5 ms·

Am I reading this correctly? It seems to say that Jeremy is still considered guilty of a CoC violation but if he appeals then the board will hear it (rather th

Am I reading this correctly? It seems to say that Jeremy is still considered guilty of a CoC violation but if he appeals then the board will hear it (rather than the committee). So Jeremey has to file an appeal or the decision will stand? So the onus to fix this is on Jeremy who seems so exhausted by this whole process that he's quit conference talks? That seems a response that lacks any sense of empathy to Jeremy. edit: Okay. On Twitter they said that no judgement was made even now. However their enforcement policy (which the apology explicitly references) only mentions appeal if an action was already decided upon "Give them a place to appeal to if there is one, but in the meantime the action stands." Given that not adhering to their own process and written documents was a chief complaint it seems they haven't learned much yet from the incident.

ggoo 6y ago
Yep, this is a non-apology apology.
bryanlarsen 6y ago
I read it quite differently. It sounds to me that he is still accused but they have not confirmed the violation yet. The committee has recused themselves from that decision.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  That seems correct based on their Twitter comments however their apology reference something (appeal) and a context (enforcement policy) which only applies (as written in the enforcement policy) if an action (read: penalty) was already decided upon. Given the original issues Jeremy had I would have assumed they'd take extra care to follow their own as written process and documents in the follow up. Clearly not.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  Their own communication to him said that they were discussing the results of the investigation with him, without talking to him during the investigation. They're not being honest.
btilly 6y ago
Yes. You will also note that the word "sorry" is entirely missing. And the list of things that they failed to "acknowledge" includes their not telling him what rule he was accused of violating, what action of his violated the rule, having literally laughed at him, and having violated their own code of conduct. They also offer nothing in the way of amends. Or do anything to suggest that there will be consequences to the people who screwed up. Given that, their assurance that they will use this "to improve our policies going forward" sounds like the meaningless hollow BS that it is.
- gojomo 6y ago
  This seems nitpicky. Saying "we apologize" multiple times is the same as "we're sorry". They've said their communications were in error in the way they described the complaints, the status of the investigation, and their charged language. They've kicked the whole thing up to the responsible organizational Board of Directors for more action - which is to say, completely removed the group that made the errors from next steps. That's about as good an public apology from one specific committee, with limited remit, as is possible! If NumFocus as a whole takes further steps, I'm sure we'll hear. But there's no reason to hold up this 'mea culpa' until everything is settled at all levels. Promptness is better than perfection!
  - IshKebab 6y ago
    I don't think it is nitpicky. It definitely reads at least partly like an "I'm sorry you feel that I have offended you" apology and "We ... issue a public apology to Jeremy Howard..." is a weirdly evasive way of putting it. I get that it is hard to admit fault and apologise but here's what they should have said: > We, the NumFOCUS Code of Conduct Enforcement Committee, would like to publicly apologise to Jeremy Howard for our handling of the JupyterCon 2020 reports. We did not give Jeremy a chance to defend himself before concluding that he had violated our CoC, and for that, and the stress it has caused, we are sorry. I'm available to hire for public apology writing. :-) Still, to be fair I don't think I've actually ever seen a public apology that was actually a full genuine public apology. This is probably the best anyone could hope for.
klyrs 6y ago
They're apologizing for how they handled the incident: > We apologize for causing this stress and will work to improve our process to avoid this from happening in the future. > We apologize for not communicating that clearly from the beginning. They are not apologizing for the existence of the complaints. They do not imply that Jeremy is considered guilty -- they say that the issue is unresolved: > We should have been clearer saying multiple complaints have been made and the alleged violation investigation had not been resolved. Their language does not seem to put the onus on Jeremy: > Because of the missteps of this committee, we have asked the NumFOCUS Board of Directors to take over the work of the committee as outlined in the appeals process of our enforcement guide. (emphasis mine)
- marcinzm 6y ago
  >They are not apologizing for the existence of the complaints. They do not imply that Jeremy is considered guilty -- they say that the issue is unresolved: It's very unclear to me if they meant to say Jeremy was not guilty when they talked to him at a certain point in time or if he is still not guilty. >Their language does not seem to put the onus on Jeremy: What you quoted also says: >outlined in the appeals process of our enforcement guide. Are appeals automatic in the enforcement guide or is an appeal already pending? edit: And if he was never found guilty then why is this an appeals process. Doesn't that usually mean an initial judgement was rendered and is being appealed?
  - klyrs 6y ago
    > It's very unclear to me if they meant to say Jeremey was not guilty when they talked to him at a certain point in time or if he is still not guilty. It's clear to me that they're trying to not express an opinion there. I read this as them recusing themselves from the situation and doing their best to not express an opinion about a ruling which may or may not have been made (the murkiness about this also seems deliberate)
    - marcinzm 6y ago
      Seems to me that he was found guilty and they're just trying to avoid the backlash from saying so. He's too tired of it all to argue about it further so they win by default and it all goes away. Their enforcement guide only mentions appeal once and it's clear that it only applies after a judgement was already made and requires the reported person to do something: >Give them a place to appeal to if there is one, but in the meantime the action stands.
scruple 6y ago
What's the point of appealing this thing, anyway? I wouldn't appeal it on the grounds that that would mean I'm conceding that they have some sort of power here. From my (naive) perspective, they really don't. Besides looking incompetent to me and (hopefully) others, this entire ordeal just looks like a huge waste of time and energy.

ggoo 6y ago

Yep, this is a non-apology apology.

bryanlarsen 6y ago

I read it quite differently. It sounds to me that he is still accused but they have not confirmed the violation yet. The committee has recused themselves from that decision.

marcinzm 6y ago
That seems correct based on their Twitter comments however their apology reference something (appeal) and a context (enforcement policy) which only applies (as written in the enforcement policy) if an action (read: penalty) was already decided upon. Given the original issues Jeremy had I would have assumed they'd take extra care to follow their own as written process and documents in the follow up. Clearly not.
LegitShady 6y ago
Their own communication to him said that they were discussing the results of the investigation with him, without talking to him during the investigation. They're not being honest.

btilly 6y ago

Yes. You will also note that the word "sorry" is entirely missing. And the list of things that they failed to "acknowledge" includes their not telling him what rule he was accused of violating, what action of his violated the rule, having literally laughed at him, and having violated their own code of conduct. They also offer nothing in the way of amends. Or do anything to suggest that there will be consequences to the people who screwed up. Given that, their assurance that they will use this "to improve our policies going forward" sounds like the meaningless hollow BS that it is.

gojomo 6y ago
This seems nitpicky. Saying "we apologize" multiple times is the same as "we're sorry". They've said their communications were in error in the way they described the complaints, the status of the investigation, and their charged language. They've kicked the whole thing up to the responsible organizational Board of Directors for more action - which is to say, completely removed the group that made the errors from next steps. That's about as good an public apology from one specific committee, with limited remit, as is possible! If NumFocus as a whole takes further steps, I'm sure we'll hear. But there's no reason to hold up this 'mea culpa' until everything is settled at all levels. Promptness is better than perfection!
- IshKebab 6y ago
  I don't think it is nitpicky. It definitely reads at least partly like an "I'm sorry you feel that I have offended you" apology and "We ... issue a public apology to Jeremy Howard..." is a weirdly evasive way of putting it. I get that it is hard to admit fault and apologise but here's what they should have said: > We, the NumFOCUS Code of Conduct Enforcement Committee, would like to publicly apologise to Jeremy Howard for our handling of the JupyterCon 2020 reports. We did not give Jeremy a chance to defend himself before concluding that he had violated our CoC, and for that, and the stress it has caused, we are sorry. I'm available to hire for public apology writing. :-) Still, to be fair I don't think I've actually ever seen a public apology that was actually a full genuine public apology. This is probably the best anyone could hope for.

klyrs 6y ago

They're apologizing for how they handled the incident: > We apologize for causing this stress and will work to improve our process to avoid this from happening in the future. > We apologize for not communicating that clearly from the beginning. They are not apologizing for the existence of the complaints. They do not imply that Jeremy is considered guilty -- they say that the issue is unresolved: > We should have been clearer saying multiple complaints have been made and the alleged violation investigation had not been resolved. Their language does not seem to put the onus on Jeremy: > Because of the missteps of this committee, we have asked the NumFOCUS Board of Directors to take over the work of the committee as outlined in the appeals process of our enforcement guide. (emphasis mine)

marcinzm 6y ago
>They are not apologizing for the existence of the complaints. They do not imply that Jeremy is considered guilty -- they say that the issue is unresolved: It's very unclear to me if they meant to say Jeremy was not guilty when they talked to him at a certain point in time or if he is still not guilty. >Their language does not seem to put the onus on Jeremy: What you quoted also says: >outlined in the appeals process of our enforcement guide. Are appeals automatic in the enforcement guide or is an appeal already pending? edit: And if he was never found guilty then why is this an appeals process. Doesn't that usually mean an initial judgement was rendered and is being appealed?
- klyrs 6y ago
  > It's very unclear to me if they meant to say Jeremey was not guilty when they talked to him at a certain point in time or if he is still not guilty. It's clear to me that they're trying to not express an opinion there. I read this as them recusing themselves from the situation and doing their best to not express an opinion about a ruling which may or may not have been made (the murkiness about this also seems deliberate)
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    Seems to me that he was found guilty and they're just trying to avoid the backlash from saying so. He's too tired of it all to argue about it further so they win by default and it all goes away. Their enforcement guide only mentions appeal once and it's clear that it only applies after a judgement was already made and requires the reported person to do something: >Give them a place to appeal to if there is one, but in the meantime the action stands.

scruple 6y ago

What's the point of appealing this thing, anyway? I wouldn't appeal it on the grounds that that would mean I'm conceding that they have some sort of power here. From my (naive) perspective, they really don't. Besides looking incompetent to me and (hopefully) others, this entire ordeal just looks like a huge waste of time and energy.