Sorry, I should have replied directly in terms of the code you'd written, with the patches each group would want. My reader didn't show the code in-line.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Jim Blandy <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we disagree on the bug. My sense is: > > - Some of us don't believe that GHM is unwelcoming to anyone, and that any > reasonable attendee would feel comfortable and welcome here. > > - Some of us believe that attendees should ignore being treated unkindly > if it occurs, and attend regardless of how they are treated. > > - Some of us believe that harassment of women is widespread and common at > tech conferences, and especially so at FLOSS events, and find this > objectionable. > > I wasn't present for the discussion at the GHM, so I can't say who now > feels the bug is fixed, and who doesn't. > > I think the third group of people was more willing to grant the GHM's > policy the benefit of the doubt, seeing as at least some kind of attempt to > address a serious problem. > > I think the other two either saw it as not our problem, or a non-problem, > and hence were more concerned with the GHM policy's vague language. > > I tried to phrase the above in uncontroversial terms, but for what it's > worth: I'm in the third group. I sympathize with the first group; I > remember feeling that way, then being extremely unhappy to learn that my > faith had been misplaced (not in the GHM specifically! but in the broader > tech and FLOSS scenes), and wanting to do something about it. I think the > second group is either ignorant, and if not, unwilling to look honestly at > how they themselves react to hostile environments. > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Thien-Thi Nguyen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> () Jim Blandy <jimb-bqtBzms/kfRWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> >> () Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:19:11 -0700 >> >> In that vein, I think the original intent of the policy was to >> prevent ill-behaved people from preventing collaboration across >> gender lines. Both the policy, and the argument I offer here, are >> aimed at increasing collaboration on points of agreement. >> >> Right, in C: >> >> >> >> But, this code is buggy. What is the bug (as discerned from this >> discussion)? What was the fix? What is the long-term fix if any? >> >> -- >> Thien-Thi Nguyen >> GPG key: 4C807502 >> (if you're human and you know it) >> read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical) >> (not (via 'mailing-list))) >> => nil >> >> >
