asking why his statement was not requested, “we all watched the video, so we could see for ourselves the violation”. What they said in his version is very clear. That is not a miscommunication. Calling it a "miscommunication" sounds like nothing more than the best excuse that they came up with for themselves. Therefore this reduces down to a simple "he said, she said" type of conflict. What I have to judge on is what is publicly known of his character, their incentives, and indications about their character. He has a solid public reputation as an upstanding person. Their incentives are to minimize perception of wrongdoing in their actions. Both the fact that they got into this mess, and their non-apology in attempting to get out of it, suggests that they lack even a shred of integrity. Therefore it is his word against theirs. He is believable. They are not. And so I conclude that they are lying on this point.
slightwinder 6y ago
Remember, this is just one side. Is there any detailed response from the other side? With something like this the tone and atmosphere has a grave weight on the perception. Like you can say someone is wrong in a nice, professional way, but also in a meany, bullying way. And it doesn't even need to be seen by the involved people as mean, if they have such a "toxic" type relationship. But a Code of Conduct is also a bit about the perception of others, and how it sells a project. In his statement there are hints indicating in this direction. He mentions his talk was made as a parody. Parodies by nature are on a thin line between being funny englightment, and being mean bullying. So it can be the case that his see himself as funny, while other might see it as a mean insult. And he mentions some unwritten rules which were applied to him specifically because his talk was somewhat special because it was an opener(?) or something. Which means he got more attention than your regular talk.

type0 6y ago

and discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24926214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24926214

johncena33 6y ago

Whenever I see things like this, it always makes me think out of all the problems we have right now in the world do we really need to spend time in trivial things like this?

xab31 6y ago

It was a very effective response from Jeremy. He clearly describes his side of the story and convincingly explains why he thought he did nothing wrong. What is a little more troubling is that he (A) describes codes of conduct in detail and repeatedly affirms his allegiance to the general idea behind CoCs, including describing "previous sexual assault allegations" as "behaviors" he "strongly agrees" should be stopped. (B) He goes some way towards portraying himself as a victim, describing in graphic detail his lack of "emotional resilience". I wonder if he realized what a thin line he was walking with (A), because he now has a "previous CoC violation allegation" on his permanent record, regardless of his acquittal. In other words, he very strongly backs the spirit, letter, and zeitgeist of CoCs before describing why he thinks he did not violate them in this specific case. I think these were very wise tactical moves, although they leave a bad taste in my mouth, and I can't help but wonder if this approach affected the outcome. I don't recall seeing an apology ever given, let alone changes instituted, for CoC violation allegations.

sigmaprimus 6y ago
>>>", because he now has a "previous CoC violation allegation" on his permanent record, regardless of his acquittal." I wonder how much this has affected his lifetime earning potential? Couple that with the "public apology" seems like an open and shut lawsuit that many lawyers would be happy to take on contingency.
- xab31 6y ago
  EDIT: My reading was wrong, see below. The thing that seemed to me oddest about all this is that Jeremy says the committee spoke to two reporters before hearing his side of the story, and before issuing a judgment. It is not totally clear if they were speaking to those two reporters about his case. I would imagine that an obvious way for CoC committees to minimize their own liability would be to at least avoid talking to reporters before they have issued a judgment. Really, the process should be totally private until a guilty judgment has been made, and if the person is declared innocent, then the whole thing should disappear without ever having been made public.