9 ms·

There have been some very decisions taken by the CppCon organizers that I feel that I can't fully support. Here is a thread about it: https://twitter.com/pati_

There have been some very decisions taken by the CppCon organizers that I feel that I can't fully support. Here is a thread about it: https://twitter.com/pati_gallardo/status/1501211140310904841 https://twitter.com/pati_gallardo/status/1501211140310904841

google234123 4y ago
This person has a personal vendetta. I’m happy I live in a state that prohibits discrimination against old criminal offenses.
- Erlangen 4y ago
  Note this action was supported from a lot of established members in C++ community, including C++ standard library chair, who asked for "New C++ Leadership"[1] and many googlers.
  - aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
    >and many googlers Why am I not surprised?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- rasz 4y ago
  You live in a state which somehow decided to not obey federal law? https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/megan's_law https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/megan's_law
  - google234123 4y ago
    Fair Chance Act
    - rasz 4y ago
      Isnt that one about employment? We ae talking a public speaker at an event with potential minors here, not someone being employed.
curiousgal 4y ago
You can't fully support someone serving their time and moving on with their life? As a female PoC, I am convinced that all of this pseudo-activism is either out of pure fucking boredom or personal vendetta.
- rasz 4y ago
  The least you could do is inform everyone like this https://dailyvoice.com/new-york/yonkers/news/sex-offender-convicted-of-raping-drugged-victim-reports-move-into-yonkers/773166/ https://dailyvoice.com/new-york/yonkers/news/sex-offender-co... so people are prepared.
fjfbsufhdvfy 4y ago
It seems like the offense in question happened more than a decade ago. What can this person do to move past it and rehabilitate into society?
Escapado 4y ago
I am conflicted about this. On one hand I understand the emotional response and find rape and cp incredibly repulsive but on the other hand I wonder if this goes too far since apparently the person served their sentence and it's been a decade since (without any inappropriate or illegal activites?). From their proposed letter[1] they say: "We are not pursuing this person throughout their professional life trying to remove their livelihood." while simultaneously saying: "In this case we see no other option than to remove the person fully from the conference and we recommend that most other C++ communities consider this as well." And they re-iterate over and over that the offender shall not be named (while simultaneously being known to quite a few people apparently - which would be a prerequisite to have the offender removed from other communities as well) and therefore the only alternative is removal to prevent the offender from abusing their position of power to harm someone again. While this is a little shaky I wonder why there should not be other options. Since apparently the board knows who X is, they could easily book security for the event and keep a tighter watch on the person. I will go out on a limb and say if person X was excluded from the conference while also seeking to repeat their offenses they will find another venue so the problem is not solved, rather offloaded on someone elses shoulders. Surely the person proposing the removal would not see that as a viable alternative? There is also a linked petition to ban convicted sex offenders from the standard meetings which I would find more rational if the crime was very recent, the person had repeatedly commited the crime or shown inappropriate behaviour since. It[2] verbatim says: "The choice WG21 has is between an individual convicted felon and diversity and inclusivity. There is no third option, as inaction is a decision for the status quo and the convict." which I find bewildering. First of all I don't understand the logic behind only including sex offenders because even in their frame of reference inclusivity would be threatened by people convicted of fellonies regarding racism or any other type of violence, and second of all - leaving their frame of reference - why is it that they insist that a person who did something bad will do it again. They make it sound like the harm that has been done is inevitably gonna happen again. I am not so sure if this is a smart position to take. I was very hesitant to write this and I'd like to be educated if I am missing something fundamental here, but I have trouble agreeing with the position that people who served their time after being convicted of a crime (which is the legal and at its core societal measure for "things being settled") should continue to get punished because someone feels like it's not enough. And I also have trouble seeing how harm is actually prevented this way and not just off-loaded. [1] https://patricia.no/2022/03/08/proposed-cppcon_safety__include_cpp_position.html https://patricia.no/2022/03/08/proposed-cppcon_safety__inclu... [2] https://www.change.org/p/ban-convicted-sex-offender-from-iso-c-standard-meetings https://www.change.org/p/ban-convicted-sex-offender-from-iso...
nindalf 4y ago
This is a dilemma. On one hand we would like to support folks serving their time and coming back to society as full citizens. I don’t think any of us would support stripping ex-cons of the right to vote or support themselves. On the other hand, we also recognise that we can’t force people to work with those they don’t want to. This isn’t theoretical. One of the members of the committee is a rape survivor and doesn’t want to work with a rapist. The wide support in society for sex offender registries indicates that many people feel the same way. That’s the dilemma - only one of these two people will ultimately work on the committee. Inaction is a choice. If we do nothing, it’s the ex-con, and we lose the other person. This is the choice the ISO CPP leadership has made. It’s complicated a bit further. Many other folks on the committee aren’t comfortable working with a rapist either. So in exchange for supporting one ex-con, you lose several people.
- hexomancer 4y ago
  > On the other hand, we also recognise that we can’t force people to work with those they don’t want to. If I don't want to work with a black person, do I have a right to demand they be fired? (this is a theoretical question)
  - gtirloni 4y ago
    Is being a black person a crime? Can you serve time for being black? Unless this is true, your comparison between being black and being a rapist isn't valid.
    - gray_-_wolf 4y ago
      > Can you serve time for being black? Well, in USA many people served lifetime sentence of forced labor for being black, so I guess the answer is "yes"?
      - gtirloni 4y ago
        It's not. Nobody in 2022 serves sentences for being black, according to the law (unless the justice system made a mistake). It was a rethorical question.
W0lf 4y ago
I don't know about you people, but this whole twitter thread pretty much sums up why I don't bother engaging too much in online communities whatsoever. I don't care what happened there and who feels offended or whoever should be excluded for whatever reasons. I feel if someone did something wrong we have an established system for this called court. This whole public shaming and social justice warrior thingy feels to me just medieval wrong. This is also the reason why I like HN as here the focus is pretty much tech related which gives me somewhat peace of mind.
- becquerel 4y ago
  Not all grievances are best suited for court, and courts are not always impartial. There are also legitimate reasons to exclude someone from a gathering without them breaking laws. I'm sure it's nice to be able to put your feet up and ignore that whole messy social justice thing, but unfortunately a lot of people don't have that opportunity.
- erikpukinskis 4y ago
  I respect your opinion but I disagree strongly with your claim that this is “medieval”. Courts have the power to truly end people’s lives. Because of this power they must have the highest standard of proof: innocent until proven guilty. However, many crimes are very difficult to prove, which means courts mostly can do nothing about things like rape, harassment, etc. That’s a good thing on some level, we don’t want to put innocent people in jail. But if we leave it at that, and simply disbelieve all stories not proven by courts, then the vast majority of victims of crime will be totally left without support. That’s why personal policies like “believe women” exist… not because they are more true than “believe the courts” but because both policies are flawed and so together they provide better coverage of innocent people than either policy could alone. For the innocent victims who haven’t been protected by the law, the “believe women” community has their back. For innocent victims who have been falsely accused the “believe the courts” community has their back. I believe this diversity of belief is essential. And so, I support you being a “believe the courts” person. But I would like you to consider that this leaves you in a position where you can’t support a large number of victims of crime. And therefore that’s a job other people, with a different attitude to the courts, must step in and do.

google234123 4y ago

This person has a personal vendetta. I’m happy I live in a state that prohibits discrimination against old criminal offenses.

Erlangen 4y ago
Note this action was supported from a lot of established members in C++ community, including C++ standard library chair, who asked for "New C++ Leadership"[1] and many googlers.
- aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
  >and many googlers Why am I not surprised?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rasz 4y ago
You live in a state which somehow decided to not obey federal law? https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/megan's_law https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/megan's_law
- google234123 4y ago
  Fair Chance Act
  - rasz 4y ago
    Isnt that one about employment? We ae talking a public speaker at an event with potential minors here, not someone being employed.

curiousgal 4y ago

You can't fully support someone serving their time and moving on with their life? As a female PoC, I am convinced that all of this pseudo-activism is either out of pure fucking boredom or personal vendetta.

rasz 4y ago
The least you could do is inform everyone like this https://dailyvoice.com/new-york/yonkers/news/sex-offender-convicted-of-raping-drugged-victim-reports-move-into-yonkers/773166/ https://dailyvoice.com/new-york/yonkers/news/sex-offender-co... so people are prepared.

fjfbsufhdvfy 4y ago

It seems like the offense in question happened more than a decade ago. What can this person do to move past it and rehabilitate into society?

Escapado 4y ago

I am conflicted about this. On one hand I understand the emotional response and find rape and cp incredibly repulsive but on the other hand I wonder if this goes too far since apparently the person served their sentence and it's been a decade since (without any inappropriate or illegal activites?). From their proposed letter[1] they say: "We are not pursuing this person throughout their professional life trying to remove their livelihood." while simultaneously saying: "In this case we see no other option than to remove the person fully from the conference and we recommend that most other C++ communities consider this as well." And they re-iterate over and over that the offender shall not be named (while simultaneously being known to quite a few people apparently - which would be a prerequisite to have the offender removed from other communities as well) and therefore the only alternative is removal to prevent the offender from abusing their position of power to harm someone again. While this is a little shaky I wonder why there should not be other options. Since apparently the board knows who X is, they could easily book security for the event and keep a tighter watch on the person. I will go out on a limb and say if person X was excluded from the conference while also seeking to repeat their offenses they will find another venue so the problem is not solved, rather offloaded on someone elses shoulders. Surely the person proposing the removal would not see that as a viable alternative? There is also a linked petition to ban convicted sex offenders from the standard meetings which I would find more rational if the crime was very recent, the person had repeatedly commited the crime or shown inappropriate behaviour since. It[2] verbatim says: "The choice WG21 has is between an individual convicted felon and diversity and inclusivity. There is no third option, as inaction is a decision for the status quo and the convict." which I find bewildering. First of all I don't understand the logic behind only including sex offenders because even in their frame of reference inclusivity would be threatened by people convicted of fellonies regarding racism or any other type of violence, and second of all - leaving their frame of reference - why is it that they insist that a person who did something bad will do it again. They make it sound like the harm that has been done is inevitably gonna happen again. I am not so sure if this is a smart position to take. I was very hesitant to write this and I'd like to be educated if I am missing something fundamental here, but I have trouble agreeing with the position that people who served their time after being convicted of a crime (which is the legal and at its core societal measure for "things being settled") should continue to get punished because someone feels like it's not enough. And I also have trouble seeing how harm is actually prevented this way and not just off-loaded. [1] https://patricia.no/2022/03/08/proposed-cppcon_safety__include_cpp_position.html https://patricia.no/2022/03/08/proposed-cppcon_safety__inclu... [2] https://www.change.org/p/ban-convicted-sex-offender-from-iso-c-standard-meetings https://www.change.org/p/ban-convicted-sex-offender-from-iso...

nindalf 4y ago

This is a dilemma. On one hand we would like to support folks serving their time and coming back to society as full citizens. I don’t think any of us would support stripping ex-cons of the right to vote or support themselves. On the other hand, we also recognise that we can’t force people to work with those they don’t want to. This isn’t theoretical. One of the members of the committee is a rape survivor and doesn’t want to work with a rapist. The wide support in society for sex offender registries indicates that many people feel the same way. That’s the dilemma - only one of these two people will ultimately work on the committee. Inaction is a choice. If we do nothing, it’s the ex-con, and we lose the other person. This is the choice the ISO CPP leadership has made. It’s complicated a bit further. Many other folks on the committee aren’t comfortable working with a rapist either. So in exchange for supporting one ex-con, you lose several people.

hexomancer 4y ago
> On the other hand, we also recognise that we can’t force people to work with those they don’t want to. If I don't want to work with a black person, do I have a right to demand they be fired? (this is a theoretical question)
- gtirloni 4y ago
  Is being a black person a crime? Can you serve time for being black? Unless this is true, your comparison between being black and being a rapist isn't valid.
  - gray_-_wolf 4y ago
    > Can you serve time for being black? Well, in USA many people served lifetime sentence of forced labor for being black, so I guess the answer is "yes"?
    - gtirloni 4y ago
      It's not. Nobody in 2022 serves sentences for being black, according to the law (unless the justice system made a mistake). It was a rethorical question.

W0lf 4y ago

I don't know about you people, but this whole twitter thread pretty much sums up why I don't bother engaging too much in online communities whatsoever. I don't care what happened there and who feels offended or whoever should be excluded for whatever reasons. I feel if someone did something wrong we have an established system for this called court. This whole public shaming and social justice warrior thingy feels to me just medieval wrong. This is also the reason why I like HN as here the focus is pretty much tech related which gives me somewhat peace of mind.

becquerel 4y ago
Not all grievances are best suited for court, and courts are not always impartial. There are also legitimate reasons to exclude someone from a gathering without them breaking laws. I'm sure it's nice to be able to put your feet up and ignore that whole messy social justice thing, but unfortunately a lot of people don't have that opportunity.
erikpukinskis 4y ago
I respect your opinion but I disagree strongly with your claim that this is “medieval”. Courts have the power to truly end people’s lives. Because of this power they must have the highest standard of proof: innocent until proven guilty. However, many crimes are very difficult to prove, which means courts mostly can do nothing about things like rape, harassment, etc. That’s a good thing on some level, we don’t want to put innocent people in jail. But if we leave it at that, and simply disbelieve all stories not proven by courts, then the vast majority of victims of crime will be totally left without support. That’s why personal policies like “believe women” exist… not because they are more true than “believe the courts” but because both policies are flawed and so together they provide better coverage of innocent people than either policy could alone. For the innocent victims who haven’t been protected by the law, the “believe women” community has their back. For innocent victims who have been falsely accused the “believe the courts” community has their back. I believe this diversity of belief is essential. And so, I support you being a “believe the courts” person. But I would like you to consider that this leaves you in a position where you can’t support a large number of victims of crime. And therefore that’s a job other people, with a different attitude to the courts, must step in and do.