4 ms·

Well one of the people who helped draft this coc have themselves been banned from go spaces using it: https://mobile.twitter.com/peterbourgon/status/1438597459

Well one of the people who helped draft this coc have themselves been banned from go spaces using it: https://mobile.twitter.com/peterbourgon/status/1438597459383623684 https://mobile.twitter.com/peterbourgon/status/1438597459383... I don’t know all the drama in this case and don’t particularly care to know but the punishment seems excessive and arbitrary, and surprised quite a few people. They should drop this sort of heavy handed moderation - communities are governed by consent, not by fiat. This coc seems excessively wordy to me, and subject to arbitrary interpretation and enforcement, and thus a waste of time for all involved, I don’t plan to read it or abide by it, but instead to use common sense. IMO community rules are enforced by example and gentle encouragement, not by encoding a long set of dos and don’ts.

geofft 5y ago
There's always two sides to every story, though. I don't know anything about what's going on (and I don't write Go), but there's a mention in the Twitter replies about further discussion on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/ppluux/peter_bourgon_banned_from_all_go_community_spaces/ https://www.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/ppluux/peter_bourgo... which links this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1exmMfbgVCz3dRXOOlfUCYeiXCuyNaMUnDogDv88HV4g/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1exmMfbgVCz3dRXOOlfUCYeiX... which looks an entirely reasonable reason to formally ask someone to knock it off and take some time to chill. From the document, it seems that he has a policy of ignoring Slack moderators, took the fight to Twitter when his Slack account was temporarily deactivated, and has a pattern of such behavior. If that document is to be believed, the punishment was not excessive and arbitrary. He got a temporary Slack ban, which was appropriate and measured, and then chose to continue escalating. There's also this reply: https://twitter.com/ahmetb/status/1438653799724294144 https://twitter.com/ahmetb/status/1438653799724294144 > @peterbourgon Many of us here have respect for u from a technical standpoint and learned from your talks/code. However it’s wrong to troll people on slack (because “this is internet”) and call them names on twitter for no apparent reason. I hope you can stand back and understand the mistake. For what it's worth, I actually think it's a good sign that the CoC is equally enforced against a drafter of the CoC - the alternative is that there's a group of people who are sufficiently in the in-crowd that their behavior is the definition of what's acceptable and they get to do what they want. It's absolutely possible to abuse the power of CoCs, but this seems like the exact opposite.
- grey-area 5y ago
  Lifetime bans from all spaces seem excessive and arbitrary to me for anything but the very worst hate, trolls and spam. Imagine a society where people were regularly expelled permanently for annoying those in power.
- anxc100 5y ago
  The linked Google doc is not reasonable, it sounds reasonable because it is a one-sided depiction of the situation that is a) wordy b) completely omits the other side and c) is written in a style that resonates with CoC enforcers. IOW, the most ruthless and stylistically talented person wins. Here is the conversation that triggered the tribunal: https://imgur.com/a/yPnWGXp https://imgur.com/a/yPnWGXp If that is a reason for a ban, you can ban 50% of people at Google and 100% of people at Google hired before 2010.
  - ptomato 5y ago
    Evading a temporary ban is _universally_ reason for a permanent ban at any competently moderated venue.
    - xcml 5y ago
      No it isn't. This channel is IRC or Slack. On IRC it is completely normal to log in under a different name. A new generation of "developers" is making up completely arbitrary rules to gain power and suppress productive persons.
      - geofft 5y ago
        It might be technically possible, but it certainly isn't socially acceptable or expected, and that hasn't changed in decades.
- packetlost 5y ago
  > For what it's worth, I actually think it's a good sign that the CoC is equally enforced against a drafter of the CoC Agreed. The real issue I have with the way this was handled was it took the person who originally submitted the formal complaint to publish that formal complain for there to be any transparency into the process. Further, they updated the CoC hours after this event with language to cover what appears to be the reason he was banned. That's not very good optics. I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of a committee being able to arbitrarily change and enforce rules post hoc.

geofft 5y ago

There's always two sides to every story, though. I don't know anything about what's going on (and I don't write Go), but there's a mention in the Twitter replies about further discussion on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/ppluux/peter_bourgon_banned_from_all_go_community_spaces/ https://www.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/ppluux/peter_bourgo... which links this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1exmMfbgVCz3dRXOOlfUCYeiXCuyNaMUnDogDv88HV4g/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1exmMfbgVCz3dRXOOlfUCYeiX... which looks an entirely reasonable reason to formally ask someone to knock it off and take some time to chill. From the document, it seems that he has a policy of ignoring Slack moderators, took the fight to Twitter when his Slack account was temporarily deactivated, and has a pattern of such behavior. If that document is to be believed, the punishment was not excessive and arbitrary. He got a temporary Slack ban, which was appropriate and measured, and then chose to continue escalating. There's also this reply: https://twitter.com/ahmetb/status/1438653799724294144 https://twitter.com/ahmetb/status/1438653799724294144 > @peterbourgon Many of us here have respect for u from a technical standpoint and learned from your talks/code. However it’s wrong to troll people on slack (because “this is internet”) and call them names on twitter for no apparent reason. I hope you can stand back and understand the mistake. For what it's worth, I actually think it's a good sign that the CoC is equally enforced against a drafter of the CoC - the alternative is that there's a group of people who are sufficiently in the in-crowd that their behavior is the definition of what's acceptable and they get to do what they want. It's absolutely possible to abuse the power of CoCs, but this seems like the exact opposite.

grey-area 5y ago
Lifetime bans from all spaces seem excessive and arbitrary to me for anything but the very worst hate, trolls and spam. Imagine a society where people were regularly expelled permanently for annoying those in power.
anxc100 5y ago
The linked Google doc is not reasonable, it sounds reasonable because it is a one-sided depiction of the situation that is a) wordy b) completely omits the other side and c) is written in a style that resonates with CoC enforcers. IOW, the most ruthless and stylistically talented person wins. Here is the conversation that triggered the tribunal: https://imgur.com/a/yPnWGXp https://imgur.com/a/yPnWGXp If that is a reason for a ban, you can ban 50% of people at Google and 100% of people at Google hired before 2010.
- ptomato 5y ago
  Evading a temporary ban is _universally_ reason for a permanent ban at any competently moderated venue.
  - xcml 5y ago
    No it isn't. This channel is IRC or Slack. On IRC it is completely normal to log in under a different name. A new generation of "developers" is making up completely arbitrary rules to gain power and suppress productive persons.
    - geofft 5y ago
      It might be technically possible, but it certainly isn't socially acceptable or expected, and that hasn't changed in decades.
packetlost 5y ago
> For what it's worth, I actually think it's a good sign that the CoC is equally enforced against a drafter of the CoC Agreed. The real issue I have with the way this was handled was it took the person who originally submitted the formal complaint to publish that formal complain for there to be any transparency into the process. Further, they updated the CoC hours after this event with language to cover what appears to be the reason he was banned. That's not very good optics. I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of a committee being able to arbitrarily change and enforce rules post hoc.