3 ms·

All parties are wrong and this whole thing is stupid. My biggest concern comes from the timeline in #include's memo- apparently, Herb Sutter shared the contact

All parties are wrong and this whole thing is stupid. My biggest concern comes from the timeline in #include's memo- apparently, Herb Sutter shared the contact information of some members of #include with Mr. X without their consent. At best, that's a gross violation of privacy. At worst, it hints at nepotism within the board. Almost as stupid is that #include declined every opportunity to communicate with Mr. X. Diplomacy only works when two sides communicate with each other. It doesn't matter if the two sides still disagree at the end of the day. It also doesn't matter if it means talking to sex offenders. If #include had shown an ounce of diplomacy, they might have gotten something done. I wouldn't be mad at the CppCon organizers for banning Mr. X. Having him there is a PR risk at best, and a risk to attendees at worst. I can't imagine a world where Mr. X would be substantially harmed by being banned from CppCon. It's a C++ convention, not a food bank. I also wouldn't be mad at the CppCon organizers for allowing Mr. X to attend CppCon, provided Mr. X shows clear signs of rehabilitation and follows restrictions placed upon him by the law. #include could have developed their own firsthand opinion of Mr. X's condition, but they refused to communicate. I can see why #include didn't do anything to publicize this- they refused to communicate, so their entire argument against Mr. X's attendance is hypothetical.

Kranar 5y ago
You really think it's appropriate for a victim of sexual abuse to communicate with Mr X? What could you possibly expect a victim to hear from a rapist who drugged their victim that would change their mind that Mr. X should be allowed to organize social events and dinners where people can and do get intoxicated?
- ryukoposting 5y ago
  After sleeping on it, I'm not really happy with how my comment reads. Editing with an addition that clarifies my position. ... or wait, I forgot you can't do that after a certain time period. Let me be clear: 1. Given what information we currently have, I feel that CppCon organizers shouldn't allow Mr. X to present at/attend the event. 2. It's the organizers' right to decide who can attend their event, and it's my right to not associate myself with them/their events. 3. #include made multiple mistakes while trying to get to the bottom of this issue. > You really think it's appropriate for a victim of sexual abuse to communicate with Mr X? Obviously not, but you cannot tell me that there are zero members of #include leadership who aren't rape victims. I highly doubt that Mr. X has any argument that would be worth considering. I'm not saying Mr. X's words would have any impact on #include's position (or my position) whatsoever. I'm saying it's counterproductive to not at least feign diplomacy.

Kranar 5y ago

You really think it's appropriate for a victim of sexual abuse to communicate with Mr X? What could you possibly expect a victim to hear from a rapist who drugged their victim that would change their mind that Mr. X should be allowed to organize social events and dinners where people can and do get intoxicated?

ryukoposting 5y ago
After sleeping on it, I'm not really happy with how my comment reads. Editing with an addition that clarifies my position. ... or wait, I forgot you can't do that after a certain time period. Let me be clear: 1. Given what information we currently have, I feel that CppCon organizers shouldn't allow Mr. X to present at/attend the event. 2. It's the organizers' right to decide who can attend their event, and it's my right to not associate myself with them/their events. 3. #include made multiple mistakes while trying to get to the bottom of this issue. > You really think it's appropriate for a victim of sexual abuse to communicate with Mr X? Obviously not, but you cannot tell me that there are zero members of #include leadership who aren't rape victims. I highly doubt that Mr. X has any argument that would be worth considering. I'm not saying Mr. X's words would have any impact on #include's position (or my position) whatsoever. I'm saying it's counterproductive to not at least feign diplomacy.