Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 11:41:11PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival  writes:
> > Within 2-3 weeks, I had squandered all of the good feelings and energy
> > sparked from that meeting.  I view that as my worst blunder from all
> > my years of involvement with LilyPond.
> 
> Hey, I had chalked this up to my slate.

Oh my goodness, I sincerely hope not!  I've always had very high
regard for your programming ability and diligence, and I can't
recall taking offense at any "harsh truths" that you threw my way.
(I was sometimes disappointed that they *were* true, but I never
blamed the messenger!)

No, there were a lot of other things happening in my life at the
end of 2012:

- I had finished writing my PhD dissertation, and I always viewed
  "completing a degree" as a chance to take stock of my life.
  I started the grand documentation project in 2007, 1 year before
  finishing my Masters', with the explicit goal of training my
  replacements so that I could quit in good conscience.  That new
  project was an attempt at another big project as I left lilypond
  again.

- I knew that my first postdoc job was at a university which had
  the "charming" idea of laying claim to all the intellectual
  property that I created, so I would be legally unable to
  contribute to lilypond.  (At least, not able to contribute code.
  Given that my main contribution at the time was emails and
  organization, I could have completed a bit, but it might have
  been awkward.)

- I knew that my publication record was not stellar, and no amount
  of time spent on lilypond would lead to a publication (of the
  type that mattered in my branch of academia, i.e. a "tier 1"
  IEEE or ACM journal).

- it had been almost ten years since I'd actually composed any
  music, so I was increasingly wondering why I was spending 10-15
  hours a week on LilyPond.

> In retrospect, I saw LilyPond in need to grow roots and you saw
> it in need to grow wings.

Yeah, that was another big mistake on my part.  In almost every
other instance of "hopeful wings" from 2009 to 2012, I'd argued in
favour of stability and keeping things moving (albeit slowly),
instead of taking risks.

> You've clearly been the much better organiser and motivator: the people
> who still keep the "shop running" are doing so in processes originally
> set up by you and given meaning by you.

Yes -- that's the "stability" part that I'm good at.

> And I am basically drawing blanks when thinking about how to
> make people pick up the slack when someone ultimately leaves.

My dream was always to have a "volunteer funnel".  For
non-programmers, find people willing to reliably do small tasks,
such as LSR, bug reports, translations, and documentation edits.
Then, after a few months of that, encourage them to move on to
more complicated tasks.

The tricky thing is:
- you need to expect at least 50% of people to flake out.  It's
  not because they're bad people, it's not because the lilypond
  community are bad people... that's just the nature of volunteer
  organizations.  I see it offline, too.  People understimate
  the difficulty of tasks, overestimate their time & energy, and
  underestimate the possibilty of other demands on their time
  (jobs, families, hobbies, etc).
- so the person organizing the volunteers (or ideally, the
  volunteers in a specific area such as bugs) needs to constantly
  be recruiting.  Well, not necessarily *constantly*, but if you
  ever think "ok, we've got all 7 days of bug reporters handled so
  I can relax", that's a danger sign.  If they're working well,
  then encourage 1 or 2 to move to a different task, and recruit
  new volunteers to fill the gaps.
- equally important, the "volunteer wrangler" needs to be
  emotionally prepared to see a lot of effort walk out the door
  when volunteers realize that they can't continue.

> I still think we should have been able to make this work better between
> us but have no idea how.

No, there was no fault on your side.  And to be fair to myself, it
wasn't really a "fault" on my side -- it was definitely time for
me to move on.  I should have handled it more gracefully (so yes,
I blame myself for that).  But there was nobody to blame for my
leaving the project; if anything, I should have left a year or two
earlier.  It was simply not a good fit with my life at the time.

Cheers,
- Graham

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[janek . lilypond]

Because of significant disagreement, and to ensure that LilyPond
contributors don't feel pushed, I am hereby officially withdrawing this
proposal. I apologize for the disturbance caused by the way I have
introduced this.

Maybe I'll submit a revised proposal, but if I do, I'll definitely start
with a discussion on the mailing list first.

https://codereview.appspot.com/575620043/

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Janek Warchoł]

niedz., 9 lut 2020 o 00:31  napisał(a):

> On 2020/02/08 22:57:13, janek wrote:
> > Because of significant disagreement, and to ensure that LilyPond
> contributors
> > don't feel pushed, I am hereby officially withdrawing this proposal. I
> apologize
> > for the disturbance caused by the way I have introduced this.
> >
> > Maybe I'll submit a revised proposal, but if I do, I'll definitely
> start with a
> > discussion on the mailing list first.
>
> I should apologize for my reaction here.  I need to learn to express "I
> don't see how I could do the part required by me to make this work" in a
> manner distinguishable from a preventive strike.  A skill that could
> have helped in a few situations.
>

Thank you, David, for this message. I appreciate it a lot!
"Apologize" is a magic word indeed; most of my irritation vanished after
reading your message and I feel we're part of the team again :-)

all the best,
Janek

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[dak]

On 2020/02/08 22:57:13, janek wrote:
> Because of significant disagreement, and to ensure that LilyPond
contributors
> don't feel pushed, I am hereby officially withdrawing this proposal. I
apologize
> for the disturbance caused by the way I have introduced this.
> 
> Maybe I'll submit a revised proposal, but if I do, I'll definitely
start with a
> discussion on the mailing list first.

I should apologize for my reaction here.  I need to learn to express "I
don't see how I could do the part required by me to make this work" in a
manner distinguishable from a preventive strike.  A skill that could
have helped in a few situations.

https://codereview.appspot.com/575620043/

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[Janek Warchoł]

Graham,

sob., 8 lut 2020 o 21:23 Graham Percival 
napisał(a):

> I don't have any reasons that haven't been mentioned already,
> other than one meta-reason: proposals like this are very divisive.
> Trying to have this discussion in the middle of a "final sprint
> towards 2.20" was unfortunate.
>

True. A big mistake on my part.

David,

sob., 8 lut 2020 o 23:41 David Kastrup  napisał(a):

> Graham Percival  writes:
> > I speak from experience on that last point: after the 2012
> > developer meeting at David's ranch (I think that was the year),
> > I was all fired up and started a round of divisive discussions
> > (I think it was the "grand lilypond input syntax standardization").
>
> GLISS was not a new project: it had been ongoing from before my
> involvement.  A bit of a problem was that it had been going on for a
> while without sensible feedback from those who had a good grasp of the
> existing parser/lexer implementation of the input language of LilyPond,
> and that input language had a lot of ad-hoc elements.
>
> > Within 2-3 weeks, I had squandered all of the good feelings and energy
> > sparked from that meeting.  I view that as my worst blunder from all
> > my years of involvement with LilyPond.
>
> Hey, I had chalked this up to my slate.  In retrospect, I saw LilyPond
> in need to grow roots and you saw it in need to grow wings.  And we were
> both excited about its new momentum.  You saw new potential but I am a
> lousy follower: I am unable to follow through with anything that I don't
> see as the best course.  Heck, I am not even good at following through
> with stuff I do see as the best course.
>
> You've clearly been the much better organiser and motivator: the people
> who still keep the "shop running" are doing so in processes originally
> set up by you and given meaning by you.  And I am basically drawing
> blanks when thinking about how to make people pick up the slack when
> someone ultimately leaves.
>
> I still think we should have been able to make this work better between
> us but have no idea how.  And that's bad because LilyPond needs to
> become better at making its community members count, and core
> programmers can only do so much of the heavy lifting even when they are
> all in agreement.
>

Thank you for these words, I find them inspiring!

Janek

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Janek Warchoł]

James,

first, I am sorry that you are so disturbed. I realize that this is
partially my fault, so I apologize.

sob., 8 lut 2020 o 09:23 James Lowe  napisał(a):

> On 07/02/2020 09:50, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> > Thanks for your careful observations.
> >
> > First, the CoC was actually coined by Mike, and I saw it as a proposal to
> > bring LilyPond into the next decade.
>
> What is that even supposed to mean? Again empty, ]words that sound
> 'nice' but mean nothing.
>
> > A CoC is a pretty normal concept these
> > days.
>
> Here we go ... ".. everyone else does it... so we should .. " still with
> no point to any of it that I can see.
>
> > If having a CoC is required to be taken seriously by developers at
> > large, we should consider it.
>
> And for those of us who don't take them seriously and see them as an
> attempt at behavioral control by certain people for certain people.
>
> > I concede that CoCs haven't yet reached this
> > level of ubiquity, though.
>
> Probably for good reason.
>
> > For full disclosure, David has ticked me off in the past, and
> reacquainting
> > myself with the community means that I have to reacquaint myself with
> > David's way of communicating.
>
> Can we just stop bashing David?
>
> > One of the recent emails (about the
> > development process), contained a passage that felt like a blow in my
> > stomach and upset me to the point of considering to leave again. (When I
> > say this, I am not asking for adulation). If that happens to me, imagine
> > what happens when a new contributor is on the receiving end of that. So I
> > am happy to see that David is trying new ways to address this problem.
>
> All without having at CoC.
>
> > I have no personal stake in being a CoC committee member, and was
> actually
> > volunteered into it by Janek. I am happy to not be part of such a
> committee
> > (Elaine, would you be interested?), because my time is limited, and is
> > probably best spent in mentoring coders and explaining the code base. For
> > the record, I think Werner is an excellent candidate.
>
> If we're doing a 'for the record', then just let me state here if/when
> we have a CoC, I will be leaving the LP project , so I guess you better
> start getting all your automation ducks in a row for patch testing and
> shepherding etc, or someone else will need to step in do what I
> currently do.
>
> What a shame.
>

I initially wanted to write "If I were Han-Wen...", but then realized it's
a bad idea. I'll let Han-Wen speak for himself; however, please let me
express my emotions.

I am very saddened by this message. I see a member of the community whose
frustration didn't meet with understanding, but rather with something that
looks like mocking or sarcasm.

As I see it, Han-Wen expressed his emotions. He didn't do it in an
aggressive way; I wouldn't say that he bashed David, either. (David, please
correct me if you felt bashed by Han-Wen's message.) Han-Wen's point was to
empathize with new contributors, and he actually praised David for the
changes he's making.

Han-Wen, I am very sorry that what you wrote didn't meet with empathy or at
least understanding. I imagine you may be very frustrated.

Janek

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley  writes:

> Am Sa., 8. Feb. 2020 um 14:59 Uhr schrieb Kieren MacMillan
> :
>
>> To me, the greatest shame is that all the positive energy and
>> momentum coming out of the Salzburg conference is, it seems, in real
>> danger of being shut down by toxic energy of the same kind that has
>> led to the community attrition over the last 5-7 years.
>>
>> Just an observation from someone who’s been here since 2003, and
>> watched this movie before.
>
> Hi Kieren,
>
> I'd like to fully agree to your statement about the positive energy,
> etc out of the Salzburg conference.
> It was a great event and great to meet so many people and great to
> (I'll stop continuing the list ...).
> Again a big, big THANK YOU to Werner and all who made it possible!!
>
> We discussed many plans, among them (without claim of completeness)
> - developer-tools (move to GitHub or similar)
> - implement stuff from openlilylib
> - CoC
> - finally migrate to guile-2
> - ...

Did we discuss a Code of Conduct?  I might have brought this upon myself
with my "clever" talk title about "Conduct of Code" as an antithesis to
a "Code of Conduct" focused approach of making people get along with
each other.  I actually just received a rejection of a "Conduct of Code"
talk at the Chemnitzer Linuxtage since the organisers thought that
projects "LaTeX", "Emacs" and "LilyPond" were not really suitable as
projects showcasing a "Code of Conduct".  Which was sort of the point.
Nobody reads abstracts anymore.

So maybe I'm responsible for bringing up the idea in the first place
because of being too confusing in my choice of title, and people just
thought "David sure forgets what he promised to be talking about".

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Janek Warchoł]

niedz., 9 lut 2020 o 00:39 David Kastrup  napisał(a):

> David Kastrup  writes:
>
> > Janek Warchoł  writes:
> >
> >> Elaine,
> >>
> >> pt., 7 lut 2020 o 02:28 Flaming Hakama by Elaine <
> ela...@flaminghakama.com>
> >> napisał(a):
> >>
> >>> 1) "Adopt this CoC or I will leave the community"  Such threats amount
> to a
> >>> my-way-or-the-highway attitude, which is an attempt to enforce veto
> power
> >>> in what is supposed to be a collaborative / concensus / democratic
> >>> approach.  Also difficult to disentangle the degree to which this is
> >>> intentionally or unintentionally an unprofessional attempt to elicit
> >>> praise, with the expected reactions of "oh no, don't leave, you're too
> >>> valuable".  To me, this is toxic behavior and I would welcome their
> >>> self-removal from the community if this is their idea of how to conduct
> >>> themselves in an exemplary manner.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Such behaviour is indeed bad, but did anyone actually post such an
> >> ultimatum?
> >
> > Almost half of of the proposal is concerned with that.
>
> I should really read twice what I am replying to.  Sorry, my reply was
> not matching the question.
>

It's okay, I was going to ask for clarification :-)

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Janek Warchoł]

+1 to everything Harm said, and big thanks to Werner! (and Urs, who
co-organized Salzburg event)

Janek

sob., 8 lut 2020 o 16:52 Thomas Morley 
napisał(a):

> Am Sa., 8. Feb. 2020 um 14:59 Uhr schrieb Kieren MacMillan
> :
>
> > To me, the greatest shame is that all the positive energy and momentum
> coming out of the Salzburg conference is, it seems, in real danger of being
> shut down by toxic energy of the same kind that has led to the community
> attrition over the last 5-7 years.
> >
> > Just an observation from someone who’s been here since 2003, and watched
> this movie before.
>
> Hi Kieren,
>
> I'd like to fully agree to your statement about the positive energy,
> etc out of the Salzburg conference.
> It was a great event and great to meet so many people and great to
> (I'll stop continuing the list ...).
> Again a big, big THANK YOU to Werner and all who made it possible!!
>
> We discussed many plans, among them (without claim of completeness)
> - developer-tools (move to GitHub or similar)
> - implement stuff from openlilylib
> - CoC
> - finally migrate to guile-2
> - ...
>
> Though, those were plans, sometimes more declarations of intents.
> Ofcourse there was not the time to discuss the details.
> Home again, and making those plans public, not only more people got
> involved (with probably different opinions), but one had a better
> opportunity to think over the details.
> Thus I think it's natural, thoughts will diverge even more than
> already noticed in Salzburg.
>
> Let me pick a not so heated discussed point: developer-tools and share
> my own thoughts:
> While I still object going for GitHub, I changed my mind wrt to other
> tools.
> I reflected some of my reservations, coming from simply lazyness: I
> had to do hard work to get to grips with the current reviewing-setup.
> Thus I feared the need to do it again. Nowadays I think, it may be
> better to move away from Rietveld/sourceforge.
>
> On other plans even more objections may happen, see James' thoughts
> about the CoC.
>
> Again, I think it's natural to observe a broader, more diverging
> amount of opinions.
>
> We need to deal with this, without starting a flame-war, going toxic
> or whatever, but in a civil way.
>
> Not going into details of the CoC-discussion, why not handle it as what it
> is:
> It's a patch. Review showed there are too many objections. Thus it
> should be set to 'needs work' or 'waiting'.
> Otoh, there are suggestions to replace this proposal. Why not focus on
> those proposals?
>
>
>
> For me it's more a shame we are distracted by such discussions from
> doing our work.
> Although my time is very limited during the usual workingweek, I'd
> love to do more on the guile-v2-thingy or at least doing tests for the
> already done work, etc. Instead I write this mail (okay, a 'make
> test-baseline' runs in the background) or read through very long
> threads
>
> Cheers,
>   Harm
>
> P.S. that 'make test-baseline' failed, I'll need to investigate after
> sending this.
>
>

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup  writes:

> Janek Warchoł  writes:
>
>> Elaine,
>>
>> pt., 7 lut 2020 o 02:28 Flaming Hakama by Elaine 
>> napisał(a):
>>
>>> 1) "Adopt this CoC or I will leave the community"  Such threats amount to a
>>> my-way-or-the-highway attitude, which is an attempt to enforce veto power
>>> in what is supposed to be a collaborative / concensus / democratic
>>> approach.  Also difficult to disentangle the degree to which this is
>>> intentionally or unintentionally an unprofessional attempt to elicit
>>> praise, with the expected reactions of "oh no, don't leave, you're too
>>> valuable".  To me, this is toxic behavior and I would welcome their
>>> self-removal from the community if this is their idea of how to conduct
>>> themselves in an exemplary manner.
>>>
>>
>> Such behaviour is indeed bad, but did anyone actually post such an
>> ultimatum?
>
> Almost half of of the proposal is concerned with that.

I should really read twice what I am replying to.  Sorry, my reply was
not matching the question.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł  writes:

> Elaine,
>
> pt., 7 lut 2020 o 02:28 Flaming Hakama by Elaine 
> napisał(a):
>
>> 1) "Adopt this CoC or I will leave the community"  Such threats amount to a
>> my-way-or-the-highway attitude, which is an attempt to enforce veto power
>> in what is supposed to be a collaborative / concensus / democratic
>> approach.  Also difficult to disentangle the degree to which this is
>> intentionally or unintentionally an unprofessional attempt to elicit
>> praise, with the expected reactions of "oh no, don't leave, you're too
>> valuable".  To me, this is toxic behavior and I would welcome their
>> self-removal from the community if this is their idea of how to conduct
>> themselves in an exemplary manner.
>>
>
> Such behaviour is indeed bad, but did anyone actually post such an
> ultimatum?

Almost half of of the proposal is concerned with that.

## Enforcement Guidelines

Community leaders will follow these Community Impact Guidelines in
determining the consequences for any action they deem in violation of this
Code of Conduct:

### 1. Correction

**Community Impact**: Use of inappropriate language or other behavior deemed
unprofessional or unwelcome in the community.

**Consequence**: A private, written warning from community leaders, providing
clarity around the nature of the violation and an explanation of why the
behavior was inappropriate. A public apology may be requested.

### 2. Warning

**Community Impact**: A violation through a single incident or series of
actions.

**Consequence**: A warning with consequences for continued behavior. No
interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with
those enforcing the Code of Conduct, for a specified period of time. This
includes avoiding interactions in community spaces as well as external
channels like social media. Violating these terms may lead to a temporary or
permanent ban.

### 3. Temporary Ban

**Community Impact**: A serious violation of community standards, including
sustained inappropriate behavior.

**Consequence**: A temporary ban from any sort of interaction or public
communication with the community for a specified period of time. No public
or private interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited
interaction with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, is allowed during this
period. Violating these terms may lead to a permanent ban.

### 4. Permanent Ban

**Community Impact**: Demonstrating a pattern of violation of community
standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior,  harassment of an
individual, or aggression toward or disparagement of classes of individuals.

**Consequence**: A permanent ban from any sort of public interaction within
the community.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Janek Warchoł]

Elaine,

pt., 7 lut 2020 o 02:28 Flaming Hakama by Elaine 
napisał(a):

> 1) "Adopt this CoC or I will leave the community"  Such threats amount to a
> my-way-or-the-highway attitude, which is an attempt to enforce veto power
> in what is supposed to be a collaborative / concensus / democratic
> approach.  Also difficult to disentangle the degree to which this is
> intentionally or unintentionally an unprofessional attempt to elicit
> praise, with the expected reactions of "oh no, don't leave, you're too
> valuable".  To me, this is toxic behavior and I would welcome their
> self-removal from the community if this is their idea of how to conduct
> themselves in an exemplary manner.
>

Such behaviour is indeed bad, but did anyone actually post such an
ultimatum? Speaking about myself, I definitely don't consider adopting CoC
a condition for my return to the community. If that wasn't clear, I
apologize.


> 2) Being disingenuous regarding the point of the CoC.  While it may be a
> bit overboard for DK to assume that removing him is the sole point of the
> proposal, it is equally disingenuous for the proposers of the CoC to
> suggest that any such consequences would be unintended, since that is the
> *only* actionalble part of the proposal, and DK is the most obvious target
> for such concerns.  What has become clear to me is that there is a
> disharmony between the original BDFL and the incumbent BDFL.  This specific
> proposal for a CoC seems to me to be an attempt to provide the *appearance*
> of some kind of consensus-based or otherwise democratic process, in an
> effort to reinstate the original BDFL and dethrone the incumbent BDFL, when
> in fact there is nothing consensus-based or democratic about the proposal
> at all.  So, it has a taste of insencerity and disguised motives, which is
> exactly the opposite of what a CoC should be engendering.
>

Okay, I admit that I didn't think (or rather: think hard enough) about how
the proposal will be perceived by DK and the community. I apologize for
this lack of thoughtfulness. I can only say that my motivation was to help
the community grow, by addressing the issue that I found most troublesome
for me (tension and heated discussions between contributors), and I wanted
to just get it done. Bad approach.


pt., 7 lut 2020 o 06:03 Carl Sorensen  napisał(a):

> I trust each of the individuals who were proposed to be on the committee.


I am humbled to hear this from you, especially after this long discussion
and the enormous amount of protests and suspicion about my (our) motivation.


> The main issue I had (and continue to have) with the proposed CoC is the
> prospect of punitive-appearing enforcement actions taken after a private
> process with the complainant remaining anonymous.
>

Absolutely, and I assure that - if I were to be part of the committee - I
would never have done that. (I can see that it may not had been clear from
the proposed CoC.)

I would not be concerned about anonymous "I felt" statements were the job
> of the committee to provide support to the complainant, rather than to
> provide consequences to the putative offender.
>

You are right. In fact, I had considered providing support to the
complainant to be the basic job of the committee (not punishing anyone).
But I can see that it was not clear from the proposal.

I see Mike Solomon and Janek as the most open proponents of the CoC.
> Neither one appears to want power in the LilyPond organizational
> structure.  Both appear to want a more welcoming and less stressful
> community.  I think it's important to take their requests at face value,
> rather than assuming hidden agendas.
>

Thank you, Carl. Yes, this is (and was) exactly my motivation, and I'd be
grateful if the community took it as such (similarly how we try to take
David's email literally and not as sarcasm).

Janek

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival  writes:

> On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 07:21:30PM +, Trevor wrote:
>> Phil Holmes wrote 08/02/2020 17:24:56
>> Subject: Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]
>> 
>> > - Original Message - From: "Karlin High" > > > However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe
>> > first. To me, their opposition registered as the strongest.
>> > I remain strongly opposed to a CoC.
>> > 
>> As do I. I'm quite sure we on this list are all perfectly capable of civil
>> and caring behaviour without having it spelled out in nanny-ish terms.
>
> I've stayed silent since I'm not a contributor any more, but if
> there's an "I'm sparticus" moment happening, then I will go on
> record as saying that I think the proposed CoC is a mistake.
>
> I don't have any reasons that haven't been mentioned already,
> other than one meta-reason: proposals like this are very divisive.
> Trying to have this discussion in the middle of a "final sprint
> towards 2.20" was unfortunate.
>
> I speak from experience on that last point: after the 2012
> developer meeting at David's ranch (I think that was the year),
> I was all fired up and started a round of divisive discussions
> (I think it was the "grand lilypond input syntax standardization").

GLISS was not a new project: it had been ongoing from before my
involvement.  A bit of a problem was that it had been going on for a
while without sensible feedback from those who had a good grasp of the
existing parser/lexer implementation of the input language of LilyPond,
and that input language had a lot of ad-hoc elements.

> Within 2-3 weeks, I had squandered all of the good feelings and energy
> sparked from that meeting.  I view that as my worst blunder from all
> my years of involvement with LilyPond.

Hey, I had chalked this up to my slate.  In retrospect, I saw LilyPond
in need to grow roots and you saw it in need to grow wings.  And we were
both excited about its new momentum.  You saw new potential but I am a
lousy follower: I am unable to follow through with anything that I don't
see as the best course.  Heck, I am not even good at following through
with stuff I do see as the best course.

You've clearly been the much better organiser and motivator: the people
who still keep the "shop running" are doing so in processes originally
set up by you and given meaning by you.  And I am basically drawing
blanks when thinking about how to make people pick up the slack when
someone ultimately leaves.

I still think we should have been able to make this work better between
us but have no idea how.  And that's bad because LilyPond needs to
become better at making its community members count, and core
programmers can only do so much of the heavy lifting even when they are
all in agreement.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 07:21:30PM +, Trevor wrote:
> Phil Holmes wrote 08/02/2020 17:24:56
> Subject: Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]
> 
> > - Original Message - From: "Karlin High"  > > However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe first. To me, 
> > > their opposition registered as the strongest.
> > I remain strongly opposed to a CoC.
> > 
> As do I. I'm quite sure we on this list are all perfectly capable of civil
> and caring behaviour without having it spelled out in nanny-ish terms.

I've stayed silent since I'm not a contributor any more, but if
there's an "I'm sparticus" moment happening, then I will go on
record as saying that I think the proposed CoC is a mistake.

I don't have any reasons that haven't been mentioned already,
other than one meta-reason: proposals like this are very divisive.
Trying to have this discussion in the middle of a "final sprint
towards 2.20" was unfortunate.

I speak from experience on that last point: after the 2012
developer meeting at David's ranch (I think that was the year),
I was all fired up and started a round of divisive discussions
(I think it was the "grand lilypond input syntax standardization").
Within 2-3 weeks, I had squandered all of the good feelings and
energy sparked from that meeting.  I view that as my worst blunder
from all my years of involvement with LilyPond.

Cheers,
- Graham

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[David Kastrup]

Trevor  writes:

> Phil Holmes wrote 08/02/2020 17:24:56
> Subject: Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]
>
>>- Original Message - From: "Karlin High" >>However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe
>> first. To me, their opposition registered as the strongest.
>>I remain strongly opposed to a CoC.
>>
> As do I. I'm quite sure we on this list are all perfectly capable of
> civil and caring behaviour without having it spelled out in nanny-ish
> terms.

In my case it is more that spelling it out in nanny-ish and other terms
has been attempted plenty.  At some point of time one has to forego the
wishful thinking and move to mitigation strategies.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[David Kastrup]

Karlin High  writes:

> On 2/8/2020 11:24 AM, Phil Holmes wrote:
>> I remain strongly opposed to a CoC.
>
> Clearly noted; thanks for responding. I have nothing further to say on
> this topic just now; it's pretty much all been covered in prior
> messages.
>
> I'm sorry if I got your name wrong. I know "Phil Holmes" and "James
> Lowe" are names associated with great service to the project in
> managing patches and builds, but I have trouble remembering who's who
> for them.

The mnemonic I go by is that the mail address pkx starts with p which
means that it is James.  Seriously: I suspect that as silly as it
sounds, that may be one of the larger hurdles for developing two
different mental images for people one only identifies by their names
and Email addresses.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[David Kastrup]

pkx1...@posteo.net writes:

> Anyway to answer Karlin's request, I am probably the last person in
> the 'dev' team to worry about. Yes I seem to do a lot of 'work' but it
> *is* just 'janitorial' duties (which is a rather good way to explain
> it) and, assuming we do manage to get the automation suggestions in
> place then there will be no need of what I do, which will be much
> better for the project (I hope).

The manual comparison of visuals is still not going to do itself.  But
yes, it would be better if the procedures took care of more stuff that
computers can do similarly well to people, given the kind of exact
instructions computers need.

> Anyway, the point is that nothing I do here is as very significant
> compared to those developers that actually write 'code' (I am not
> looking for sympathy here, I am merely stating what I believe),

I hope you will not mind if I believe otherwise.  The whole "janitorial"
procedures have been designed to put grease to the wheels that, in the
form of developers responsible for the "actual" progress, can lean quite
to the squeeky side.  I perfectly well remember the tensions that arose
when we were working with a single master and all developers ground to a
halt for days on end because somebody committed something that had some
trivial oversight somewhere.  Or because weeks later someone complained
that his use case looked much worse than before.

Now it's easy to say "that's work that anyone can do" (though not
entirely correct, particularly given the rather inconspicuous manner in
which you substitute scripts that are falling apart with manual labour,
something one all too easily forgets), doing so reliably for years and
years on end makes it a fixture of stability.  That the sometimes heated
developer discussions are an antithesis of.

Or, more poetically, your work turns a scrapyard of tools into a home
one returns to.

> so my opinions about a CoC are, in the grand scheme of things, not
> going to affect the code base of LP (i.e. you won't be losing a useful
> developer so to speak), but I was more and more objecting to the
> seemingly selected deafness/blind-eye turning of some of the people
> commenting on this CoC thread as if it was all 'sweetness and
> light'. So without any real skin to loose in this game I spoke up.
>
> If we end up waiting for the automation stuff to be working and THEN
> implement the CoC (or this GNU Happy Place Pamhplet)

It's not really a set of rules, just a bunch of advice that has some
chance of working.  Basically it was Stallman's way of saying "we don't
need a Code of Conduct with its enforcement mechanisms if people try
giving others the benefit of doubt some more and take some care to avoid
escalation, and here are a few tips for that".  They won't help against
willful and/or unabating provocations: where they turn disruptive, one
will still have to think about what to do then.  It has happened, but we
got through.

> then it won't affect the project at all as my current duties will be
> voided (and again, that is fine). But if this CoC was, as it was
> seeming as of yesterday, a foregone conclusion (unlike the Automation)
> then I thought I better warn the dev team so they could at least plan
> for my absence.
>
> Maybe this will help focus minds on the automation?
>
> If so, then something positive would have come out of this CoC thread
> after all.

Frankly, the state of the automatation is pitiful, but we were also
partly laboring from a dearth of API documentation IIRC as well as a
lack of people versed in the respective programming
languages/systems/frameworks.

Lame excuses, I know.  At any rate, things on my plate tend to make me
panic, and you give more a steady vibe of clearing plates rather than
stacking things up.  Which may not necessarily always act to your
advantage, but quite to that of the project.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Re[2]: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[Trevor]

Phil Holmes wrote 08/02/2020 17:24:56
Subject: Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]


- Original Message - From: "Karlin High" 
However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe first. To me, their 
opposition registered as the strongest.

I remain strongly opposed to a CoC.

As do I. I'm quite sure we on this list are all perfectly capable of 
civil and caring behaviour without having it spelled out in nanny-ish 
terms.


Trevor

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Karlin,

> In my opinion, positive things have indeed come out of these threads. They 
> may not be what any one person had in mind, but that's to be expected 
> whenever a community discusses something.

That’s exactly what I was going to say.  =)

Best,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[Karlin High]

On 2/8/2020 12:46 PM, pkx1...@posteo.net wrote:

then something positive would have come out of this CoC thread after all.


Thanks for your response; clearly noted.

Phil Holmes makes builds.

James Lowe manages issue and patch reviews.

Hopefully I can remember this.

In my opinion, positive things have indeed come out of these threads. 
They may not be what any one person had in mind, but that's to be 
expected whenever a community discusses something.

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[pkx166h]

On 08/02/2020 17:50, Werner LEMBERG wrote:

GNU Kind Communication Guidelines


To-may-to, To-mah-to Werner.

Anyway to answer Karlin's request, I am probably the last person in the 
'dev' team to worry about. Yes I seem to do a lot of 'work' but it *is* 
just 'janitorial' duties (which is a rather good way to explain it) and, 
assuming we do manage to get the automation suggestions in place then 
there will be no need of what I do, which will be much better for the 
project (I hope).


Note however that there has never been anything stopping anyone else 
from fully testing patches (I occasionally offer this up when a dev 
complains that things are too slow for them in terms of patch review, or 
if they have a patch sat in the new queue waiting on 'someone' to test). 
Because of lost patches we had a second person (similar to me, a non-dev 
I think, called Colin) that kept track of these (again with useful 
helper scripts from Mark Hohl?).


(If I am mis-remembering names here I apologize)

Colin decided he could no longer commit to his 'LP duties anymore' and 
no one offered to step in, so I did - otherwise nothing would have got 
done it seemed and those existing devs at that time may have become more 
demoralised. So now here we are with me doing both roles and doing them 
manually (more or less) because we ran out of people to step in to do 
these things and the helper scripts stopped working when we moved from 
Google Code.


Anyway, the point is that nothing I do here is as very significant 
compared to those developers that actually write 'code' (I am not 
looking for sympathy here, I am merely stating what I believe), so my 
opinions about a CoC are, in the grand scheme of things, not going to 
affect the code base of LP (i.e. you won't be losing a useful developer 
so to speak), but I was more and more objecting to the seemingly 
selected deafness/blind-eye turning of some of the people commenting on 
this CoC thread as if it was all 'sweetness and light'. So without any 
real skin to loose in this game I spoke up.


If we end up waiting for the automation stuff to be working and THEN 
implement the CoC (or this GNU Happy Place Pamhplet) then it won't 
affect the project at all as my current duties will be voided (and 
again, that is fine). But if this CoC was, as it was seeming as of 
yesterday, a foregone conclusion (unlike the Automation) then I thought 
I better warn the dev team so they could at least plan for my absence.


Maybe this will help focus minds on the automation?

If so, then something positive would have come out of this CoC thread 
after all.


regards

James

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[Urs Liska]

Am 8. Februar 2020 19:23:34 MEZ schrieb Karlin High :
>On 2/8/2020 11:24 AM, Phil Holmes wrote:
>> I remain strongly opposed to a CoC.
>
>Clearly noted; thanks for responding. I have nothing further to say on 
>this topic just now; it's pretty much all been covered in prior
>messages.
>
>I'm sorry if I got your name wrong. I know "Phil Holmes" and "James 
>Lowe" are names associated with great service to the project in
>managing 
>patches and builds, but I have trouble remembering who's who for them.

No, you remembered right, James voiced his opposition in even stronger, 
borderline inappropriate ä, words.

Urs

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[Karlin High]

On 2/8/2020 11:24 AM, Phil Holmes wrote:

I remain strongly opposed to a CoC.


Clearly noted; thanks for responding. I have nothing further to say on 
this topic just now; it's pretty much all been covered in prior messages.


I'm sorry if I got your name wrong. I know "Phil Holmes" and "James 
Lowe" are names associated with great service to the project in managing 
patches and builds, but I have trouble remembering who's who for them.

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: "Werner LEMBERG" 

To: 
Cc: ; ; ; 
; 

Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2020 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]





However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe
first. To me, their opposition registered as the strongest.


I remain strongly opposed to a CoC.


Hmm.  What about simply using the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines,
maybe adding 'LilyPond' at some strategic places?


   Werner



I've not read them, so can't immediately comment.

FWIW I had substantial experience of managing commercial developments (1,500 
developers, over $200M annual budget).


Every now and then HR would tell us we needed things like this, and force us 
all onto training courses.  It just wasted time.  The best solution is 
always understanding and taking things easy.


--
Phil Holmes 

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[Carl Sorensen]

On 2/8/20, 10:55 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup" 
 
wrote:

Werner LEMBERG  writes:

>>> However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe
>>> first. To me, their opposition registered as the strongest.
>> 
>> I remain strongly opposed to a CoC.
>
> Hmm.  What about simply using the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines,
> maybe adding 'LilyPond' at some strategic places?

"This page is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License."

Which is sort-of stupid given the character of a loose accumulation of
advice, but one could still put something around them stating how we
desire them to be applied to LilyPond's various media.

I think the Werner was asking a question of Phil, namely, would he be opposed 
to using the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines.

Thanks,

Carl
 

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG  writes:

>>> However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe
>>> first. To me, their opposition registered as the strongest.
>> 
>> I remain strongly opposed to a CoC.
>
> Hmm.  What about simply using the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines,
> maybe adding 'LilyPond' at some strategic places?

"This page is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License."

Which is sort-of stupid given the character of a loose accumulation of
advice, but one could still put something around them stating how we
desire them to be applied to LilyPond's various media.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe
>> first. To me, their opposition registered as the strongest.
> 
> I remain strongly opposed to a CoC.

Hmm.  What about simply using the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines,
maybe adding 'LilyPond' at some strategic places?


Werner

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: "Karlin High" 


However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe first. To 
me, their opposition registered as the strongest.



I remain strongly opposed to a CoC.

--
Phil Holmes

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Urs Liska]

Am Samstag, den 08.02.2020, 17:52 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Urs Liska  writes:
> 
> > Am Samstag, den 08.02.2020, 17:31 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> > > Thomas Morley  writes:
> > > 
> > > > P.S. that 'make test-baseline' failed, I'll need to investigate
> > > > after
> > > > sending this.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > input/regression/display-lily-tests.ly:230:1: fatal error: Test
> > > unequal: BUG.
> > > in  = \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list))
> > > out = \applyOutput Foo ##f
> > > 
> > > 
> > > \test ##[ \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list)) #]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Not much of a surprise here: Guile-2 does not keep the source of
> > > functions around in general.  And Urs 
> > 
> > ? (is there another one around here?)
> 
> Dan.  Knowing my luck, now both will be offended.  Sorry.

No, I'm not offended ;-)

Urs
> 
> > > turned warnings in that file into
> > > errors so that they would not get overlooked.  Which certainly is
> > > sensible, but it means we need to think about what to do here.

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska  writes:

> Am Samstag, den 08.02.2020, 17:31 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Thomas Morley  writes:
>> 
>> > P.S. that 'make test-baseline' failed, I'll need to investigate
>> > after
>> > sending this.
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> input/regression/display-lily-tests.ly:230:1: fatal error: Test
>> unequal: BUG.
>> in  = \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list))
>> out = \applyOutput Foo ##f
>> 
>> 
>> \test ##[ \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list)) #]
>> 
>> 
>> Not much of a surprise here: Guile-2 does not keep the source of
>> functions around in general.  And Urs 
>
> ? (is there another one around here?)

Dan.  Knowing my luck, now both will be offended.  Sorry.

>> turned warnings in that file into
>> errors so that they would not get overlooked.  Which certainly is
>> sensible, but it means we need to think about what to do here.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Urs Liska]

Am Samstag, den 08.02.2020, 17:31 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Thomas Morley  writes:
> 
> > P.S. that 'make test-baseline' failed, I'll need to investigate
> > after
> > sending this.
> > 
> > 
> 
> input/regression/display-lily-tests.ly:230:1: fatal error: Test
> unequal: BUG.
> in  = \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list))
> out = \applyOutput Foo ##f
> 
> 
> \test ##[ \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list)) #]
> 
> 
> Not much of a surprise here: Guile-2 does not keep the source of
> functions around in general.  And Urs 

? (is there another one around here?)

> turned warnings in that file into
> errors so that they would not get overlooked.  Which certainly is
> sensible, but it means we need to think about what to do here.
> 

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley  writes:

> P.S. that 'make test-baseline' failed, I'll need to investigate after
> sending this.
>
>

input/regression/display-lily-tests.ly:230:1: fatal error: Test unequal: BUG.
in  = \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list))
out = \applyOutput Foo ##f


\test ##[ \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list)) #]


Not much of a surprise here: Guile-2 does not keep the source of
functions around in general.  And Urs turned warnings in that file into
errors so that they would not get overlooked.  Which certainly is
sensible, but it means we need to think about what to do here.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan  writes:

> Hi Harm,
>
> Fair points, all.
>
>> Again a big, big THANK YOU to Werner and all who made it possible!!
>
> +1!

Major seconded.

>> Not going into details of the CoC-discussion, why not handle it as what it 
>> is:
>> It's a patch. Review showed there are too many objections. Thus it
>> should be set to 'needs work' or 'waiting'.
>> Otoh, there are suggestions to replace this proposal. Why not focus on
>> those proposals?
>
> Excellent suggestion.

Unsurprisingly I am partial to that suggestion.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Harm,

Fair points, all.

> Again a big, big THANK YOU to Werner and all who made it possible!!

+1!

> Not going into details of the CoC-discussion, why not handle it as what it is:
> It's a patch. Review showed there are too many objections. Thus it
> should be set to 'needs work' or 'waiting'.
> Otoh, there are suggestions to replace this proposal. Why not focus on
> those proposals?

Excellent suggestion.

Thanks,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley  writes:

> Although my time is very limited during the usual workingweek, I'd
> love to do more on the guile-v2-thingy or at least doing tests for the
> already done work, etc. Instead I write this mail (okay, a 'make
> test-baseline' runs in the background) or read through very long
> threads
>
> Cheers,
>   Harm
>
> P.S. that 'make test-baseline' failed, I'll need to investigate after
> sending this.

Now that most of the original guile-v2-work branch is in, I should
likely give this another try and also see which of the remaining three
XXX patches is required and why.  And possibly what else.

I think having a state where it works out of the box without byte
compilation would be a less distracting starting point for searching a
solution for the compilation problem.  It would be disruptive if we had
to abandon the markup macro.  Not that I am the least bit fond of it,
but it's almost omnipresent.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[Karlin High]

On 2/8/2020 9:17 AM, David Kastrup wrote:

I've proposed looking at the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines as
something that one can point to and aim to heed.
.  It has
certainly worthwhile advice.


Thanks for the link. I saw it earlier, wanted to read it later, and 
finally have. I agree with you that it's good advice.



I don't see that an approach focused on
providing a promise of punishment and removal will really work for the
predominant problem we are actually dealing with.


I agree, and think my intended proposal does not focus on providing 
punishment and removal.



I don't think it
makes sense to promise something that one does not aim to keep, or that
one knows by experience that one will not be able to keep in spite of
trying.  A blind person cannot sensibly promise they'll stop overturning
chairs.

I have no problem with getting told "this is not ok".  By anyone.  And
the less delay there is, the sooner I can try getting the overturned
chairs up again.  Routing things through a committee is not making this
easier.  Having a code that allows people to deduce that it is my
behavior that is out of line and tell me so, pointing out just where
that is the case, might help.  But the promise of penalties is something
that will achieve nothing but frustrating both the offended parties as
well as myself until either leaves.


Thanks for sharing. None of that seems like a basic conflict with the 
ideas I have.


In light of the 2 questions earlier, I'm registering this as responses of:

* Not opposed to all Codes of Conduct as a matter of principle, but 
deeply concerned about provisions for their enforcement.


* No proposal now, give the issue a rest

Corrections are desired if I am wrong in that.
--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Thomas Morley]

Am Sa., 8. Feb. 2020 um 14:59 Uhr schrieb Kieren MacMillan
:

> To me, the greatest shame is that all the positive energy and momentum coming 
> out of the Salzburg conference is, it seems, in real danger of being shut 
> down by toxic energy of the same kind that has led to the community attrition 
> over the last 5-7 years.
>
> Just an observation from someone who’s been here since 2003, and watched this 
> movie before.

Hi Kieren,

I'd like to fully agree to your statement about the positive energy,
etc out of the Salzburg conference.
It was a great event and great to meet so many people and great to
(I'll stop continuing the list ...).
Again a big, big THANK YOU to Werner and all who made it possible!!

We discussed many plans, among them (without claim of completeness)
- developer-tools (move to GitHub or similar)
- implement stuff from openlilylib
- CoC
- finally migrate to guile-2
- ...

Though, those were plans, sometimes more declarations of intents.
Ofcourse there was not the time to discuss the details.
Home again, and making those plans public, not only more people got
involved (with probably different opinions), but one had a better
opportunity to think over the details.
Thus I think it's natural, thoughts will diverge even more than
already noticed in Salzburg.

Let me pick a not so heated discussed point: developer-tools and share
my own thoughts:
While I still object going for GitHub, I changed my mind wrt to other tools.
I reflected some of my reservations, coming from simply lazyness: I
had to do hard work to get to grips with the current reviewing-setup.
Thus I feared the need to do it again. Nowadays I think, it may be
better to move away from Rietveld/sourceforge.

On other plans even more objections may happen, see James' thoughts
about the CoC.

Again, I think it's natural to observe a broader, more diverging
amount of opinions.

We need to deal with this, without starting a flame-war, going toxic
or whatever, but in a civil way.

Not going into details of the CoC-discussion, why not handle it as what it is:
It's a patch. Review showed there are too many objections. Thus it
should be set to 'needs work' or 'waiting'.
Otoh, there are suggestions to replace this proposal. Why not focus on
those proposals?



For me it's more a shame we are distracted by such discussions from
doing our work.
Although my time is very limited during the usual workingweek, I'd
love to do more on the guile-v2-thingy or at least doing tests for the
already done work, etc. Instead I write this mail (okay, a 'make
test-baseline' runs in the background) or read through very long
threads

Cheers,
  Harm

P.S. that 'make test-baseline' failed, I'll need to investigate after
sending this.

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[David Kastrup]

Karlin High  writes:

> I think the Code of Conduct discussion is reaching (or has reached)
> the point of exhaustion and is unlikely to be productive if continued 
> further in current directions. It seems there is pretty strong
> opposition to adopting the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct as 
> originally proposed.
>
> I'm thankful for the occasion to self-reflect on Lilypond's discussion
> environment. I've been thinking about this a lot. A point was made 
> earlier that the expectation of having Codes of Conduct in open-source
> communities is not going to go away. In that case, I think it would be 
> best to "fill the vacuum" and adopt something everyone finds
> acceptable. That, as opposed to having a sufficiently-influential
> outside party demand adoption of a Code the community doesn't want, as
> happened to the SQLite project.
>
> In the spirit of the recent "RFC" posts that explore different future
> directions, I think I could soon propose something for a Code of 
> Conduct. (It draws on some centuries-old traditions of community
> conflict resolution.)
>
> However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe first. To
> me, their opposition registered as the strongest.
>
> Question: Would this opposition apply to all Codes of Conduct as a
> matter of principle? Or just to the particular one that was proposed, 
> and you'd consider supporting a more-acceptable alternative?
>
> And, would you like to see an alternative proposal...

I've proposed looking at the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines as
something that one can point to and aim to heed.
.  It has
certainly worthwhile advice.  I don't see that an approach focused on
providing a promise of punishment and removal will really work for the
predominant problem we are actually dealing with.  I don't think it
makes sense to promise something that one does not aim to keep, or that
one knows by experience that one will not be able to keep in spite of
trying.  A blind person cannot sensibly promise they'll stop overturning
chairs.

I have no problem with getting told "this is not ok".  By anyone.  And
the less delay there is, the sooner I can try getting the overturned
chairs up again.  Routing things through a committee is not making this
easier.  Having a code that allows people to deduce that it is my
behavior that is out of line and tell me so, pointing out just where
that is the case, might help.  But the promise of penalties is something
that will achieve nothing but frustrating both the offended parties as
well as myself until either leaves.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[Karlin High]

I think the Code of Conduct discussion is reaching (or has reached) the 
point of exhaustion and is unlikely to be productive if continued 
further in current directions. It seems there is pretty strong 
opposition to adopting the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct as 
originally proposed.


I'm thankful for the occasion to self-reflect on Lilypond's discussion 
environment. I've been thinking about this a lot. A point was made 
earlier that the expectation of having Codes of Conduct in open-source 
communities is not going to go away. In that case, I think it would be 
best to "fill the vacuum" and adopt something everyone finds acceptable. 
That, as opposed to having a sufficiently-influential outside party 
demand adoption of a Code the community doesn't want, as happened to the 
SQLite project.


In the spirit of the recent "RFC" posts that explore different future 
directions, I think I could soon propose something for a Code of 
Conduct. (It draws on some centuries-old traditions of community 
conflict resolution.)


However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe first. To 
me, their opposition registered as the strongest.


Question: Would this opposition apply to all Codes of Conduct as a 
matter of principle? Or just to the particular one that was proposed, 
and you'd consider supporting a more-acceptable alternative?


And, would you like to see an alternative proposal...

* Soon
* Later
* Please never

I'm not going to propose anything now if it's felt the entire issue 
needs a rest for the moment.


--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi James,

> What a shame.

To me, the greatest shame is that all the positive energy and momentum coming 
out of the Salzburg conference is, it seems, in real danger of being shut down 
by toxic energy of the same kind that has led to the community attrition over 
the last 5-7 years.

Just an observation from someone who’s been here since 2003, and watched this 
movie before.

Regards,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Wol,

> The worry is that said developer may decide his talents
> are better spent elsewhere, and he'll quit ...

We need to weigh that concert against the documented reality that multiple 
other developers have already done so, and the worry that more might follow (or 
never join in the first place).

> a quick skim of the emails says to me this is rapidly turning into a toxic 
> tragedy of the commons.

100% agreed.

> The REAL tragedy is OUTSIDERS coming in, thinking things
> are being mis-managed, and imposing their own rules.

What about insiders like me — here in the Pond for 17 years — who agree that 
things are being mismanaged?

> [gentoo] lost an awful lot of developers a while back because a couple of
> developers turned toxic and, in *private* conversations, drove a lot
> people on the edge away. They finally got thrown out, but it took the
> project a LONG time to recover.

I would suggest that "developers turn[ing] toxic" was the problem, not the 
private or public nature of the conversation(s).

> another woman in the same venue who just accepted that it was a male 
> environment
> with no malicious intent but that she just couldn't take it when the 
> testosterone got out of hand.
> It IS a hard nut to crack.

Actually, that nut is pretty easy to crack, I believe: don’t allow testosterone 
to get out of hand. #problemsolved

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[James Lowe]

On 07/02/2020 09:50, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

Thanks for your careful observations.

First, the CoC was actually coined by Mike, and I saw it as a proposal to
bring LilyPond into the next decade.


What is that even supposed to mean? Again empty, ]words that sound 
'nice' but mean nothing.



A CoC is a pretty normal concept these
days.


Here we go ... ".. everyone else does it... so we should .. " still with 
no point to any of it that I can see.



If having a CoC is required to be taken seriously by developers at
large, we should consider it.
And for those of us who don't take them seriously and see them as an 
attempt at behavioral control by certain people for certain people.

I concede that CoCs haven't yet reached this
level of ubiquity, though.

Probably for good reason.

For full disclosure, David has ticked me off in the past, and reacquainting
myself with the community means that I have to reacquaint myself with
David's way of communicating.


Can we just stop bashing David?


One of the recent emails (about the
development process), contained a passage that felt like a blow in my
stomach and upset me to the point of considering to leave again. (When I
say this, I am not asking for adulation). If that happens to me, imagine
what happens when a new contributor is on the receiving end of that. So I
am happy to see that David is trying new ways to address this problem.


All without having at CoC.



I have no personal stake in being a CoC committee member, and was actually
volunteered into it by Janek. I am happy to not be part of such a committee
(Elaine, would you be interested?), because my time is limited, and is
probably best spent in mentoring coders and explaining the code base. For
the record, I think Werner is an excellent candidate.



If we're doing a 'for the record', then just let me state here if/when 
we have a CoC, I will be leaving the LP project , so I guess you better 
start getting all your automation ducks in a row for patch testing and 
shepherding etc, or someone else will need to step in do what I 
currently do.


What a shame.

James

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[David Kastrup]

Wols Lists  writes:

> On 06/02/20 20:56, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> 
>> I think that you are overstating things a little bit.  I recommend
>> that if you choose to use such a signature, it would be better to
>> say "My replies are known to sometimes cause friction.  This is
>> unintentional.  To help mitigating"
>> 
> Likewise.
>
> Are you (David, that is) on the autistic spectrum?

Who isn't?

> I'd be inclined just to put something minimal on the lines of "I am on
> the autistic spectrum, and if I come over as extremely blunt please
> forgive me. Please take me as you find me, and take my posts for the
> constructive criticism they are meant to be".

"highly functional autism" is a descriptive term, not an excuse.  "if
that sounds like I am an asshole, it might be because I am one" does not
really help people.  They still need to communicate and cope with the
feelings that this communication may trigger.

There is no nice David hidden underneath if you just take away the
autistic spectrum.  It's just a descriptive term for some peculiar but
not entirely unique facets of who I am.

> I'm borderline on the spectrum myself, and yes it can make life
> difficult with people who don't know you ...

But the point is they have to know you, not your medical folder.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Wols Lists]

On 06/02/20 20:56, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/6/20, 1:46 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup" 
>  
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Apple carts unfortunately get upset once in a while. That is just life.
> 
> Well, one can make them more robust, and that may be worth thinking
> about.
> 
> -- 
> David Kastrup
> My replies are known to frequently cause friction.  To help mitigating
> damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
> like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".
> 
> One of the things that I really value about you, David, is that you are 
> really slow to take offense.  You are willing to have problems discussed 
> openly, and you are frequently willing to consider others' realities, not 
> just your own.
> 
> I love the openness that your signature suggests.
> 
> I think that you are overstating things a little bit.  I recommend that if 
> you choose to use such a signature, it would be better to say "My replies are 
> known to sometimes cause friction.  This is unintentional.  To help 
> mitigating"
> 
Likewise.

Are you (David, that is) on the autistic spectrum? I'd be inclined just
to put something minimal on the lines of "I am on the autistic spectrum,
and if I come over as extremely blunt please forgive me. Please take me
as you find me, and take my posts for the constructive criticism they
are meant to be".

I'm borderline on the spectrum myself, and yes it can make life
difficult with people who don't know you ...

Cheers,
Wol

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[David Kastrup]

Karlin High  writes:

> On 2/6/2020 2:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I am working on an Email signature that might be helping to convey the
>> message.
>
> Nice idea, but sometimes drawing attention to a problem only makes
> things worse. How about focusing on the success mode instead of the 
> failure mode?
>
> "
> I aim to communicate with empathy. Have I failed? Reply "OUCH!"
> "
>
> I'm thinking along the lines of the "How's my driving? Call (phone)"
> stickers often seen on long-haul trucks in America.

Well, when the signature becomes relevant, that would likely appear akin
to an "I aim to speak the Queen's English" sign on a gorilla cage.  If
somebody is already rightfully upset, I don't want to give the
impression of making fun of them to boot.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Wols Lists]

On 06/02/20 14:40, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
>> I am still struggling to understand the point of a COC for the LP project, 
>> other than some kind of ... what is the term ... virtue signalling or 
>> something that a project does *after* someone says something that happens to 
>> be offensive to someone else - which is just, life isn't it?
>> Really. What is the point?
> 
> Disclaimer: I’m on the fence about having a CoC.
> 
> That being said, I think the point is this: if you *are* "being an arse to 
> someone", there is something concrete people can point to that says "you said 
> you wouldn’t be an arse". Does a "No Smoking" sign stop someone from smoking? 
> No. But it allows the police to write that person a ticket, and potentially 
> escalate if the person continues to contravene the "code".
> 
Given that people have said elsewhere that things should be open and
transparent, I would be inclined to say something about "off list"
communication, which in normal circumstances should NOT happen. Between
happy consenting adults, okay. Taking a flame-war off list? A very BIG
NO-NO. Which gives other people plenty of opportunity to step in and say
"cool it the pair of you!"

Incidentally, is there any way we can rate-limit the list? If you post
more than four or five messages in a couple of minutes the list chucks
you in the "sin bin" for 15 minutes? That'll choke off a lot of angry
discussions without impeding thoughtful stuff, and if enforced
mechanically it'll hopefully get all participants to sober up without
feeling victimised.

>> It doesn't 'enforce' anything nor is it legally binding or has any kind of 
>> (real) consequence other than giving certain types of people a justification 
>> to impose their own sensitivities (or lack thereof) over the 'rest'.
> 
> civ·il so·ci·e·ty, n.
>   • society considered as a community of citizens linked by common 
> interests and collective activity.
> 
>> All I can see that we've done here is waste (and I consider it a waste) time 
>> bikeshedding a document that just talks about 'how to be nice to people' and 
>> at the same time potentially worry one of our best developers because he 
>> might not happen to have all the social graces and just wants to 'get stuff 
>> done' but in doing so might offend someone with his terse emails.
> 
> Actually, it seems like the discussion has caused that developer to rethink 
> the form, content, and frequency of his contributions to the list, with a 
> potential benefit of him being able to spend his considerable gifts and 
> precious time elsewhere (like actually coding). If nothing else, that made 
> the discussion worthwhile in my opinion.
> 
The worry is that said developer may decide his talents are better spent
elsewhere, and he'll quit ...

> There are, of course, many other benefits I’ve already seen — if you’re 
> interested in talking about them, but feel it’s not worth discussing on-list, 
> I’m happy to discuss it with you off-list.  =)
> 
I hate to say this, but a quick skim of the emails says to me this is
rapidly turning into a toxic tragedy of the commons. And no, the tragedy
of the commons is NOT the villagers mis-managing their resources, as it
is so often portrayed.

The REAL tragedy is OUTSIDERS coming in, thinking things are being
mis-managed, and imposing their own rules. And because they don't
understand the complex dynamics at play, the whole thing collapses in a
heap!

By his own admission, it seems to me the main driver behind this CoC is
no longer a regular member of the community. One of the main
consequences of this looks like we could lose our lead developer. Do we
REALLY want lilypond to go the way of Xorg, because it's looking like it
might?


Personally, I quite like the sound of the GNU "be nice to each other"
guidelines. Couple this with a rule "Do NOT take discussions off the
mailing list or you're on your own", and an "elder statesmen" council,
this means that (a) there is a place to complain, and (b) all the
evidence is in the open. There should be an EXPLICIT assumption that if
you take an argument to private email then you're the one in the wrong.


As for my take on the current situation, I got pushed out of a project I
started a good few moons ago. I didn't like it, but my attitude was "he
who does the work makes the rules" and this other guy was doing MUCH
more than me. It's hard, but I think we have to back David and support
him, like Kieren is trying to do. The more we can support the existing
strong community members, and strengthen people on the edge and try and
bring them in, the easier we'll be able to codify rules that are seen to
be working rather then hoping to fix things by adding regulation. That's
always a recipe for failure.

And yes, I know I'm not a regular member of the community any more,
which is why I'm not prescribing what "the community" (ie others) should
do, although I'm happy to voice my opinions :-)

I just don't want to see lilypond go the 

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[David Kastrup]

Karlin High  writes:

> On 2/6/2020 2:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I am working on an Email signature that might be helping to convey the
>> message.
>
> Nice idea, but sometimes drawing attention to a problem only makes
> things worse. How about focusing on the success mode instead of the 
> failure mode?
>
> "
> I aim to communicate with empathy. Have I failed? Reply "OUCH!"
> "
>
> I'm thinking along the lines of the "How's my driving? Call (phone)"
> stickers often seen on long-haul trucks in America.

Well, it's sort of like a sign "I aim to speak in the Queen's English.
Have I failed?" on Eliza Doolittle's flower basket.  Those who'd be most
likely to take offense in the first place would feel rightfully
ridiculed as well.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:55 AM David Kastrup  wrote:

> Thomas Morley  writes:
>
> > As an example look at the review of one of my own patches
> > https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043
> > Quoting dak:
> > "This looks like a total mess."
> > "Total waste of effort."
> > "Aaand another one."
>
> Ouch.  Fortunately in context this looks less dire ("Aaand another one."
> for example just means "And here is another thing I found after looking
> more carefully.").  Those sentences are part of a larger line-by-line
> review and more or less the cream of the crop.
>
>
When I do reviews, I often write similar things as well.

But then, before sending it back, I read over the reply once more. I then
change things like

  This is messy, you want to do X which is wrong.

to

  Have you tried Y instead? I think might make things cleaner.

This will get the same outcome coding-wise, but avoids treading on the ego
of the person on the other side.

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:05 AM Karlin High  wrote:

> On 2/6/2020 2:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> > I am working on an Email signature that might be helping to convey the
> > message.
>
> Nice idea, but sometimes drawing attention to a problem only makes
> things worse. How about focusing on the success mode instead of the
> failure mode?
>
> "
> I aim to communicate with empathy. Have I failed? Reply "OUCH!"
> "
>

I like this one better too.


-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

Thanks for your careful observations.

First, the CoC was actually coined by Mike, and I saw it as a proposal to
bring LilyPond into the next decade. A CoC is a pretty normal concept these
days. If having a CoC is required to be taken seriously by developers at
large, we should consider it. I concede that CoCs haven't yet reached this
level of ubiquity, though.

For full disclosure, David has ticked me off in the past, and reacquainting
myself with the community means that I have to reacquaint myself with
David's way of communicating. One of the recent emails (about the
development process), contained a passage that felt like a blow in my
stomach and upset me to the point of considering to leave again. (When I
say this, I am not asking for adulation). If that happens to me, imagine
what happens when a new contributor is on the receiving end of that. So I
am happy to see that David is trying new ways to address this problem.

I have no personal stake in being a CoC committee member, and was actually
volunteered into it by Janek. I am happy to not be part of such a committee
(Elaine, would you be interested?), because my time is limited, and is
probably best spent in mentoring coders and explaining the code base. For
the record, I think Werner is an excellent candidate.



On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 2:28 AM Flaming Hakama by Elaine <
ela...@flaminghakama.com> wrote:

> Regarding the CoC.
>
> If there is no enforcement, then it is not clear what is the point.
>
> In the abstract, such a document could help to set expectations of
> behavior, including clarifying types of behavior that is considered
> unacceptable.  Such that everyone/anyone in the community would be able to
> have something to point to to say, "see this type of behavior is considered
> unacceptable".
>
> However, even with a clear CoC, any accusations of violation could be
> disputed.  Reasonable people can disagree on many things, especially human
> feelings, actions, and intentions.  Without an offiical enforcement
> mechanism, we only really have peer pressure.  Which is exactly what we
> have now.  And I don't think any of us need a CoC to identify uncivil
> behavior.
>
>
> The main issues with the original enforcement proposal is that it delegates
> authority to the people most likely to have a conflict of interest:  the
> core contributors.
>
> If we want such a committee to be effective, it should be populated by
> people who have fewer conflict of interest.  Ideally, it would include
> people who primarily have good standing among the community with track
> records of being helpful and diplomatic--coding chops should not be the
> main criteria.  Likewise, I think we should consider recruiting at least
> one person from outside the community who has experience with such things
> (mediators, facilitiators, open source mentors, diversity trainers).  This
> should be clear by considering the one suggested use case (sexual
> harassment), since we would want a committee that is able to understand and
> handle such complaints, and to which community members will feel
> comfortable bringing forward such complaints.  That is not an easy thing to
> construct entirely in-house.
>
> Any such proposal should also make it clear how this committee gets
> elected, have some mechanisms for limiting terms, and how to handle
> appeals.
>
> In my opinion, in the abstract a CoC with enforcement is useful, but only
> once the community is large enough, and if the enforcement mechanism is
> transparent, democratic, and constructed to actually handle well the task
> it is charged with.
>
> I don't think either the lilypond community nor this specific proposal
> comes anywhere close to this.
>
>
>
> There are two things that have been said in this discussion so far that I
> would like to point out as being un-collaborative and in violation of any
> CoC worth its salt:
>
> 1) "Adopt this CoC or I will leave the community"  Such threats amount to a
> my-way-or-the-highway attitude, which is an attempt to enforce veto power
> in what is supposed to be a collaborative / concensus / democratic
> approach.  Also difficult to disentangle the degree to which this is
> intentionally or unintentionally an unprofessional attempt to elicit
> praise, with the expected reactions of "oh no, don't leave, you're too
> valuable".  To me, this is toxic behavior and I would welcome their
> self-removal from the community if this is their idea of how to conduct
> themselves in an exemplary manner.
>
> 2) Being disingenuous regarding the point of the CoC.  While it may be a
> bit overboard for DK to assume that removing him is the sole point of the
> proposal, it is equally disingenuous for the proposers of the CoC to
> suggest that any such consequences would be unintended, since that is the
> *only* actionalble part of the proposal, and DK is the most obvious target
> for such concerns.  What has become clear to me is that there is a
> disharmony between the original BDFL and the 

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno gio 6 feb 2020 alle 23:04, Carl Sorensen  
ha scritto:
I think that the presence (in the proposed CoC )of an enforcement 
committee that has the power to sanction participants in response to 
anonymous complaints is more than just a bit of prose.  It's the 
creation of a new structure that governs our community.  It's the 
structure I have concerns about, not the prose.


I'm thinking through the issues, and I don't know exactly where I 
finally come down.  But at this point, I think I would welcome a code 
of conduct that expressed our aspirations to be open, friendly, 
welcome to diversity; and opposed to harassment,  bullying, 
belittling, and other negative forms of communication.  If the code 
of conduct also proposed a mediation committee that would provide 
support to people who were having trouble with the community (either 
those who felt damaged by the negative communication or those who 
were accused of negative communication), I think I could support 
that.  Having a committee that tries to smooth things over seems only 
a positive.


I agree with you.
From what I've read so far, it's a matter of fact that some 
developers/contributors were not aware of some "tensions" happened in 
the past. We should try to find a way to raise the awareness and 
discuss possible solutions before developers leave the project.

A mediation committee might be a way..

Even though my personal opinion is that the priority now is changing 
the development workflow and tools.

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Carl Sorensen]

On 2/6/20, 6:28 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Flaming Hakama by Elaine" 
 wrote:

Regarding the CoC.

If there is no enforcement, then it is not clear what is the point.

Perhaps the point is to provide a support system, so that somebody who feels 
marginalized has others on their side.

In the abstract, such a document could help to set expectations of
behavior, including clarifying types of behavior that is considered
unacceptable.  Such that everyone/anyone in the community would be able to
have something to point to to say, "see this type of behavior is considered
unacceptable".

However, even with a clear CoC, any accusations of violation could be
disputed.  Reasonable people can disagree on many things, especially human
feelings, actions, and intentions.  Without an offiical enforcement
mechanism, we only really have peer pressure.  Which is exactly what we
have now.  And I don't think any of us need a CoC to identify uncivil
behavior.

Without enforcement, perhaps the response to uncomfortable situations turn away 
from "accusations of violation" and instead to "I" statements -- "I felt XXX 
when YYY happened".  Such statements are less incendiary than accusations.

The main issues with the original enforcement proposal is that it delegates
authority to the people most likely to have a conflict of interest:  the
core contributors.

I do not see this as the main issue.  I trust each of the individuals who were 
proposed to be on the committee.  The main issue I had (and continue to have) 
with the proposed CoC is the prospect of punitive-appearing enforcement actions 
taken after a private process with the complainant remaining anonymous.

I would not be concerned about anonymous "I felt" statements were the job of 
the committee to provide support to the complainant, rather than to provide 
consequences to the putative offender.

If we want such a committee to be effective, it should be populated by
people who have fewer conflict of interest.  Ideally, it would include
people who primarily have good standing among the community with track
records of being helpful and diplomatic--coding chops should not be the
main criteria.  Likewise, I think we should consider recruiting at least
one person from outside the community who has experience with such things
(mediators, facilitiators, open source mentors, diversity trainers).  This
should be clear by considering the one suggested use case (sexual
harassment), since we would want a committee that is able to understand and
handle such complaints, and to which community members will feel
comfortable bringing forward such complaints.  That is not an easy thing to
construct entirely in-house.

Any such proposal should also make it clear how this committee gets
elected, have some mechanisms for limiting terms, and how to handle appeals.

I agree that if we are to have a committee with the authority to banish people, 
the processes need to be fully spelled out and transparent.  Unfortunately, I 
think that a lot of effort would be spent on such activities without a 
corresponding amount of benefit.

In my opinion, in the abstract a CoC with enforcement is useful, but only
once the community is large enough, and if the enforcement mechanism is
transparent, democratic, and constructed to actually handle well the task
it is charged with.

I don't think either the lilypond community nor this specific proposal
comes anywhere close to this.



There are two things that have been said in this discussion so far that I
would like to point out as being un-collaborative and in violation of any
CoC worth its salt:

1) "Adopt this CoC or I will leave the community"  Such threats amount to a
my-way-or-the-highway attitude, which is an attempt to enforce veto power
in what is supposed to be a collaborative / concensus / democratic
approach.  Also difficult to disentangle the degree to which this is
intentionally or unintentionally an unprofessional attempt to elicit
praise, with the expected reactions of "oh no, don't leave, you're too
valuable".  To me, this is toxic behavior and I would welcome their
self-removal from the community if this is their idea of how to conduct
themselves in an exemplary manner.

2) Being disingenuous regarding the point of the CoC.  While it may be a
bit overboard for DK to assume that removing him is the sole point of the
proposal, it is equally disingenuous for the proposers of the CoC to
suggest that any such consequences would be unintended, since that is the
*only* actionalble part of the proposal, and DK is the most obvious target
for such concerns.  What has become clear to me is that there is a
disharmony between the original BDFL and the incumbent BDFL.  This 

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Elaine,

> * The current process relies too heavily on one contributor, and any
> improvements to the process will inherently invovle untangling the many
> hats being worn by the current BDFL, such that others can wear them--and
> probably also reconstituting the hat wardrobe.
> 
> * Those who currently have oversized roles should be willing to help
> transform the workflow and workload such that collaboration is expanded,
> such that they can focus on their areas of genius.  Also, recognize that,
> while the desire to disentangle the workflows of the incumbent BDFL, it is
> not intended as a personal attack, despite the fact that it is being
> carried out in a way that does not make this clear.

My whole "let’s make a big hypergranular list of all the tasks" (a.k.a. "let’s 
reconstitute the hat wardrobe") suggestion has a primary aim of addressing 
those two issues directly.

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

Regarding the CoC.

If there is no enforcement, then it is not clear what is the point.

In the abstract, such a document could help to set expectations of
behavior, including clarifying types of behavior that is considered
unacceptable.  Such that everyone/anyone in the community would be able to
have something to point to to say, "see this type of behavior is considered
unacceptable".

However, even with a clear CoC, any accusations of violation could be
disputed.  Reasonable people can disagree on many things, especially human
feelings, actions, and intentions.  Without an offiical enforcement
mechanism, we only really have peer pressure.  Which is exactly what we
have now.  And I don't think any of us need a CoC to identify uncivil
behavior.


The main issues with the original enforcement proposal is that it delegates
authority to the people most likely to have a conflict of interest:  the
core contributors.

If we want such a committee to be effective, it should be populated by
people who have fewer conflict of interest.  Ideally, it would include
people who primarily have good standing among the community with track
records of being helpful and diplomatic--coding chops should not be the
main criteria.  Likewise, I think we should consider recruiting at least
one person from outside the community who has experience with such things
(mediators, facilitiators, open source mentors, diversity trainers).  This
should be clear by considering the one suggested use case (sexual
harassment), since we would want a committee that is able to understand and
handle such complaints, and to which community members will feel
comfortable bringing forward such complaints.  That is not an easy thing to
construct entirely in-house.

Any such proposal should also make it clear how this committee gets
elected, have some mechanisms for limiting terms, and how to handle appeals.

In my opinion, in the abstract a CoC with enforcement is useful, but only
once the community is large enough, and if the enforcement mechanism is
transparent, democratic, and constructed to actually handle well the task
it is charged with.

I don't think either the lilypond community nor this specific proposal
comes anywhere close to this.



There are two things that have been said in this discussion so far that I
would like to point out as being un-collaborative and in violation of any
CoC worth its salt:

1) "Adopt this CoC or I will leave the community"  Such threats amount to a
my-way-or-the-highway attitude, which is an attempt to enforce veto power
in what is supposed to be a collaborative / concensus / democratic
approach.  Also difficult to disentangle the degree to which this is
intentionally or unintentionally an unprofessional attempt to elicit
praise, with the expected reactions of "oh no, don't leave, you're too
valuable".  To me, this is toxic behavior and I would welcome their
self-removal from the community if this is their idea of how to conduct
themselves in an exemplary manner.

2) Being disingenuous regarding the point of the CoC.  While it may be a
bit overboard for DK to assume that removing him is the sole point of the
proposal, it is equally disingenuous for the proposers of the CoC to
suggest that any such consequences would be unintended, since that is the
*only* actionalble part of the proposal, and DK is the most obvious target
for such concerns.  What has become clear to me is that there is a
disharmony between the original BDFL and the incumbent BDFL.  This specific
proposal for a CoC seems to me to be an attempt to provide the *appearance*
of some kind of consensus-based or otherwise democratic process, in an
effort to reinstate the original BDFL and dethrone the incumbent BDFL, when
in fact there is nothing consensus-based or democratic about the proposal
at all.  So, it has a taste of insencerity and disguised motives, which is
exactly the opposite of what a CoC should be engendering.

For both sides of this kerfuffle, I'd offer the following reality check:

* The current process relies too heavily on one contributor, and any
improvements to the process will inherently invovle untangling the many
hats being worn by the current BDFL, such that others can wear them--and
probably also reconstituting the hat wardrobe.

* Those wanting more input and responsibility should be frank about their
aims, and not disguise them behind a lofty CoC proposal.  They should
recognize that such a proposal is, in part, difficult to distinguish from a
personal attack, since it does essentially target one individual, even if
that is not the intention and eventual scope of the proposal when applied
to a future 'pond that does operate among a larger number of contributors.

* Those who currently have oversized roles should be willing to help
transform the workflow and workload such that collaboration is expanded,
such that they can focus on their areas of genius.  Also, recognize that,
while the desire to disentangle the workflows of the 

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Karlin High]

On 2/6/2020 2:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

I am working on an Email signature that might be helping to convey the
message.


Nice idea, but sometimes drawing attention to a problem only makes 
things worse. How about focusing on the success mode instead of the 
failure mode?


"
I aim to communicate with empathy. Have I failed? Reply "OUCH!"
"

I'm thinking along the lines of the "How's my driving? Call (phone)" 
stickers often seen on long-haul trucks in America.

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Carl Sorensen]

On 2/6/20, 3:03 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of kieren_macmillan 
kieren_macmillan"  wrote:



We lost at least 30 [!!] person-years of extremely high-level programming
assistance because of the past tone in this community — yes, I can justify 
that
claim with concrete data — and we’re currently in danger of losing more,
indefinitely, because a few people in the community are unwilling to 
collaborate
on a piece of prose which would offer that we try to be a welcoming 
community.

I have expressed reservations about the proposed code of conduct.  I hope that 
I am not perceived as being unwilling to collaborate on improving the 
friendliness of the LilyPond community.

I am perfectly fine with a code of conduct that expresses the values of 
openness, friendliness, and mutual respect.  I believe in those things deeply.  
I try to always have my participation in the LilyPond community reflect those 
values.  If I ever fall afoul of them, I hope that somebody will let me know.

I am concerned about a code of conduct that has an implied threat in it.  And 
the present proposal has an implied threat to at least one of our members.  
David K. has seen the implied threat, and he believes that the ultimate outcome 
of accepting the proposed code of conduct would be that he would eventually be 
banned.  That is his reality, just as much as those who have been offended on 
the LilyPond lists have a reality that it's not a nice place for them to be.

I think that the presence (in the proposed CoC )of an enforcement committee 
that has the power to sanction participants in response to anonymous complaints 
is more than just a bit of prose.  It's the creation of a new structure that 
governs our community.  It's the structure I have concerns about, not the prose.

I'm thinking through the issues, and I don't know exactly where I finally come 
down.  But at this point, I think I would welcome a code of conduct that 
expressed our aspirations to be open, friendly, welcome to diversity; and 
opposed to harassment,  bullying, belittling, and other negative forms of 
communication.  If the code of conduct also proposed a mediation committee that 
would provide support to people who were having trouble with the community 
(either those who felt damaged by the negative communication or those who were 
accused of negative communication), I think I could support that.  Having a 
committee that tries to smooth things over seems only a positive.   

To my mind, that’s a real wasted opportunity, and sufficient justification 
to at
least consider a CoC — a document which, for the record, I would have fell 
afoul
of multiple times in the 17 [!!] years I’ve been posting.

I agree that it's a wasted opportunity.  I think we should try to improve 
things.  But I'm concerned that if you would have fallen afoul of the proposed 
CoC, the CoC is pretty restrictive.  I think your posts are consistently 
positive.

> Apple carts unfortunately get upset once in a while. That is just life.

So if someone goes around regularly knocking over everyone’s cart —
intentionally or otherwise — and as a result drives the sellers with the 
best
apples to another village, there’s no benefit in trying to figure out a way 
to
direct the person’s energies to more constructive and less disruptive
purpose(s)? I’m sure glad the real world doesn’t work on that model.

I think it's wonderful to try to help a person be more constructive and less 
disruptive.   I also think I would be concerned if the only person who sells 
peaches in the village stopped providing peaches because she occasionally 
knocked over an applecart.  The community would be worse of in both cases -- no 
peaches or no apples.  A plan to provide *both* peaches and apples would be far 
better.

The proposed CoC, in  my opinion, does not have a friendly tone towards those 
who run afoul of the CoC.  And I think we need to be friendly to all, including 
those who run afoul of the CoC.  Rather than seeking to ostracize them, we 
should seek to help them.  The proposed CoC doesn’t feel that way to me.

But I'd be very happy to try to help make it feel friendly.

Thanks,

Carl
 

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[kieren_macmillan kieren_macmillan]

Hi James (et al.),

> Goodness gracious!
> Do all those who feel so positive about CoCs not see how that paragraph 
> above is just so bloody soul destroying?

No. Please explain.

> I don't need a document written by a committee of people that I have no 
> say over (i.e. what we do in the real world) and done need to be told 
> what I can say within the LP community. I already know how to be civil, 
> whether my brand of civility is yours, is nothing I care about.

I recently accompanied a few days of auditions for a new musical. The creators
and entire artistic panel were from Newfoundland, Canada. One actor came in and,
just before singing, asked if she should “use a Newfie accent”. The rest of the
audition was a complete waste of time for her: once she had said "the 'N' word",
there was literally zero chance of her getting the gig, or ever being called
back for any work by those creators or directors.

Was the panel too sensitive? Maybe to some people’s minds. That’s beside the
point. Here’s the point: I *guarantee* that if there had been a "Code of
Conduct", posted outside the audition room, which included something like "The
word 'Newfie' is deeply offensive to the people of Newfoundland; please do not
use it here.", that actor (a) wouldn’t have said it, and (b) would consequently
have had an excellent chance at getting the gig [because, as it turns out, she
is quite talented and did a great job in the audition, modulo the 'unforgivable'
offence].

I think it’s useful, kind, and helpful to offer advice to people entering an
unknown community on how they should expect to behave and be treated in that
community. It’s their prerogative to not join the community, either because of
the content of such a document or its very existence.

> I've recently have a belly-full of being told that X is good because 
> "...everyone else is doing it" or that Y is needed because ... "...well 
> it's just 'easier' if we do it ..." without any real justification.

We lost at least 30 [!!] person-years of extremely high-level programming
assistance because of the past tone in this community — yes, I can justify that
claim with concrete data — and we’re currently in danger of losing more,
indefinitely, because a few people in the community are unwilling to collaborate
on a piece of prose which would offer that we try to be a welcoming community.

To my mind, that’s a real wasted opportunity, and sufficient justification to at
least consider a CoC — a document which, for the record, I would have fell afoul
of multiple times in the 17 [!!] years I’ve been posting.

> Apple carts unfortunately get upset once in a while. That is just life.

So if someone goes around regularly knocking over everyone’s cart —
intentionally or otherwise — and as a result drives the sellers with the best
apples to another village, there’s no benefit in trying to figure out a way to
direct the person’s energies to more constructive and less disruptive
purpose(s)? I’m sure glad the real world doesn’t work on that model.

Best regards,
Kieren.

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Carl Sorensen]

On 2/6/20, 1:46 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup" 
 
wrote:

>
> Apple carts unfortunately get upset once in a while. That is just life.

Well, one can make them more robust, and that may be worth thinking
about.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies are known to frequently cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

One of the things that I really value about you, David, is that you are really 
slow to take offense.  You are willing to have problems discussed openly, and 
you are frequently willing to consider others' realities, not just your own.

I love the openness that your signature suggests.

I think that you are overstating things a little bit.  I recommend that if you 
choose to use such a signature, it would be better to say "My replies are known 
to sometimes cause friction.  This is unintentional.  To help mitigating"

Of course, it's presumptuous of me to put words in your mouth.

Thanks,

Carl

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[James Lowe]

On 06/02/2020 15:37, David Kastrup wrote:

Werner LEMBERG  writes:


I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him [David K.], if
you think he is wrong.  Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_
offending.

That's it.

But new contributors cannot be expected to know, and also it takes time
until the emotional response aligns with that knowledge.


That is not your responsibility. Nor should you have to care what others 
think about you. As far as I am concerned you've put in the hard hours, 
seem to know what you are talking about (coming from someone who is not 
a programmer) and frankly, stood up to the proverbial plate to 'own' the 
state of the LP project all those years back when I was still getting 
all my commits done by Graham.


Of course that doesn't give you the right to abuse someone, but having 
to temper your own personality just because someone doesn't know you is 
exhausting, I have had personal experience of this, and it can become a 
real disincentive to even bother to comment let alone give advice. In 
the end i just 'leave' the discussion or simply don't contribute and 
this for my 'day job' let alone something I do in my spare time for nothing!


Besides I would also assume that new contributors would at least have 
'checked out' what LP is all about and who is currently active and have 
read the lists to get an idea of things and would have already seen your 
(supposed offensive) emails.




It's good advice, like "stay away from that trapdoor in the kitchen
leading to the snake pit".  But it's still a kitchen layout that may
come unexpected.


Goodness gracious!

Do all those who feel so positive about CoCs not see how that paragraph 
above is just so bloody soul destroying?


I don't need a document written by a committee of people that I have no 
say over (i.e. what we do in the real world) and done need to be told 
what I can say within the LP community. I already know how to be civil, 
whether my brand of civility is yours, is nothing I care about.


This is just 'Thought Police' by a different name or at the very least 
an exercise in tedious moral relativism.


Wow.. I didn't quite realise how opposed I was to CoCs until now and 
I've recently have a belly-full of being told that X is good because 
"...everyone else is doing it" or that Y is needed because ... "...well 
it's just 'easier' if we do it ..." without any real justification.


Apple carts unfortunately get upset once in a while. That is just life.

James

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[David Kastrup]

James Lowe  writes:

> On 06/02/2020 15:37, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Werner LEMBERG  writes:
>>
 I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him [David K.], if
 you think he is wrong.  Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_
 offending.
>>> That's it.
>> But new contributors cannot be expected to know, and also it takes time
>> until the emotional response aligns with that knowledge.
>
> That is not your responsibility.

It's been my experience that patching a problem close to its source
tends to be most effective.

I am working on an Email signature that might be helping to convey the
message.  Appended manually here: I still have to check how to make this
automatic.

>> It's good advice, like "stay away from that trapdoor in the kitchen
>> leading to the snake pit".  But it's still a kitchen layout that may
>> come unexpected.
>>
> Goodness gracious!
>
> Do all those who feel so positive about CoCs not see how that
> paragraph above is just so bloody soul destroying?
>
> I don't need a document written by a committee of people that I have
> no say over (i.e. what we do in the real world) and done need to be
> told what I can say within the LP community. I already know how to be
> civil, whether my brand of civility is yours, is nothing I care about.
>
> This is just 'Thought Police' by a different name or at the very least
> an exercise in tedious moral relativism.

A Code of Conduct attempts to address a problem.  In the version we have
here, it provides a promise of recourse, enforcement and closure for
those negatively affected by someone's behavior.  That is a defensible
approach for deliberate offenses.  In my own case, it would either
ultimately lead to my removal, or the promise of recourse, enforcement
and closure would be hollow.  If changing myself was a workable option,
I'd bloody have brought this personality back to the store and gotten
myself a properly functioning one, sometime these last 50+ years.

Now at least we don't have to deal with the problem of myself being
intolerable specifically to demographic minorities.

I have siblings.  When the first of them presented future in-laws to the
rest of the family, there was a bit of a problem.  We called each other
names, tried to punch one another in passing, things like that.  The
in-laws thought we were moments before bringing out the knives and
couldn't understand what triggered the crisis.  While we were just
socialising.  It took some time to understand the problem and a lot more
time to ameliorate it, partly by changes in behavior, partly by others
learning to interpret it.

This kind of insider/outsider behavior difference does not work well for
open groups.  I appreciate the company of people who know to read me,
but it just cannot be taken for granted.

> Wow.. I didn't quite realise how opposed I was to CoCs until now and
> I've recently have a belly-full of being told that X is good because
> "...everyone else is doing it" or that Y is needed because
> ... "...well it's just 'easier' if we do it ..." without any real
> justification.
>
> Apple carts unfortunately get upset once in a while. That is just life.

Well, one can make them more robust, and that may be worth thinking
about.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies are known to frequently cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG  writes:

>> I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him [David K.], if
>> you think he is wrong.  Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_
>> offending.
>
> That's it.

But new contributors cannot be expected to know, and also it takes time
until the emotional response aligns with that knowledge.

It's good advice, like "stay away from that trapdoor in the kitchen
leading to the snake pit".  But it's still a kitchen layout that may
come unexpected.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi David,

> No, the problem is that this solution to the problems of bad actors
> addresses a problem that we do not have to a relevant degree.  At least
> I hope we can agree that my intent is not doling out damage to the
> project.

Your original quote

>>> The problem with an approach focused on punishment and expulsion is that
>>> it helps isolating and eventually ostracizing bad actors, limiting the
>>> total damage they may cause.

doesn’t mention intent, and my response was based on that.

> So a solution focused on punishment does not work.
> Punishment makes sense for deliberately committed acts.

Having unintentionally upset my wife on many occasions, and having her punish 
me as a result, I disagree strongly with both of those claims.  =)

> to apply to the elephant in our interaction room effectively,
> the "enforcement" mechanism would need to be quite different.

I’d rather hope (and firmly believe) that the combination of a CoC (or similar) 
and several other related initiatives would make "enforcement" rare to the 
point of vanishing.

Anyway, I’m off to teach for 5 hours and then music-direct for another 5, so 
I’ll return to this thread tomorrow.

Best,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Werner LEMBERG]

> I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him [David K.], if
> you think he is wrong.  Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_
> offending.

That's it.


Werner

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan  writes:

> Hi David,
>
>> The problem with an approach focused on punishment and expulsion is that
>> it helps isolating and eventually ostracizing bad actors, limiting the
>> total damage they may cause.
>
> "Limiting the total damage they may cause" is a "problem"? You
> definitely have me confused on that one.  ;)

No, the problem is that this solution to the problems of bad actors
addresses a problem that we do not have to a relevant degree.  At least
I hope we can agree that my intent is not doling out damage to the
project.

So a solution focused on punishment does not work.  Punishment makes
sense for deliberately committed acts.

A committee to complain to also does not help against the problem of
rapid devolvement that Janek mentioned since it is just too late.

We'd need a web page for a large enough set of developers/users to
warrant speedy response where they can click a "Cool down, David" button
that sents an automatic mail to me and blocks submissions from me to the
respective list and/or topic until I have manually acknowledged having
gotten the mail and/or at least an hour(?) has passed.

In other word: to apply to the elephant in our interaction room
effectively, the "enforcement" mechanism would need to be quite
different.

> If I might turn your comment to the contrapositive: The benefit with
> an approach that includes the possibility for punishment and
> ultimately expulsion is that it potentially provides corrective
> feedback for bad actors and limits the total damage they may cause.
>
>> I have no good idea.
>
> One of the [so-far-unstated] goals of my Giant Hypergranular List of
> Jobs is to address the same problem as the CoC from a different
> angle. We’ll have to wait and see if it works out as I feel it could.
>
> Cheers,
> Kieren.
> 
>
> Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
>
>

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi David,

> The problem with an approach focused on punishment and expulsion is that
> it helps isolating and eventually ostracizing bad actors, limiting the
> total damage they may cause.

"Limiting the total damage they may cause" is a "problem"? You definitely have 
me confused on that one.  ;)

If I might turn your comment to the contrapositive: The benefit with an 
approach that includes the possibility for punishment and ultimately expulsion 
is that it potentially provides corrective feedback for bad actors and limits 
the total damage they may cause.

> I have no good idea.

One of the [so-far-unstated] goals of my Giant Hypergranular List of Jobs is to 
address the same problem as the CoC from a different angle. We’ll have to wait 
and see if it works out as I feel it could.

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan  writes:

> Hi James,
>
>> I am still struggling to understand the point of a COC for the LP
>> project, other than some kind of ... what is the term ... virtue
>> signalling or something that a project does *after* someone says
>> something that happens to be offensive to someone else - which is
>> just, life isn't it?
>> Really. What is the point?
>
> Disclaimer: I’m on the fence about having a CoC.
>
> That being said, I think the point is this: if you *are* "being an
> arse to someone", there is something concrete people can point to that
> says "you said you wouldn’t be an arse". Does a "No Smoking" sign stop
> someone from smoking? No. But it allows the police to write that
> person a ticket, and potentially escalate if the person continues to
> contravene the "code".

The problem with an approach focused on punishment and expulsion is that
it helps isolating and eventually ostracizing bad actors, limiting the
total damage they may cause.

Fortunately, that has not been a significantly problem on the LilyPond
mailing list.

Unfortunately, things are not all lilies and roses either, but
addressing that seems to call for a somewhat different angle of attack.
I have no good idea.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Karlin,

> I've been following Lilypond mailing lists since 2016 or so. I'd
> describe my most common role as "entry-level tech support," answering
> the most basic mailing list questions so better-skilled people don't
> have to deal with them.

That "job" is going on my list.  :)

> I can point to the exact thread(s) that drew me into the Lilypond
> community. (keywords: mclaren prime tuplets) The outstanding feature
> to me was its handling of conflict.

I remember it well.

> In that thread, it was as if someone had read the Dale Carnegie "How
> To Win Friends and Influence People" book and then behaved the exact
> opposite of everything the book teaches.

Including mclaren.

The "mclaren prime tuplets" thread is *exactly* the one I’ve been thinking 
about during this whole discussion: if we had had a reasonably-defined CoC 
document and mechanism, I’m betting it would have diffused that situation well 
before it spun out of control like it did. To my mind, that thread is the 
primary evidence for the need for a CoC in the Lilypond community.

> For me, another big barrier to contributing is simply not knowing
> what's a good area to work on.

100%. I’m hoping my Giant Granular List of Every Lilypond Job will help in that 
regard.

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi James,

> I am still struggling to understand the point of a COC for the LP project, 
> other than some kind of ... what is the term ... virtue signalling or 
> something that a project does *after* someone says something that happens to 
> be offensive to someone else - which is just, life isn't it?
> Really. What is the point?

Disclaimer: I’m on the fence about having a CoC.

That being said, I think the point is this: if you *are* "being an arse to 
someone", there is something concrete people can point to that says "you said 
you wouldn’t be an arse". Does a "No Smoking" sign stop someone from smoking? 
No. But it allows the police to write that person a ticket, and potentially 
escalate if the person continues to contravene the "code".

> It doesn't 'enforce' anything nor is it legally binding or has any kind of 
> (real) consequence other than giving certain types of people a justification 
> to impose their own sensitivities (or lack thereof) over the 'rest'.

civ·il so·ci·e·ty, n.
• society considered as a community of citizens linked by common 
interests and collective activity.

> All I can see that we've done here is waste (and I consider it a waste) time 
> bikeshedding a document that just talks about 'how to be nice to people' and 
> at the same time potentially worry one of our best developers because he 
> might not happen to have all the social graces and just wants to 'get stuff 
> done' but in doing so might offend someone with his terse emails.

Actually, it seems like the discussion has caused that developer to rethink the 
form, content, and frequency of his contributions to the list, with a potential 
benefit of him being able to spend his considerable gifts and precious time 
elsewhere (like actually coding). If nothing else, that made the discussion 
worthwhile in my opinion.

There are, of course, many other benefits I’ve already seen — if you’re 
interested in talking about them, but feel it’s not worth discussing on-list, 
I’m happy to discuss it with you off-list.  =)

Regards,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Benkő Pál]

David Kastrup  ezt írta (időpont: 2020. febr. 6., Cs, 14:38):
>
> Benkő Pál  writes:
>
> > Janek Warchoł  ezt írta (időpont: 2020.
> > febr. 6., Cs, 0:32):
> >>
> >> I'll try to speak only on the most pressing points to avoid bloating the
> >> discussion unnecessarily.
> >>
> >> I stopped contributing to LilyPond about 6 years ago. One cause of that
> >> change was that I got a job and suddenly had much less time. But it was not
> >> the only cause; it would have been possible for me to contribute at least a
> >> little. The reason I did not was that participating in the development had
> >> been too emotionally draining to endure. In my experience LilyPond has
> >> (used to have?) huge inertia (disproportionate to the size of the project).
> >> I mean (more or less, please consider this to be an approximation) that
> >> when I tried doing things that didn't clearly align with the views of a
> >> person with most authority (for the last few years David has been this
> >> person) I had felt *unwelcome* and my personal impression was that they
> >> were "blocked". It was very difficult to get some things done.
> >
> > You seem to be impatient.  In late 2011 LilyPond broke my renaissance
> > scores (with a fix that uncovered decade old latent bugs --
> > assumptions that were false since long, though probably true when the
> > code was first written), and to get them right took me a _year_ of
> > issues, reviews, reversions, misunderstandings, messing up the
> > submission process and my breaking other people's scores several times
> > (to get just a glimpse, take a look at issue 2783).  I thought that my
> > patches were obviously trivial bug fixes, but to keep LilyPond
> > operational, I (or rather, we, with David and Keith) had to think
> > about the design, not only particular lines of code.  When my last
> > commit reached master in late 2012, it was quite different (and far
> > better) than when I first submitted it.  and the process taught me
> > that David is arguable and well worth respecting.
>
> Arguable and well worth respecting does not really help with regard to
> the cost in emotional energy contributing has.  If the summary
> impression is "David makes contributing to LilyPond a hair-pulling
> nightmare but...", then for most people reading on after the "but" is
> only worth their trouble if they are in a hair-pulling nightmare already
> and need to get out of it.

that year also taught me that difficulties in contributing to LilyPond
stem not from people but from the complexity of the problem, and we
can't expect contributors to see all those complexities.
I broke other people's score with the best intentions, and when they
complained, they did it most courteously by providing a Minimal
Example, which, at first sight, looked to me contortions made on
purpose to tease me.  they used LilyPond for notations I never dreamed
of, but to them those LilyPond features are much more important than
faking a Petrucci print.

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[David Kastrup]

Benkő Pál  writes:

> Janek Warchoł  ezt írta (időpont: 2020.
> febr. 6., Cs, 0:32):
>>
>> I'll try to speak only on the most pressing points to avoid bloating the
>> discussion unnecessarily.
>>
>> I stopped contributing to LilyPond about 6 years ago. One cause of that
>> change was that I got a job and suddenly had much less time. But it was not
>> the only cause; it would have been possible for me to contribute at least a
>> little. The reason I did not was that participating in the development had
>> been too emotionally draining to endure. In my experience LilyPond has
>> (used to have?) huge inertia (disproportionate to the size of the project).
>> I mean (more or less, please consider this to be an approximation) that
>> when I tried doing things that didn't clearly align with the views of a
>> person with most authority (for the last few years David has been this
>> person) I had felt *unwelcome* and my personal impression was that they
>> were "blocked". It was very difficult to get some things done.
>
> You seem to be impatient.  In late 2011 LilyPond broke my renaissance
> scores (with a fix that uncovered decade old latent bugs --
> assumptions that were false since long, though probably true when the
> code was first written), and to get them right took me a _year_ of
> issues, reviews, reversions, misunderstandings, messing up the
> submission process and my breaking other people's scores several times
> (to get just a glimpse, take a look at issue 2783).  I thought that my
> patches were obviously trivial bug fixes, but to keep LilyPond
> operational, I (or rather, we, with David and Keith) had to think
> about the design, not only particular lines of code.  When my last
> commit reached master in late 2012, it was quite different (and far
> better) than when I first submitted it.  and the process taught me
> that David is arguable and well worth respecting.

Arguable and well worth respecting does not really help with regard to
the cost in emotional energy contributing has.  If the summary
impression is "David makes contributing to LilyPond a hair-pulling
nightmare but...", then for most people reading on after the "but" is
only worth their trouble if they are in a hair-pulling nightmare already
and need to get out of it.

So one proposal I read out of Janek's response that my output needs to
be throttled where discussions are involved and that I should likely
make it a habit not to respond to the same discussion thread more than,
say, twice daily and then in a summary response.

>> Since David has more time available that many of us (who have a
>> non-LilyPond job), and apparently limiting email volume is not a high
>> priority for him.
>
> I'd describe this as David taking great pains to express himself
> unambiguously, knowing well the communication problems.

That's a gracious way of putting it.  Another may be that I have
problems understanding or accepting that given the same premise and/or
data, people arrive at different conclusions.

> Contributing to LilyPond is hard, because it's a complex piece of
> software with a long and complex history; people most interested in it
> are musicians.

And there is a danger that they have too little time for being a
musician left once they immerse themselves into being a LilyPond
developer.  A number of contributors are restrained in their ability to
be a musician by having a day job; LilyPond may help them in their free
time working with music.  So it's not unusual for contributors to have
little overall time available.  And if the day job is already
emotionally draining, the hobby should probably not do the same.

So I get the problem but am obviously not overly successful at tackling
it.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Benkő Pál]

Janek Warchoł  ezt írta (időpont: 2020.
febr. 6., Cs, 0:32):
>
> I'll try to speak only on the most pressing points to avoid bloating the
> discussion unnecessarily.
>
> I stopped contributing to LilyPond about 6 years ago. One cause of that
> change was that I got a job and suddenly had much less time. But it was not
> the only cause; it would have been possible for me to contribute at least a
> little. The reason I did not was that participating in the development had
> been too emotionally draining to endure. In my experience LilyPond has
> (used to have?) huge inertia (disproportionate to the size of the project).
> I mean (more or less, please consider this to be an approximation) that
> when I tried doing things that didn't clearly align with the views of a
> person with most authority (for the last few years David has been this
> person) I had felt *unwelcome* and my personal impression was that they
> were "blocked". It was very difficult to get some things done.

You seem to be impatient.  In late 2011 LilyPond broke my renaissance
scores (with a fix that uncovered decade old latent bugs --
assumptions that were false since long, though probably true when the
code was first written), and to get them right took me a _year_ of
issues, reviews, reversions, misunderstandings, messing up the
submission process and my breaking other people's scores several times
(to get just a glimpse, take a look at issue 2783).  I thought that my
patches were obviously trivial bug fixes, but to keep LilyPond
operational, I (or rather, we, with David and Keith) had to think
about the design, not only particular lines of code.  When my last
commit reached master in late 2012, it was quite different (and far
better) than when I first submitted it.  and the process taught me
that David is arguable and well worth respecting.

> Since David has more time available that many of us (who have a
> non-LilyPond job), and apparently limiting email volume is not a high
> priority for him.

I'd describe this as David taking great pains to express himself
unambiguously, knowing well the communication problems.

I'm inactive as contributor because renaissance notation is stable,
and when some rare need arises, I can handle them by user level scheme
coding.  a CoC wouldn't make me more willing to contribute.
Contributing to LilyPond is hard, because it's a complex piece of
software with a long and complex history; people most interested in it
are musicians.

Pal

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[James]

Hello,

I am still struggling to understand the point of a COC for the LP 
project, other than some kind of ... what is the term ... virtue 
signalling or something that a project does *after* someone says 
something that happens to be offensive to someone else - which is just, 
life isn't it?


Really. What is the point?

Let's say we have a COC posted somewhere, then ... so what?

It doesn't stop me being an arse to someone, or them to me.
It doesn't stop me posting to the lists or even submitting patches.
It doesn't 'enforce' anything nor is it legally binding or has any kind 
of (real) consequence other than giving certain types of people a 
justification to impose their own sensitivities (or lack thereof) over 
the 'rest'.


What is the purpose? I don't get it.

All I can see that we've done here is waste (and I consider it a waste) 
time bikeshedding a document that just talks about 'how to be nice to 
people' and at the same time potentially worry one of our best 
developers because he might not happen to have all the social graces and 
just wants to 'get stuff done' but in doing so might offend someone with 
his terse emails.


Yes I have read the to me, empty discussion, but still have no idea what 
the point is.


---
Regards

James

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Janek Warchoł]

Werner,

czw., 6 lut 2020, 03:46 użytkownik Werner LEMBERG  napisał:

>
> > The preamble and intent is one thing; adding a corrective committee
> > with the authority to enact punishments based on anonymous reports
> > is another.  It implements hierarchies and institutions exerting
> > coercive power based on incomplete and secret information.  That is
> > inherently an entity offering an opportunity for "pulling strings".
> > I am not really a fan of constructs with a life and dynamics of
> > their own.
>
> Indeed.  Norbert Preining, one of the TeXLive maintainers (I know him
> personally) and maintainer of TeXLive in Debian, was victim of exactly
> such a process.[1] He got banned being a Debian developer, and it was
> never explicitly explained to him why.
>
> So what about having a CoC without the 'corrective committee'?  Up to
> now this worked quite nicely.
>

Excellent and very constructive feedback!

I'm okay with having CoC without "enforcement committee". I also think of a
third way: having a committee without any special enforcement powers. As
in, "here are 3 people that the community considers trustworthy, if there
is a problem you can ask them for help".

Janek

>

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Janek Warchoł]

David,

czw., 6 lut 2020, 02:55 użytkownik David Kastrup  napisał:

> Not everybody likes to argue.  So yes, I felt in a comfortable space
> with you and it was a productive exchange where I was not aware of any
> potential for controversy.  But I'll agree that it sends an awful
> message to bystanders.
>
> I'll have to sleep over what that means.  While your recommendation is
> certainly not a bad idea as such, it does not help reducing the impact
> on first visitors.
>
> Thanks for that exposition.  It was certainly relevant for bringing some
> insight to my side of the fence.
>

I'd like to say a very big "thank you" for these words. I appreciate them a
lot!
:-)

Janek

>

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Janek Warchoł]

Let me write a clarification and a disclaimer. It was not the purpose of my
email to blame people. If someone (especially David) felt attacked, I
apologize. I wanted to express how I view the situation, and I may be
mistaken in my opinions. I don't claim to hold the objective truth.

czw., 6 lut 2020 o 00:32 Janek Warchoł 
napisał(a):

> Do you think that approaching other people with suspicion like this (i.e.
> expecting they have worst intentions, which is getting close to a
> conspiracy theory) contributes to a friendly atmosphere? I don't think so.
>

I realize you might have felt attacked, and I apologize. I should have
written "Do you think that this contributes to a friendly atmosphere? I
personally feel distrusted and unwelcome, as if I had worst intentions."

śr., 5 lut 2020 o 23:05 David Kastrup  napisał(a):
>
>> Uh, this was not intended as a "fence off" as much as that I considered
>> extensions of that scope and direction not a good fit for putting in the
>> core.
>>
>
> I know it's difficult for you, but please try to see the emotions here.
> Simply notice that there is a very active contributor, to whom LilyPond as
> a projects owes very much (especially when it comes to being known in
> academic circles), who helped people on the lists numerous time, and this
> contributor is sad and frustrated about his contributing experience.
> Please, don't argue - just acknowledge the fact and try to show others that
> you've acknowledged it.
>

I should have sent this privately. I apologize.


> when I tried doing things that didn't clearly align with the views of a
> person with most authority (for the last few years David has been this
> person) I had felt *unwelcome* and my personal impression was that they
> were "blocked". It was very difficult to get some things done.
>

Disclaimer: this is only *my impression*. Maybe the problem was with me.


> However, right after that the discussion became dominated by David, who
> started writing multiple long emails, which partly consisted of merit-based
> question, partly of his predictions "what will happen if" (which can be
> useful, but only to certain extent) and partly of suspicions of something
> close to a conspiracy theory.
>

David, I tried to look from your perspective and realized that it was a
natural reaction for you to try defending yourself (even if our goal was
not to attack you). I apologize for not trying harder to empathize with
you. I am sorry that my proposal of introducing Code of Conduct made you
feel attacked.

I still think that the discussion gets a bit unmanageable, but it's rather
an unfortunate side-effect.

If this was a code patch, the result would be that either a) I would have
> to spend countless hours addressing his concerns rather than actually
> implementing a solution or b) if I tried to ignore the ones that, according
> to my best knowledge, were insignificant, David would object and probably
> reject the patch.
>

Again, this is only *my impression*. Maybe my patches were just shitty.

It's similar with other initiatives. My impression of LilyPond community is
> that the decisions are "made" on the basis of who writes the longest / the
> most emails. This person is David, and he's unbeatable at that. But there
> is only one David (well, one David K), and if he spends all his time
> writing emails, he won't have much time left for writing code - while
> people who think differently won't be able to get through because they
> don't have so much time for writing emails. That is, in my opinion, one of
> the major reasons for development slowdown, and contributor frustration
> (apart from the fact that the process is complicated).
>

I *definitely* don't mean to say that David intentionally tries to win
arguments by writing long emails.
I *do* mean that I have no idea how to handle the amount of email involved
when communicating with David in the time that I have.

I hope we can find a way to communicate better, and I'll try to be more
thoughtful next time.
Janek

>

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Dan Eble]

On Feb 5, 2020, at 20:26, Thomas Morley  wrote:

> So to repeat myself, everyone should take his post literal, not offending!
> 
> I'd love to see a community bearing different personalities, even
> personalities with problematic conversation skills.
> For me it's like strange english from a non-native speaker (like me).
> It's sometimes difficult and/or tedious to understand but mostly worth
> the attention.
> 
> Well, long mail for a non-native speaker, and I still have the feeling
> I didn't express myself very well.
> Though, I did the best I could.
> 
> Thanks,
>  Harm

I also want to put in a kind word for David K. and point out that Harm's 
attempt to de-escalate this conversation demonstrates that the ideas of 
mentorship and teamwork that have been circulating with regard to technical 
matters are also applicable to interpersonal matters.
— 
Dan

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Karlin High]

I've been following Lilypond mailing lists since 2016 or so. I'd
describe my most common role as "entry-level tech support," answering
the most basic mailing list questions so better-skilled people don't
have to deal with them.

I can point to the exact thread(s) that drew me into the Lilypond
community. (keywords: mclaren prime tuplets) The outstanding feature
to me was its handling of conflict.



In that thread, it was as if someone had read the Dale Carnegie "How
To Win Friends and Influence People" book and then behaved the exact
opposite of everything the book teaches. David Kastrup has often been
criticized for lacking "soft skills" with people. But there I noticed
he kept offering help (well-wrapped in sarcastic rebukes, I grant)
after many "nicer" people had lost their tempers and were calling for
the offending user's head.



I could easily spill 800 words on the Code of Conduct proposal. But
Carl Sorensen's posts already pretty much captured what I'd have to
say. The only thing I'll add is that according to this article on
SourceForge, a lack of project contributors is not in any way unique
to LilyPond, or likely to be much solved by adopting a Code of
Conduct:

"
Open Source Is Growing, But Not How It Should

...According to a recent survey from Stack Overflow only a mere 12.4%
of respondents said they contribute to open source at least once a
month or more often, and 23.1% said they contribute more than once a
year but not monthly. The rest of the respondents, which constitute
more than half, said they contribute less than even once a year or not
at all...
"


I agree with Mike Solomon's conclusion that the Contributor Covenant
Code of Conduct is not a good fit for the Lilypond project, in the
state they are each currently found. I don't disagree in principle
with the effort to have something like that, though. I just came
across the one on GitLab's forum today and was favorably impressed.


If a project reform effort is desired, I think the code contribution
workflow is a much better choice. Pretty much everyone agrees that
what we have isn't good. I'd really like to see the issue tracker,
code review, and repository all together in one place. GitLab looked
good in a previous thread researching it, but I have no emotional
investment in anything here.

My personal story of contributor experience: I have done one patch,
ever. It wasn't easy. But that's not really anyone's fault. In fact,
the lilypond-devel list was outstanding in support efforts; I consider
it my collective mentor. Lilypond is just a HARD project. Converting
plain text to beautiful sheet music, what else to expect? It needs
music theory, music engraving, computer science, C++, Guile, Python,
Bison, PostScript, fonts, MetaFont, Texinfo... the list just goes on.
Following the Lilypond mailing lists has taught me more about music
than most anything else, but I simply don't currently have the skills
for being a big contributor. My formal education stopped at 8th grade.
I had lots of computer time in late teen years, but it was Windows 98,
Microsoft Office, and Visual Basic for Applications. A Knoppix Live CD
entered the picture eventually, and I've enjoyed Linux ever since. But
usage habits had already been formed. I find Unix-world text editors
and Git interesting, but intimidating. I'd probably do well to learn
them, but as stratechery.com Ben Thompson says, once something's
getting the job done for someone, it needs a 10X improvement to get
them to switch to something else. For most any Lilypond code I want to
work on, it seems I need to research a fair list of foundational
concepts first. I actually enjoy doing that, but a self-employed
father of five (oldest age 11) can only do so much for hobby projects.
At my state in life, it's hard to study up on something before the
need arises for it.

For me, another big barrier to contributing is simply not knowing
what's a good area to work on. The single biggest thing I've seen
working to get people contributing is inviting them into a definite
effort with clear instructions. Example: Knut Petersen's "Please Test
GUB" thread from a year ago, which got about 16 people helping on one
of the thorniest parts of the entire project.


Another thing: I don't see any substitute for having full-time
developers. I was following the list for a long time before I realized
that David Kastrup's position depends on financial support from the
community, or how people could contribute that way. Currently, the
Lilypond website's "Sponsoring" page says nothing about this.
 I'd like to see that changed so
that anyone with Git commit privileges and a flexible schedule

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Werner LEMBERG]

David,


> [...] the principal impact to be expected on LilyPond development
> appears to have an official body entitled to censure my behavior and
> eventually, out of a sense of duty, remove me.

I won't definitely do that.

> The general stance of the GNU project on its internal lists is to
> rely more on education and admonishment than official committees,
> censure, and exclusion.

Yep.


Werner

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Werner LEMBERG]

[Being on the return from Hawaii I'm late with everything, so please
 don't be surprised if I answer to stuff that has already been
 discussed to death.]

> The preamble and intent is one thing; adding a corrective committee
> with the authority to enact punishments based on anonymous reports
> is another.  It implements hierarchies and institutions exerting
> coercive power based on incomplete and secret information.  That is
> inherently an entity offering an opportunity for "pulling strings".
> I am not really a fan of constructs with a life and dynamics of
> their own.

Indeed.  Norbert Preining, one of the TeXLive maintainers (I know him
personally) and maintainer of TeXLive in Debian, was victim of exactly
such a process.[1] He got banned being a Debian developer, and it was
never explicitly explained to him why.

So what about having a CoC without the 'corrective committee'?  Up to
now this worked quite nicely.


Werner

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/12/msg00032.html

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Thomas Morley]

Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 02:55 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup :
>
> Thomas Morley  writes:

> > I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him, if you think he is 
> > wrong.
> > Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_ offending.
>
> Not everybody likes to argue.  So yes, I felt in a comfortable space
> with you and it was a productive exchange where I was not aware of any
> potential for controversy.

Same on my part.

> But I'll agree that it sends an awful
> message to bystanders.
>
> I'll have to sleep over what that means.  While your recommendation is
> certainly not a bad idea as such, it does not help reducing the impact
> on first visitors.
>
> Thanks for that exposition.  It was certainly relevant for bringing some
> insight to my side of the fence.

You're welcome :)

Best,
  Harm

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley  writes:

> As an example look at the review of one of my own patches
> https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043
> Quoting dak:
> "This looks like a total mess."
> "Total waste of effort."
> "Aaand another one."

Ouch.  Fortunately in context this looks less dire ("Aaand another one."
for example just means "And here is another thing I found after looking
more carefully.").  Those sentences are part of a larger line-by-line
review and more or less the cream of the crop.

But yes, read in isolation and not sorting it into the somewhat jovial
overall tone, that's bad.  And one problem is that even if the recipient
happens to know how to take it, that's not a given for other readers
looking for examples of how reviews go.

> Ofcourse quotation is without any context (you may red it up, if you want)
> You can _interpret_ this as trashing my patch at the worst,

If that were the only lines, yes.  There is lots of detailed stuff and
suggestions in between, interspersed with questions about the aim of the
patch because I suspect it can be done achieved a lot more simple (a
hunch that often holds when things are converted to polar coordinates
and back again).

> but  I'm
> used to take his posts literal, i.e.:
> It _was_ a "total mess" -> I improved the patch

The mess was likely the bunch of expressions involved and their flow.

> I argued against "waste of effort" -> convinced him

Waste of effort was a sequence of scaling up and scaling down again by
the same factor, but I overlooked that a different scale factor at a
different angle also came into play so that this was more complex than
it looked.

Again, "waste of effort" did not refer to the patch but rather about
what the computer was doing.  I, well, am better at empathising with
computers than humans when looking at programs.

> And there _was_ another issue -> I improved the patch
>
> Finally the patch came through.
>
> I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him, if you think he is wrong.
> Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_ offending.

Not everybody likes to argue.  So yes, I felt in a comfortable space
with you and it was a productive exchange where I was not aware of any
potential for controversy.  But I'll agree that it sends an awful
message to bystanders.

I'll have to sleep over what that means.  While your recommendation is
certainly not a bad idea as such, it does not help reducing the impact
on first visitors.

Thanks for that exposition.  It was certainly relevant for bringing some
insight to my side of the fence.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[David Nalesnik]

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 7:37 PM Thomas Morley  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Being on the lists for many years now I remember only a few posts
> which were inappropriate:
>
> Long time ago. there was a user with a post others felt uncomfortable
> with. But Graham denied a problem. But there was a followup which
> definitely was.
> And Graham told the user that it was not appropriate. As a result the
> problem was cured.
>
> I once told a user myself not to write about politics. As a result the
> problem was solved.
>
> There was a user definitely offending all, especially developers.
> Several complaints were posted, even the list-admin was called, but he
> didn't ban him. Iirc, he recommended everyone who can't bear him, to
> set him on a blacklist. I may recall wrongly, but that's what I
> finally did.
> Sometime later this user stopped posting...
>
> If I remember correctly these are _all_ problematic posts (ofcourse I
> may have missed some)
> Do we need a CoC for them?
> I doubt.
> While I think that the proposed CoC-behaviour should be naturally, I'm
> uncomfortable with the proposed consequences for violating it. At
> least in the past we got back on track more or less pretty easily,
> without CoC.
>
> Now to David and his communication.
> I'm aware people often feel offended by him.
> Though, we all know or at least should know about his communication
> problems, I'm absolutely sure he knows about them, likely better than
> we.
>
> I always found that most of the bad feelings resulted of misunderstandings.
> Sometimes David misunderstood, and replied strange. Once his
> misunderstanding is cleared he usually corrects his post.
> Sometimes the recipient of his post _misunderstands_ a post as
> offending, while it is meant most simply as a description or
> recommendation.
>
> As an example look at the review of one of my own patches
> https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043
> Quoting dak:
> "This looks like a total mess."
> "Total waste of effort."
> "Aaand another one."
>
> Ofcourse quotation is without any context (you may red it up, if you want)
> You can _interpret_ this as trashing my patch at the worst, but  I'm
> used to take his posts literal, i.e.:
> It _was_ a "total mess" -> I improved the patch
> I argued against "waste of effort" -> convinced him
> And there _was_ another issue -> I improved the patch
>
> Finally the patch came through.
>
> I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him, if you think he is wrong.
> Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_ offending.
>
>
>
>
> Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 00:32 Uhr schrieb Janek Warchoł
> :
>
> > śr., 5 lut 2020 o 14:41 David Kastrup  napisał(a):
> >
> > > Janek Warchoł  writes:
> > > > In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give you 
> > > > specific
> > > > examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions from
> > > > newcomers.
> > >
> > > I rather think that a friendly atmosphere encourages contributions from
> > > newcomers.  Whether an upfront requirement to commit to a set of rules
> > > with an enforcement team is perceived as a guarantee of a friendly
> > > atmosphere is debatable. [...]
> > > the principal impact [of Code of Conduct] to be expected on
> > > LilyPond development appears to have an official body entitled to
> > > censure my behavior and eventually, out of a sense of duty, remove me.
> > >
> >
> > Do you think that approaching other people with suspicion like this (i.e.
> > expecting they have worst intentions, which is getting close to a
> > conspiracy theory) contributes to a friendly atmosphere? I don't think so.
>
> I would take David post _literal_
> He simply told us from his previous bad experiences and his feelings
> it may happen again here, now based on the proposed CoC.
>
> I would be very sad to loose him.
>
> > And honestly, I'm very sorry to read something like this from you. It made
> > me regret coming back to the project, and almost made me want to resign
> > again.
>
> I would be very sad to loose you (again) as well!
> Janek, I always had the feeling you love a community with all people
> "on the same track", though David is "special".
>
> So to repeat myself, everyone should take his post literal, not offending!
>
>
> I'd love to see a community bearing different personalities, even
> personalities with problematic conversation skills.
> For me it's like strange english from a non-native speaker (like me).
> It's sometimes difficult and/or tedious to understand but mostly worth
> the attention.
>
>
> Well, long mail for a non-native speaker, and I still have the feeling
> I didn't express myself very well.
> Though, I did the best I could.
>

+1

Thank you, Harm.

The other David

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Thomas Morley]

Hi all,

Being on the lists for many years now I remember only a few posts
which were inappropriate:

Long time ago. there was a user with a post others felt uncomfortable
with. But Graham denied a problem. But there was a followup which
definitely was.
And Graham told the user that it was not appropriate. As a result the
problem was cured.

I once told a user myself not to write about politics. As a result the
problem was solved.

There was a user definitely offending all, especially developers.
Several complaints were posted, even the list-admin was called, but he
didn't ban him. Iirc, he recommended everyone who can't bear him, to
set him on a blacklist. I may recall wrongly, but that's what I
finally did.
Sometime later this user stopped posting...

If I remember correctly these are _all_ problematic posts (ofcourse I
may have missed some)
Do we need a CoC for them?
I doubt.
While I think that the proposed CoC-behaviour should be naturally, I'm
uncomfortable with the proposed consequences for violating it. At
least in the past we got back on track more or less pretty easily,
without CoC.

Now to David and his communication.
I'm aware people often feel offended by him.
Though, we all know or at least should know about his communication
problems, I'm absolutely sure he knows about them, likely better than
we.

I always found that most of the bad feelings resulted of misunderstandings.
Sometimes David misunderstood, and replied strange. Once his
misunderstanding is cleared he usually corrects his post.
Sometimes the recipient of his post _misunderstands_ a post as
offending, while it is meant most simply as a description or
recommendation.

As an example look at the review of one of my own patches
https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043
Quoting dak:
"This looks like a total mess."
"Total waste of effort."
"Aaand another one."

Ofcourse quotation is without any context (you may red it up, if you want)
You can _interpret_ this as trashing my patch at the worst, but  I'm
used to take his posts literal, i.e.:
It _was_ a "total mess" -> I improved the patch
I argued against "waste of effort" -> convinced him
And there _was_ another issue -> I improved the patch

Finally the patch came through.

I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him, if you think he is wrong.
Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_ offending.




Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 00:32 Uhr schrieb Janek Warchoł
:

> śr., 5 lut 2020 o 14:41 David Kastrup  napisał(a):
>
> > Janek Warchoł  writes:
> > > In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give you specific
> > > examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions from
> > > newcomers.
> >
> > I rather think that a friendly atmosphere encourages contributions from
> > newcomers.  Whether an upfront requirement to commit to a set of rules
> > with an enforcement team is perceived as a guarantee of a friendly
> > atmosphere is debatable. [...]
> > the principal impact [of Code of Conduct] to be expected on
> > LilyPond development appears to have an official body entitled to
> > censure my behavior and eventually, out of a sense of duty, remove me.
> >
>
> Do you think that approaching other people with suspicion like this (i.e.
> expecting they have worst intentions, which is getting close to a
> conspiracy theory) contributes to a friendly atmosphere? I don't think so.

I would take David post _literal_
He simply told us from his previous bad experiences and his feelings
it may happen again here, now based on the proposed CoC.

I would be very sad to loose him.

> And honestly, I'm very sorry to read something like this from you. It made
> me regret coming back to the project, and almost made me want to resign
> again.

I would be very sad to loose you (again) as well!
Janek, I always had the feeling you love a community with all people
"on the same track", though David is "special".

So to repeat myself, everyone should take his post literal, not offending!


I'd love to see a community bearing different personalities, even
personalities with problematic conversation skills.
For me it's like strange english from a non-native speaker (like me).
It's sometimes difficult and/or tedious to understand but mostly worth
the attention.


Well, long mail for a non-native speaker, and I still have the feeling
I didn't express myself very well.
Though, I did the best I could.

Thanks,
  Harm

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Janek Warchoł]

śr., 5 lut 2020 o 23:47 Kieren MacMillan 
napisał(a):

> I guess what confuses me about this whole discussion/thread — starting
> with the Salzburg "roundtable", really — is how quickly it appears to
> escalate from "let’s collaboratively design an ecosystem where everyone can
> be in their Zone(s) of Genius as often as possible with the least number of
> obstacles" to "guess I gotta leave" (Mike’s already withdrawn to a certain
> degree, Han-Wen has said a few things in that direction, you’re talking
> about the conditions of leaving the project, etc.).
>
> If that’s really the atmosphere around our beloved ’Pond, (a) it shouldn’t
> surprise anyone that the developer pool is so small and tenuous, and (b) I
> can’t personally see how any CoC could possibly solve the fundamental
> issue(s).
>
> Just my 2¢, for what it’s worth given the exchange rate.
>

I'd say about 500 kilos of gold! Seriously, I think you nailed the problem,
and you did it in a better (and shorter) way than I did in the email I've
just sent.

Thanks, Kieren! :-)
Janek

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Janek Warchoł]

I'll try to speak only on the most pressing points to avoid bloating the
discussion unnecessarily.

śr., 5 lut 2020 o 14:41 David Kastrup  napisał(a):

> Janek Warchoł  writes:
> > In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give you specific
> > examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions from
> > newcomers.
>
> I rather think that a friendly atmosphere encourages contributions from
> newcomers.  Whether an upfront requirement to commit to a set of rules
> with an enforcement team is perceived as a guarantee of a friendly
> atmosphere is debatable. [...]
> the principal impact [of Code of Conduct] to be expected on
> LilyPond development appears to have an official body entitled to
> censure my behavior and eventually, out of a sense of duty, remove me.
>

Do you think that approaching other people with suspicion like this (i.e.
expecting they have worst intentions, which is getting close to a
conspiracy theory) contributes to a friendly atmosphere? I don't think so.

And honestly, I'm very sorry to read something like this from you. It made
me regret coming back to the project, and almost made me want to resign
again.


śr., 5 lut 2020 o 23:05 David Kastrup  napisał(a):

> Urs Liska  writes:
> > Now that you say it I recall what triggered my comment in the first
> > place (I got distracted while writing and was somewhat confused
> > afterwards).
> >
> > Indeed it was the kind of unpleasant discussion about proposed changes
> > (I don't recall whether it was lilypond-devel threads or actual
> > patches, probably the former) that was the driving force. In a nutshell
> > my requests or suggestions were furiously fenced off as simply enabling
> > "single-person use cases".
>
> Uh, this was not intended as a "fence off" as much as that I considered
> extensions of that scope and direction not a good fit for putting in the
> core.
>

I know it's difficult for you, but please try to see the emotions here.
Simply notice that there is a very active contributor, to whom LilyPond as
a projects owes very much (especially when it comes to being known in
academic circles), who helped people on the lists numerous time, and this
contributor is sad and frustrated about his contributing experience.
Please, don't argue - just acknowledge the fact and try to show others that
you've acknowledged it.


śr., 5 lut 2020 o 21:47 Carl Sorensen  napisał(a):

> In your writing I sense that you have some troubles with the LilyPond
> community to which I am oblivious.  It’s not uncommon that I would be
> oblivious to such troubles.  I’d like to know more about them.
>
> [...]
>
> On the other hand, it’s not unlikely that there are problems in the
> LilyPond community that I have not noticed, and that adopting a Code of
> Conduct might draw previous contributors who noticed problems back in to
> the LilyPond community.
>
>
>
> I need to understand the problem before I’m going to be in favor of a
> change.  I’d love to be educated (this is a serious statement) about the
> problems that I haven’t noticed.
>

Carl,
thank you for being open to listening! I'll try to give examples.

I stopped contributing to LilyPond about 6 years ago. One cause of that
change was that I got a job and suddenly had much less time. But it was not
the only cause; it would have been possible for me to contribute at least a
little. The reason I did not was that participating in the development had
been too emotionally draining to endure. In my experience LilyPond has
(used to have?) huge inertia (disproportionate to the size of the project).
I mean (more or less, please consider this to be an approximation) that
when I tried doing things that didn't clearly align with the views of a
person with most authority (for the last few years David has been this
person) I had felt *unwelcome* and my personal impression was that they
were "blocked". It was very difficult to get some things done.

What Urs wrote is a very good example: even though David didn't mean to
block Urs's suggestions, that was the impression we (Urs and me) got back
then. Fortunately for LilyPond, Urs decided to start OpenLilyLib. However
in my case the result was that I ceased to contribute. I think there were
more people like me.

Another example is this very thread. See what happened here. It started
with excellent, 100% on-topic questions from Karlin High, and with very
appropriate and justified objections from Jonas Hahnfeld. However, right
after that the discussion became dominated by David, who started writing
multiple long emails, which partly consisted of merit-based question,
partly of his predictions "what will happen if" (which can be useful, but
only to certain extent) and partly of suspicions of something close to a
conspiracy theory.

Since David has more time available that many of us (who have a
non-LilyPond job), and apparently limiting email volume is not a high
priority for him, it's hard to keep up with the discussion. David produces
more 

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi David (et al.),

> I am afraid that to some degree I am oblivious of
> out-of-line behavior unless it hits me in the face.

Which simply means that calling other people in on potentially problematic 
behaviour shouldn’t fall under your job description. No biggie!

> There are multiple factors at play here.  Some concern what tools to
> move forward to, some concern how the human interaction or its avoidance
> should be structured for best effect.  If necessary, getting roadblocks
> eliminated.  The tooling and project structure and architecture are not
> entirely independent from the roles assigned to humans, so the blocked
> gates are also connected to persons' roles and characters.

Agreed.

> I am not in the position where I feel I could leave the project in good
> conscience without reneging on reasonable expectations of people
> supporting me.

I guess what confuses me about this whole discussion/thread — starting with the 
Salzburg "roundtable", really — is how quickly it appears to escalate from 
"let’s collaboratively design an ecosystem where everyone can be in their 
Zone(s) of Genius as often as possible with the least number of obstacles" to 
"guess I gotta leave" (Mike’s already withdrawn to a certain degree, Han-Wen 
has said a few things in that direction, you’re talking about the conditions of 
leaving the project, etc.).

If that’s really the atmosphere around our beloved ’Pond, (a) it shouldn’t 
surprise anyone that the developer pool is so small and tenuous, and (b) I 
can’t personally see how any CoC could possibly solve the fundamental issue(s).

Just my 2¢, for what it’s worth given the exchange rate.
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan  writes:

> Here are my thoughts, in stream-of-consciousness order:
>
> 1. There were times ca. 2014–2017 (which was a rather tough time in my
> life) in which my list behaviour should certainly have triggered an
> "issue" under any reasonably-constructed CoC. Looking back, I wish
> there *had* been a codified CoC that people (e.g., moderators) could
> have pointed me to in order to "call me in" on that behaviour.

I am afraid that to some degree I am oblivious of out-of-line behavior
unless it hits me in the face.

> 3. Just a few days ago, we were all excitedly speaking of the surge in
> development activity that arose after the [wonderful!] Salzburg
> conference; now I feel like we’re holding our collective breath
> wondering if that bubble is about to burst over a discussion of the
> benefits and drawbacks of a CoC. I take Mike’s note as the canary in
> that coal mine, and I’m personally crushed to see that it came up from
> the mine-depths dead in its bucket.
>
> 4. I really need to avoid using and mixing strange analogies and
> metaphors when I’m writing on mailing lists, especially those with
> significant international membership.  =)
>
> That’s it, really. IMO we could avoid having a CoC — at least for now
> — *and* keep developers from jumping ship (or slowly drifting away) if
> there were just a clear and agreed-upon path through/around potential
> blocked gates.

There are multiple factors at play here.  Some concern what tools to
move forward to, some concern how the human interaction or its avoidance
should be structured for best effect.  If necessary, getting roadblocks
eliminated.  The tooling and project structure and architecture are not
entirely independent from the roles assigned to humans, so the blocked
gates are also connected to persons' roles and characters.

> I can’t begin to suggest what that might look like, but my instinct
> says there are enough smart and experienced people on this list that
> we should be able to design and implement such a "safety valve" pretty
> quickly and painlessly.

I am not in the position where I feel I could leave the project in good
conscience without reneging on reasonable expectations of people
supporting me.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi all,

I was just lurking, but now feel I should comment.

Here are my thoughts, in stream-of-consciousness order:

1. There were times ca. 2014–2017 (which was a rather tough time in my life) in 
which my list behaviour should certainly have triggered an "issue" under any 
reasonably-constructed CoC. Looking back, I wish there *had* been a codified 
CoC that people (e.g., moderators) could have pointed me to in order to "call 
me in" on that behaviour.

2. In many (most?) modern democracies, the executive and judicial branches are 
equal and separate, at least in design. In situations where that separation 
dissolves or the equality balance is tipped heavily in favour of one branch or 
the other, the rest of the [democratic] world sees it for what it is: a huge 
step backwards in the march towards overall social progress. More than a CoC, I 
feel like what the Lilypond development community needs is a check-and-balance 
system that keeps single gatekeepers from unilaterally shutting down 
non-gatekeeping contributors, a [non-partisan] Supreme Court to which an 
"ordinary citizen" can take a case against the President, if you will. Without 
the assurance that there is such a recourse, having a CoC is likely to do no 
better than the "gentleman’s agreement" that, for a few decades, kept most 
politicians from bull-running pell-mell through society’s china shops but is 
clearly no longer in play.

3. Just a few days ago, we were all excitedly speaking of the surge in 
development activity that arose after the [wonderful!] Salzburg conference; now 
I feel like we’re holding our collective breath wondering if that bubble is 
about to burst over a discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of a CoC. I take 
Mike’s note as the canary in that coal mine, and I’m personally crushed to see 
that it came up from the mine-depths dead in its bucket.

4. I really need to avoid using and mixing strange analogies and metaphors when 
I’m writing on mailing lists, especially those with significant international 
membership.  =)

That’s it, really. IMO we could avoid having a CoC — at least for now — *and* 
keep developers from jumping ship (or slowly drifting away) if there were just 
a clear and agreed-upon path through/around potential blocked gates. I can’t 
begin to suggest what that might look like, but my instinct says there are 
enough smart and experienced people on this list that we should be able to 
design and implement such a "safety valve" pretty quickly and painlessly.

Best,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup  writes:


> Yes.  Even given better communication by my side.  If there are obvious
> recipes to follow to place and extend and use one's own plugin package,
> and if one so desires, submit it in a manner where other users may
> install it on-demand, I hope that the option to abandon ship will become
> not the first choice to think of.
>
> So I messed up in communicating my understanding of the best approach to
> the situation.  I don't think (or at least I very much hope so)

Talk about communication skills.  "or at least I very much _don't_ hope
so" of course.

> that this was delivered in a form that could be construed as a
> personal attack, so I have my doubts that a Coc enforcement team would
> have had much to work with here.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska  writes:

> Am Mittwoch, den 05.02.2020, 21:21 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Urs Liska  writes:
>> 
>> > I must say that I haven't actually expressed an opinion about it so
>> > far, and I don't know which I have.
>> > 
>> > I don't feel uncomfortable without and wouldn't mind adding it.
>> > 
>> > OTOH openLilyLib owes its existence to a nonzero part to the fact
>> > that
>> > I found it easier to do that than getting my ideas into LilyPond
>> > itself. (Although this isn't actually a comment on the CoC issue).
>> 
>> That would be relevant regarding the Code of Conduct if fear of
>> getting
>> harrassed kept you from contributing the code to LilyPond.
>
> Now that you say it I recall what triggered my comment in the first
> place (I got distracted while writing and was somewhat confused
> afterwards).
>
> Indeed it was the kind of unpleasant discussion about proposed changes
> (I don't recall whether it was lilypond-devel threads or actual
> patches, probably the former) that was the driving force. In a nutshell
> my requests or suggestions were furiously fenced off as simply enabling
> "single-person use cases".

Uh, this was not intended as a "fence off" as much as that I considered
extensions of that scope and direction not a good fit for putting in the
core.

> It was offending because the rejection was pretty personal, especially
> since the argument was explicitly and unfoundedly questioning (or
> rather denying) the usefulness of my suggestions, and I think by now I
> do have some credentials with regard to consequential usability or use
> case enhancements.
>
> I think it would count as a case falling under a CoC, but even in
> hindsight I have no idea whether having one would have helped the
> situation.

I am not sure either since the intent was to encourage keeping this in a
separately developed but easily available project.

>> It would be marginally relevant if the use of development platforms
>> was
>> under consideration where accepting/providing a particular Code of
>> Conduct was mandatory, and use of such a particular platform would
>> have
>> made working directly in the LilyPond repository more feasible.
>> 
>> For what it's worth, I do think that the bulk of OpenLilyLib likely
>> just
>> is a better fit for keeping in a separate repository/project since
>> changes in there do not need tight coordination with changes in
>> LilyPond.
>
> That's correct, and in a way this has been a lucky coincidence.

It was what I wanted to have conveyed in the first place, so it is lucky
coincidence that you ended up doing what I intended to suggest but
apparently failed.

The problem that we still need to get under wraps is that it is
non-trivial for the user to plug in and use OpenLilyLib as one of
several equal packages because the LilyPond core is missing the
infrastructure and conventions for doing this in a seamless manner.

Maybe if LilyPond could have offered something like that at the time, it
would not have appeared similarly discouraging.

> But noone could have expected that this system would take off enabling
> the development of even pretty massive extension package like the
> edition- engraver or scholarLY. And it is all but a certainty to
> expect a would- be contributor like me ending up doing that kind of
> stuff rather than just leaving ship.

Yes.  Even given better communication by my side.  If there are obvious
recipes to follow to place and extend and use one's own plugin package,
and if one so desires, submit it in a manner where other users may
install it on-demand, I hope that the option to abandon ship will become
not the first choice to think of.

So I messed up in communicating my understanding of the best approach to
the situation.  I don't think (or at least I very much hope so) that
this was delivered in a form that could be construed as a personal
attack, so I have my doubts that a Coc enforcement team would have had
much to work with here.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Urs Liska]

Am Mittwoch, den 05.02.2020, 21:21 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Urs Liska  writes:
> 
> > Am 5. Februar 2020 20:08:28 MEZ schrieb 
> > nine.fierce.ball...@gmail.com:
> > > On 2020/02/05 18:17:25, c_sorensen wrote:
> > > > I recognize that Mike Solomon has a different opinion.  I mean
> > > > no
> > > disrespect to
> > > > Mike, Janek, Han-Wen, or any other member of the LilyPond
> > > > team.  I
> > > highly value
> > > > the team spirit of the LilyPond team.
> > > 
> > > Well said.  Here's the current tally as I understand it:
> > > For: Han-Wen, Janek, Mike, Urs, Werner
> > > Against: Carl, Dan, David K., Trevor
> > > Mixed: David N.
> > 
> > I must say that I haven't actually expressed an opinion about it so
> > far, and I don't know which I have.
> > 
> > I don't feel uncomfortable without and wouldn't mind adding it.
> > 
> > OTOH openLilyLib owes its existence to a nonzero part to the fact
> > that
> > I found it easier to do that than getting my ideas into LilyPond
> > itself. (Although this isn't actually a comment on the CoC issue).
> 
> That would be relevant regarding the Code of Conduct if fear of
> getting
> harrassed kept you from contributing the code to LilyPond.

Now that you say it I recall what triggered my comment in the first
place (I got distracted while writing and was somewhat confused
afterwards).

Indeed it was the kind of unpleasant discussion about proposed changes
(I don't recall whether it was lilypond-devel threads or actual
patches, probably the former) that was the driving force. In a nutshell
my requests or suggestions were furiously fenced off as simply enabling
"single-person use cases". It was offending because the rejection was
pretty personal, especially since the argument was explicitly and
unfoundedly questioning (or rather denying) the usefulness of my
suggestions, and I think by now I do have some credentials with regard
to consequential usability or use case enhancements.

I think it would count as a case falling under a CoC, but even in
hindsight I have no idea whether having one would have helped the
situation.

> 
> It would be marginally relevant if the use of development platforms
> was
> under consideration where accepting/providing a particular Code of
> Conduct was mandatory, and use of such a particular platform would
> have
> made working directly in the LilyPond repository more feasible.
> 
> For what it's worth, I do think that the bulk of OpenLilyLib likely
> just
> is a better fit for keeping in a separate repository/project since
> changes in there do not need tight coordination with changes in
> LilyPond.

That's correct, and in a way this has been a lucky coincidence. But
noone could have expected that this system would take off enabling the
development of even pretty massive extension package like the edition-
engraver or scholarLY. And it is all but a certainty to expect a would-
be contributor like me ending up doing that kind of stuff rather than
just leaving ship.

Urs

> 

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Carl Sorensen]

From: Mike Solomon 
Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 12:27 PM
To: "janek.lilyp...@gmail.com" , "pkx1...@gmail.com" 
, "d...@gnu.org" , "karlinh...@gmail.com" 
, "jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com" , 
Carl Sorensen , "david.nales...@gmail.com" 

Cc: "lilypond-devel@gnu.org" , 
"re...@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com" 
Subject: Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/05 18:17:25, c_sorensen wrote:
That's a really good point and I see where Carl and David N are coming from. It 
seems like a Code of Conduct is not a good fit at this time. More people in the 
community would need to come around to the idea for it to work.

Maybe what I'll do is touch base in a few months and see if any opinions have 
changed, including of course my own. In the meantime, I would encourage people 
to reflect on LilyPond's shrinking number of contributions and developers and 
consider if a lack of a code of conduct could be one of the reasons it is 
difficult to grow. As a benchmark, one good place to look is the Contributors 
Covenant website. There is a list of communities that have implemented it. Ask 
the maintainers how they feel about it, cite the concerns brought up here, and 
ask if they feel it could, from their outsider perspective, be helpful for 
LilyPond. I know that, personally, I have really appreciated the code of 
conduct in projects that I have contributed to since leaving LilyPond 
development. I have also appreciated the relative ideological and demographic 
diversity of those projects, which has introduced me to perspectives about race 
and gender that are lacking in the LilyPond community.

It could of course also be the case that people are happy with the status quo 
in LilyPond, in which case it (or other things to grow the community in size 
and inclusivity) are not necessary. I personally am saddened by my own leaving, 
the leaving of others, the lack of growth and the lack of diversity, and this 
is one proposal to start changing it, but I understand the objections.

I’d be open to having my mind changed.  I think that the LilyPond community is 
poorer when Mike is not participating in it.

Mike, do you have any specific occurrences that caused you or others to stop 
participating in LilyPond development, and that you feel would be resolved (or 
resolvable) by adopting a code of conduct?  I’d be very interested in hearing 
them (preferably on the list, if you’re comfortable sharing them; or in 
private, if you’re not).

In your writing I sense that you have some troubles with the LilyPond community 
to which I am oblivious.  It’s not uncommon that I would be oblivious to such 
troubles.  I’d like to know more about them.

I think it very unlikely that implementing a Code of Conduct would draw large 
numbers of new contributors to the project.  I can’t imagine that there are 
large numbers of people running around saying “I’m looking for a project with a 
code of conduct to contribute to.”

On the other hand, it’s not unlikely that there are problems in the LilyPond 
community that I have not noticed, and that adopting a Code of Conduct might 
draw previous contributors who noticed problems back in to the LilyPond 
community.

I need to understand the problem before I’m going to be in favor of a change.  
I’d love to be educated (this is a serious statement) about the problems that I 
haven’t noticed.

Thanks,

Carl

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[David Kastrup]

"Phil Holmes"  writes:

> I've kept out of this debate for a long time because a) I've only been
> peripherally involved lately and b) there's been too much
> communication for me to read, but
>
> As one of the earlier regular committers, and as the only person who
> makes builds and updates the websites, I'd vote for no change.  No CoC
> (not needed); keep the current workflow (easy to do if follow the
> instructions), and make builds work

I do hope that we manage to get a better workflow.  "make builds work"
sounds easier than it turns out in practice: for example, at the current
point of time, GUB-made 64bit MacOSX builds are not feasible since we'd
need to change to some OpenDarwin base to even have a chance.  That will
actually not be significantly different when switching to a Guix-based
build as has been proposed: the native MacOSX SDK licenses just prohibit
execution on a non-Mac computer, regardless of the build environment.

I am cautiously optimistic that we'll be able to get out 2.20.0 soonish
and 2.21.0 afterwards.  I am more fuzzy about what that spells for
building 2.20.1 should that become necessary.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska  writes:

> Am 5. Februar 2020 20:08:28 MEZ schrieb nine.fierce.ball...@gmail.com:
>>On 2020/02/05 18:17:25, c_sorensen wrote:
>>> I recognize that Mike Solomon has a different opinion.  I mean no
>>disrespect to
>>> Mike, Janek, Han-Wen, or any other member of the LilyPond team.  I
>>highly value
>>> the team spirit of the LilyPond team.
>>
>>Well said.  Here's the current tally as I understand it:
>>For: Han-Wen, Janek, Mike, Urs, Werner
>>Against: Carl, Dan, David K., Trevor
>>Mixed: David N.
>
> I must say that I haven't actually expressed an opinion about it so
> far, and I don't know which I have.
>
> I don't feel uncomfortable without and wouldn't mind adding it.
>
> OTOH openLilyLib owes its existence to a nonzero part to the fact that
> I found it easier to do that than getting my ideas into LilyPond
> itself. (Although this isn't actually a comment on the CoC issue).

That would be relevant regarding the Code of Conduct if fear of getting
harrassed kept you from contributing the code to LilyPond.

It would be marginally relevant if the use of development platforms was
under consideration where accepting/providing a particular Code of
Conduct was mandatory, and use of such a particular platform would have
made working directly in the LilyPond repository more feasible.

For what it's worth, I do think that the bulk of OpenLilyLib likely just
is a better fit for keeping in a separate repository/project since
changes in there do not need tight coordination with changes in
LilyPond.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: ; ; ; 
; ; ; 
; 

Cc: ; 
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2020 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by 
janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)




On 2020/02/05 18:17:25, c_sorensen wrote:

I recognize that Mike Solomon has a different opinion.  I mean no

disrespect to

Mike, Janek, Han-Wen, or any other member of the LilyPond team.  I

highly value

the team spirit of the LilyPond team.


Well said.  Here's the current tally as I understand it:
For: Han-Wen, Janek, Mike, Urs, Werner
Against: Carl, Dan, David K., Trevor
Mixed: David N.

Mike, you asked,

What are the blockers to making a decision about this patch?
Does it need more discussion or more buy in?


5-4 halfway through the first day doesn't look like buy-in to me.


https://codereview.appspot.com/575620043/



I've kept out of this debate for a long time because a) I've only been 
peripherally involved lately and b) there's been too much communication for 
me to read, but


As one of the earlier regular committers, and as the only person who makes 
builds and updates the websites, I'd vote for no change.  No CoC (not 
needed); keep the current workflow (easy to do if follow the instructions), 
and make builds work


--
Phil Holmes 

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Urs Liska]

Am 5. Februar 2020 20:08:28 MEZ schrieb nine.fierce.ball...@gmail.com:
>On 2020/02/05 18:17:25, c_sorensen wrote:
>> I recognize that Mike Solomon has a different opinion.  I mean no
>disrespect to
>> Mike, Janek, Han-Wen, or any other member of the LilyPond team.  I
>highly value
>> the team spirit of the LilyPond team.
>
>Well said.  Here's the current tally as I understand it:
>For: Han-Wen, Janek, Mike, Urs, Werner
>Against: Carl, Dan, David K., Trevor
>Mixed: David N.

I must say that I haven't actually expressed an opinion about it so far, and I 
don't know which I have.

I don't feel uncomfortable without and wouldn't mind adding it.

OTOH openLilyLib owes its existence to a nonzero part to the fact that I found 
it easier to do that than getting my ideas into LilyPond itself. (Although this 
isn't actually a comment on the CoC issue).

Urs

Urs


>
>Mike, you asked,
>> What are the blockers to making a decision about this patch?
>> Does it need more discussion or more buy in?
>
>5-4 halfway through the first day doesn't look like buy-in to me.
>
>
>https://codereview.appspot.com/575620043/

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Mike Solomon]

On 2020/02/05 18:17:25, c_sorensen wrote:
> I recognize that Mike Solomon has a different opinion.  I mean no
disrespect to
> Mike, Janek, Han-Wen, or any other member of the LilyPond team.  I
highly value
> the team spirit of the LilyPond team.

>Well said.  Here's the current tally as I understand it:
>For: Han-Wen, Janek, Mike, Urs, Werner
>Against: Carl, Dan, David K., Trevor
>Mixed: David N.

Mike, you asked,
> What are the blockers to making a decision about this patch?
> Does it need more discussion or more buy in?

>5-4 halfway through the first day doesn't look like buy-in to me.

That's a really good point and I see where Carl and David N are coming from. It 
seems like a Code of Conduct is not a good fit at this time. More people in the 
community would need to come around to the idea for it to work.

Maybe what I'll do is touch base in a few months and see if any opinions have 
changed, including of course my own. In the meantime, I would encourage people 
to reflect on LilyPond's shrinking number of contributions and developers and 
consider if a lack of a code of conduct could be one of the reasons it is 
difficult to grow. As a benchmark, one good place to look is the Contributors 
Covenant website. There is a list of communities that have implemented it. Ask 
the maintainers how they feel about it, cite the concerns brought up here, and 
ask if they feel it could, from their outsider perspective, be helpful for 
LilyPond. I know that, personally, I have really appreciated the code of 
conduct in projects that I have contributed to since leaving LilyPond 
development. I have also appreciated the relative ideological and demographic 
diversity of those projects, which has introduced me to perspectives about race 
and gender that are lacking in the LilyPond community.

It could of course also be the case that people are happy with the status quo 
in LilyPond, in which case it (or other things to grow the community in size 
and inclusivity) are not necessary. I personally am saddened by my own leaving, 
the leaving of others, the lack of growth and the lack of diversity, and this 
is one proposal to start changing it, but I understand the objections.

~Mike

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[nine . fierce . ballads]

On 2020/02/05 18:17:25, c_sorensen wrote:
> I recognize that Mike Solomon has a different opinion.  I mean no
disrespect to
> Mike, Janek, Han-Wen, or any other member of the LilyPond team.  I
highly value
> the team spirit of the LilyPond team.

Well said.  Here's the current tally as I understand it:
For: Han-Wen, Janek, Mike, Urs, Werner
Against: Carl, Dan, David K., Trevor
Mixed: David N.

Mike, you asked,
> What are the blockers to making a decision about this patch?
> Does it need more discussion or more buy in?

5-4 halfway through the first day doesn't look like buy-in to me.


https://codereview.appspot.com/575620043/

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[david . nalesnik]

On 2020/02/05 18:17:25, c_sorensen wrote:
> 
> On 2/5/20, 7:40 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup"
> 
> wrote:
> 
> Mike Solomon  writes:
> 
> > Janek Warchoł  writes:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> śr., 5 lut 2020, 00:34 użytkownik  napisał:
> >>
> >>> What problem are we trying to solve here?
> >>>
> >>
> >> In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give
you 
> >> specific
> >> examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions
from 
> >> newcomers.
> >
> >> I rather think that a friendly atmosphere encourages
contributions
> >> from newcomers.  Whether an upfront requirement to commit to a
set
> >> of rules with an enforcement team is perceived as a guarantee
of a
> >> friendly atmosphere is debatable.
> >
> > I personally would feel more comfortable if there were a code of
> > conduct, and I know within my company one employee will not
attend a
> > conference or participate in a project unless there is a code of
> > conduct.  I don't have any hard stats to prove this, but have a
gut
> > feeling that a code of conduct opens more doors than it closes.
> 
> My gut feeling is the opposite.  Upon reading the Code of Conduct, it
felt to me
> like it was proposing a private channel for a mean-spirited
passive-aggressive
> person to wreak havoc on the community.
> 
> Now, I do not feel like we have any such individuals in our community.
 So in
> the best of all possible worlds, there is no harm to a code of
conduct.  But in
> the best of all possible worlds, there is also no need for a code of
conduct.
> 
> In the worst of all worlds, the lack of a Code of Conduct can lead to
individual
> bullying. In the worst of all worlds, a Code of Conduct can lead to
systematic
> bullying, where an anonymous complainer gets the weight of a
bureaucracy behind
> the bullying.
> 
> I don't believe we have the worst of all worlds.  I don't believe that
any
> individual behind the proposal for the Code of Conduct has anything
but the best
> intentions.  I want to see the LilyPond community be a friendly,
welcoming place
> for all.  I believe that it largely is a friendly, welcoming place for
all.
> 
> For me, personally, I find the Code of Conduct approach with its
implied threat
> (if you don't obey, we'll punish you -- in fact, we've spelled out the
> punishments in the document) to be much less friendly than a public
statement
> that we value an open, respectful, and friendly environment and we
call on all
> to participate in it.  The Code of Conduct approach feels like taking
a
> sledgehammer to squash a fly.

A statement about community values would be an excellent idea, but
channels for reporting and meting out punishment?  This makes me
uncomfortable.

And is this really such a large organization that we have room for
committees? 



https://codereview.appspot.com/575620043/

Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilyp...@gmail.com)

[Carl Sorensen]

On 2/5/20, 7:40 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup" 
 
wrote:

Mike Solomon  writes:

> Janek Warchoł  writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> śr., 5 lut 2020, 00:34 użytkownik  napisał:
>>
>>> What problem are we trying to solve here?
>>>
>>
>> In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give you 
>> specific
>> examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions from 
>> newcomers.
>
>> I rather think that a friendly atmosphere encourages contributions
>> from newcomers.  Whether an upfront requirement to commit to a set
>> of rules with an enforcement team is perceived as a guarantee of a
>> friendly atmosphere is debatable.
>
> I personally would feel more comfortable if there were a code of
> conduct, and I know within my company one employee will not attend a
> conference or participate in a project unless there is a code of
> conduct.  I don't have any hard stats to prove this, but have a gut
> feeling that a code of conduct opens more doors than it closes.

My gut feeling is the opposite.  Upon reading the Code of Conduct, it felt to 
me like it was proposing a private channel for a mean-spirited 
passive-aggressive person to wreak havoc on the community.

Now, I do not feel like we have any such individuals in our community.  So in 
the best of all possible worlds, there is no harm to a code of conduct.  But in 
the best of all possible worlds, there is also no need for a code of conduct.

In the worst of all worlds, the lack of a Code of Conduct can lead to 
individual bullying. In the worst of all worlds, a Code of Conduct can lead to 
systematic bullying, where an anonymous complainer gets the weight of a 
bureaucracy behind the bullying.

I don't believe we have the worst of all worlds.  I don't believe that any 
individual behind the proposal for the Code of Conduct has anything but the 
best intentions.  I want to see the LilyPond community be a friendly, welcoming 
place for all.  I believe that it largely is a friendly, welcoming place for 
all.

For me, personally, I find the Code of Conduct approach with its implied threat 
(if you don't obey, we'll punish you -- in fact, we've spelled out the 
punishments in the document) to be much less friendly than a public statement 
that we value an open, respectful, and friendly environment and we call on all 
to participate in it.  The Code of Conduct approach feels like taking a 
sledgehammer to squash a fly.

I recognize that Mike Solomon has a different opinion.  I mean no disrespect to 
Mike, Janek, Han-Wen, or any other member of the LilyPond team.  I highly value 
the team spirit of the LilyPond team.

I would be less likely to participate if we make the proposed Code of Conduct 
part of our LilyPond environment.

Thanks for listening,

Carl