5 ms·

Absent some form of democracy, what does it mean for a leadership to be "accountable"? Power extends from whoever has the authority to hold others to account.

Absent some form of democracy, what does it mean for a leadership to be "accountable"? Power extends from whoever has the authority to hold others to account. So this just reads like a power-grab from the moderation team. What would it mean for them to have the power to hold the core team to account? That they could sack people from it? The goals of the project are set by the core team; not by a moderation team enforcing some abitrary CoC. Suppose a member who contributes 90% of new features to the project is "sacked" for an otherwise trivial CoC violation. This subsumes the project into an ideological purity-testing game. Accountability here is just that the wider community has visibility on the actions of the core team, and will be up-in-arms if they are seriously unethical. This is, in my reading, deeply bad press for the moderation team. The innuendo and insistence on their own power above that of the people leading the project... this "is a bad look". EDIT: the immediate number of downvotes on this comment is interesting. I'd be interested in hearing from a down-voter on what their objection is.

daze42 5y ago
This exactly. You have summed up my thoughts better than I could. I am also interested to hear from the downvoters.
tinco 5y ago
It's not a power grab, because they just relinquished power, even going to the point of leaving instructions for the next group of people that would take over. Just this flaw in your logic probably landed you your first downvotes. Second, the CoC is not arbitrary, there's a link to it merged into the repository which means the core team (or at least a majority of it) agreed to it. Their resigning is just a signal that the CoC that they publicly announce is not actually being followed. It's nothing more than that. For a leadership to be accountable means that they follow the rules of the system, and should they not follow them they are ejected from it. It's as simple as that, no need for democracy, the system is clearly defined and agreed upon. I don't really get what you mean with "a bad look" for the moderation team. It's a bad look in the sense that it shows they actually had no power all along. But I don't think they were in it for the glory. A worse look is that of the core team, who have publicly stated their support of a CoC, and now when shit hit the fan show they won't actually abide by their own rules.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  Sure, in round one, they've resigned. Games are played over multiple rounds. We're yet to see how it plays out. Though I don't really expect those individuals to comeback, this may well just be a move to subsume the projects "technical goals" (ie., those of the core team) under the "ethical goals" of the moderation team. As a technical project, to me, this isnt that sensible. > leadership to be accountable means that they follow the rules of the system This misunderstands power. There are no (enforced) rules prior to power. Power is the mechanism by which there are rules. This resignation isn't to establish rules in the abstract -- the CoC exists. Its for a team to have the power to enforce them. And "Rules" here arent rules at all. They are principals. And pricipals trade-off against each other, and against other goals. When we say the core team has "agreed" that does not imply theyve agreed to all views the moderation team takes. I have no idea who is in the "right", to be clear, on the ethical issue. Perhaps a member of the core team has done something severely unethical (in which case, presumably the ethical thing to do is tell people...). However the phrasing of this as an explicit demand for power... to me reads a little off. It reads like they wish to be part of a project where an ethical ideology reins decisively above the technical goals. Eg., consider the core team will give a member "more latitude" to, say, rehabilitate if they've done something wrong. You might say they shouldnt. But it this a technical project, or a political-ethical one? Are its leaders meant to be morally excellent or excellent software developers? The reality is that technical projects require technical excellence, not moral excellence. A "moderation team" set-up to demand moral excellence can easily go too far and ruin a project. Of course, if a core member is deeply unethical one hopes the community & core-team will do something about it. My sense here is that if someone was "deeply unethical" they can be held to account by telling people about it. And if they weren't, then I imagine the core team have made the right decision for the project.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > Games are played over multiple rounds. That may be so, but these people are no longer playing the game.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
jmeister 5y ago
In these cases, you are supposed to automatically align with the less powerful. People don’t distinguish between earned power(authority ) and unearned power anymore.
coldpie 5y ago
> the immediate number of downvotes on this comment is interesting. I'd be interested in hearing from a down-voter on what their objection is Did you edit your comment at some point after publishing to be a little more mild (e.g. remove the word "childish" or something)? I apparently downvoted you at some point, although I don't see anything currently in your comment that would have caused me to do that. I'm not sure where I land on COC-style stuff myself, but I have zero patience for people who are insulting to those in favor of them with words like "childish." If you had something like that in your comment at one point, I would have downvoted it. (TBH your comment is borderline with claiming COCs are "arbitrary," but I wouldn't have downvoted just for that.)
- mjburgess 5y ago
  Thank you for your reply. I did make a minor edit for tone, but I only added my downvote-edit when several downvotes came in after this -- as I then assumed it was a content issue.
  - robocat 5y ago
    Fixing poor tone is definitely great, although I suggest if you edit, then make that clear, as otherwise you confuse people and people will silently assume you are acting in bad faith. Note that I often downvote any mention of the word “downvote”: I am sure you asked in good faith, but as a sweeping generalisation, commenting on voting doesn’t improve conversation. Not knowing why you get downvotes is a “make you think” feature IMHO. I also believe excessively caring about votes is a red flag: some of the best commenters seem to be fairly neutral about caring what the HN voters think. Not trying to start a conversation about voting and maybe my comment deserves downvotes. I am answering your implied question about why you might get a downvote even after your corrections to “tone”.
avianlyric 5y ago
Of the CoC is written and approved by the core team, then I see no issue with enforcement being delegated to a mod team. That’s no different to having separate judicial and legislative bodies. One writes the rules, the other enforces them, including enforcing them against the authors of such rules. While the core team could modify the CoC to make their non-compliant behaviour compliant, that would require them to effectively admit to engaging in behaviour that violates the CoC. The rest of the community can vote with their feet on if they believe the CoC is fair, and equally if they believe modifications are fair. But importantly all of these changes happen out in open where they can be scrutinised. > Suppose a member who contributes 90% of new features to the project is "sacked" for an otherwise trivial CoC violation. This subsumes the project into an ideological purity-testing game. Punishment doesn’t have to be all or nothing. A CoC can provide guidance on how moderation is performed, and how punishment is meted out. The CoC should be equally binding on the mod team, as it is anyone else, and the mod team should seek to ensure due process or face replacement. > Accountability here is just that the wider community has visibility on the actions of the core team, and will be up-in-arms if they are seriously unethical. We don’t know the nature of the offence. It quite possible that the victim or victims have requested that the nature of the offence is kept private to prevent retaliation from others. For the mod team to publicly list the offence might cause more injury to the already injured parties. > The innuendo and insistence on their own power above that of the people leading the project... this "is a bad look". If the CoC delegates power of enforcement to them, and CoC has been agreed to by the core team, then the mod team does have power over the core team. But importantly, only in matters covered by the CoC. Just like how members of congress are still subject to law enforcement by the police (or should be).
mmacvicarprett 5y ago
It means the leadership is willing to accept responsibility, not just accepting negative feedback but also working with others to correct the behaviors. In this case I would say it would involve admitting a violation happened and to say what will be done differently in the future. I can see how this can be extremely complicated, depending on the type of CoC violation people tend to be extremists, forget about being constructive (to assume good intentions) and immediately grab the pitchforks.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
CivBase 5y ago
> I'd be interested in hearing from a down-voter on what their objection is. Firstly, you alleged the mod team was engaging in a "power grab" by resigning immediately. Others have pointed out that is illogical. At best a resignation could earn them some level of sympathy, but it eliminates their current power along with any potential for them to acquire power in the future. If there is any way for the mod team's resignation to increase there power, you have not shared it. Secondly, your claim seems to be baseless. Nobody in this HN thread has shared any details beyond what is in the resignation PR - much less enough to suggest a power grab. I consider baseless allegations like that to be harmful to the overall discussion. Until additional details regarding the conflict are made public, we should not encourage people to form character judgements on either party.
jmull 5y ago
> The goals of the project are set by the core team; not by a moderation team enforcing some abitrary CoC. It's dishonest to publish a CoC that -- silently -- doesn't apply to those with power. Why does that matter? Don't forget that a language with a strong core team but no community of users, contributors, documenters, enthusiasts, etc., is hardly more than nothing -- people making specifications that aren't implemented and if implemented, not used. The purpose of a CoC is to set ground rules to allow the community around the language -- the community that must exist for the language to have any real value or purpose -- to grow as strong as possible. You're granting the core team all the power in rust, but they are kings of very little if people don't chose to adopt rust. Some people or companies may choose to invest -- or not invest -- in rust based at least partially on the code of conduct. Other people may choose to invest -- or not invest -- in rust based at least partially on their confidence in the long-term capability of the core team. Does "accountable to no one" instill that confidence? Also: you really are misunderstanding what the mod team did here. Resigning is a single-shot ploy. There's literally nothing left that they can do. Whether this is a "bad look" for them is entirely irrelevant. At this point the rust core team has to decide if they would prefer to more forward with or without a code of conduct, and whether they will be honest about it or not. The rest of us can watch and decide if/how we'd like to continue to participate with rust. Those making long term plans should watch especially carefully.

daze42 5y ago

This exactly. You have summed up my thoughts better than I could. I am also interested to hear from the downvoters.

tinco 5y ago

It's not a power grab, because they just relinquished power, even going to the point of leaving instructions for the next group of people that would take over. Just this flaw in your logic probably landed you your first downvotes. Second, the CoC is not arbitrary, there's a link to it merged into the repository which means the core team (or at least a majority of it) agreed to it. Their resigning is just a signal that the CoC that they publicly announce is not actually being followed. It's nothing more than that. For a leadership to be accountable means that they follow the rules of the system, and should they not follow them they are ejected from it. It's as simple as that, no need for democracy, the system is clearly defined and agreed upon. I don't really get what you mean with "a bad look" for the moderation team. It's a bad look in the sense that it shows they actually had no power all along. But I don't think they were in it for the glory. A worse look is that of the core team, who have publicly stated their support of a CoC, and now when shit hit the fan show they won't actually abide by their own rules.

mjburgess 5y ago
Sure, in round one, they've resigned. Games are played over multiple rounds. We're yet to see how it plays out. Though I don't really expect those individuals to comeback, this may well just be a move to subsume the projects "technical goals" (ie., those of the core team) under the "ethical goals" of the moderation team. As a technical project, to me, this isnt that sensible. > leadership to be accountable means that they follow the rules of the system This misunderstands power. There are no (enforced) rules prior to power. Power is the mechanism by which there are rules. This resignation isn't to establish rules in the abstract -- the CoC exists. Its for a team to have the power to enforce them. And "Rules" here arent rules at all. They are principals. And pricipals trade-off against each other, and against other goals. When we say the core team has "agreed" that does not imply theyve agreed to all views the moderation team takes. I have no idea who is in the "right", to be clear, on the ethical issue. Perhaps a member of the core team has done something severely unethical (in which case, presumably the ethical thing to do is tell people...). However the phrasing of this as an explicit demand for power... to me reads a little off. It reads like they wish to be part of a project where an ethical ideology reins decisively above the technical goals. Eg., consider the core team will give a member "more latitude" to, say, rehabilitate if they've done something wrong. You might say they shouldnt. But it this a technical project, or a political-ethical one? Are its leaders meant to be morally excellent or excellent software developers? The reality is that technical projects require technical excellence, not moral excellence. A "moderation team" set-up to demand moral excellence can easily go too far and ruin a project. Of course, if a core member is deeply unethical one hopes the community & core-team will do something about it. My sense here is that if someone was "deeply unethical" they can be held to account by telling people about it. And if they weren't, then I imagine the core team have made the right decision for the project.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > Games are played over multiple rounds. That may be so, but these people are no longer playing the game.
  - ncmncm 5y ago

jmeister 5y ago

In these cases, you are supposed to automatically align with the less powerful. People don’t distinguish between earned power(authority ) and unearned power anymore.

coldpie 5y ago

> the immediate number of downvotes on this comment is interesting. I'd be interested in hearing from a down-voter on what their objection is Did you edit your comment at some point after publishing to be a little more mild (e.g. remove the word "childish" or something)? I apparently downvoted you at some point, although I don't see anything currently in your comment that would have caused me to do that. I'm not sure where I land on COC-style stuff myself, but I have zero patience for people who are insulting to those in favor of them with words like "childish." If you had something like that in your comment at one point, I would have downvoted it. (TBH your comment is borderline with claiming COCs are "arbitrary," but I wouldn't have downvoted just for that.)

mjburgess 5y ago
Thank you for your reply. I did make a minor edit for tone, but I only added my downvote-edit when several downvotes came in after this -- as I then assumed it was a content issue.
- robocat 5y ago
  Fixing poor tone is definitely great, although I suggest if you edit, then make that clear, as otherwise you confuse people and people will silently assume you are acting in bad faith. Note that I often downvote any mention of the word “downvote”: I am sure you asked in good faith, but as a sweeping generalisation, commenting on voting doesn’t improve conversation. Not knowing why you get downvotes is a “make you think” feature IMHO. I also believe excessively caring about votes is a red flag: some of the best commenters seem to be fairly neutral about caring what the HN voters think. Not trying to start a conversation about voting and maybe my comment deserves downvotes. I am answering your implied question about why you might get a downvote even after your corrections to “tone”.

avianlyric 5y ago

Of the CoC is written and approved by the core team, then I see no issue with enforcement being delegated to a mod team. That’s no different to having separate judicial and legislative bodies. One writes the rules, the other enforces them, including enforcing them against the authors of such rules. While the core team could modify the CoC to make their non-compliant behaviour compliant, that would require them to effectively admit to engaging in behaviour that violates the CoC. The rest of the community can vote with their feet on if they believe the CoC is fair, and equally if they believe modifications are fair. But importantly all of these changes happen out in open where they can be scrutinised. > Suppose a member who contributes 90% of new features to the project is "sacked" for an otherwise trivial CoC violation. This subsumes the project into an ideological purity-testing game. Punishment doesn’t have to be all or nothing. A CoC can provide guidance on how moderation is performed, and how punishment is meted out. The CoC should be equally binding on the mod team, as it is anyone else, and the mod team should seek to ensure due process or face replacement. > Accountability here is just that the wider community has visibility on the actions of the core team, and will be up-in-arms if they are seriously unethical. We don’t know the nature of the offence. It quite possible that the victim or victims have requested that the nature of the offence is kept private to prevent retaliation from others. For the mod team to publicly list the offence might cause more injury to the already injured parties. > The innuendo and insistence on their own power above that of the people leading the project... this "is a bad look". If the CoC delegates power of enforcement to them, and CoC has been agreed to by the core team, then the mod team does have power over the core team. But importantly, only in matters covered by the CoC. Just like how members of congress are still subject to law enforcement by the police (or should be).

mmacvicarprett 5y ago

It means the leadership is willing to accept responsibility, not just accepting negative feedback but also working with others to correct the behaviors. In this case I would say it would involve admitting a violation happened and to say what will be done differently in the future. I can see how this can be extremely complicated, depending on the type of CoC violation people tend to be extremists, forget about being constructive (to assume good intentions) and immediately grab the pitchforks.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

CivBase 5y ago

> I'd be interested in hearing from a down-voter on what their objection is. Firstly, you alleged the mod team was engaging in a "power grab" by resigning immediately. Others have pointed out that is illogical. At best a resignation could earn them some level of sympathy, but it eliminates their current power along with any potential for them to acquire power in the future. If there is any way for the mod team's resignation to increase there power, you have not shared it. Secondly, your claim seems to be baseless. Nobody in this HN thread has shared any details beyond what is in the resignation PR - much less enough to suggest a power grab. I consider baseless allegations like that to be harmful to the overall discussion. Until additional details regarding the conflict are made public, we should not encourage people to form character judgements on either party.

jmull 5y ago

> The goals of the project are set by the core team; not by a moderation team enforcing some abitrary CoC. It's dishonest to publish a CoC that -- silently -- doesn't apply to those with power. Why does that matter? Don't forget that a language with a strong core team but no community of users, contributors, documenters, enthusiasts, etc., is hardly more than nothing -- people making specifications that aren't implemented and if implemented, not used. The purpose of a CoC is to set ground rules to allow the community around the language -- the community that must exist for the language to have any real value or purpose -- to grow as strong as possible. You're granting the core team all the power in rust, but they are kings of very little if people don't chose to adopt rust. Some people or companies may choose to invest -- or not invest -- in rust based at least partially on the code of conduct. Other people may choose to invest -- or not invest -- in rust based at least partially on their confidence in the long-term capability of the core team. Does "accountable to no one" instill that confidence? Also: you really are misunderstanding what the mod team did here. Resigning is a single-shot ploy. There's literally nothing left that they can do. Whether this is a "bad look" for them is entirely irrelevant. At this point the rust core team has to decide if they would prefer to more forward with or without a code of conduct, and whether they will be honest about it or not. The rest of us can watch and decide if/how we'd like to continue to participate with rust. Those making long term plans should watch especially carefully.