And I don’t intend to abide by it. I’ll cancel my Pharo Association contribution and my contribution to Stephane’s Spec book. I have no interest in supporting a left-wing snowflake “Code of Conduct”.
/*—————————————————-*/ Sent from my iPhone https://boincstats.com/signature/-1/user/51616339056/sig.png See https://objectnets.net and https://objectnets.org > On Sep 19, 2019, at 20:44, Richard O'Keefe <rao...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On the whole, the new code is pretty good. > > There was one thing that troubled me, though: > "even outside of Pharo's public communication channels." > What business is it of the Pharo Board what anyone says in any > other community? I've heard too many cases where A says something > to B and C complains about it as harassment when B didn't mind. > I have personally known people *affectionately* address each other > in terms that most would consider a deadly insult. > > My behaviour in all digital media is subject to the > Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. See > http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html > which extends the Harassment Act 1997. See > http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1997/0092/latest/whole.html > for a definition of harassment. > If I harass anyone according to these Acts, they have a legal remedy. > I understand the the UK and the EU have similar laws. > > So I don't understand why the Pharo Board want to extend their reach. > > >> On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 07:21, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I’m talking on behalf of the Pharo Board here. >> As start, we accepted Serge’s proposition without actually discussing it >> much because we didn’t think it was going to be really a problem. Our >> community has been self-regulating since the beginning and we were doing it >> fine until now. Once or twice we (the board) needed to act, but never had a >> real situation as the ones the CoC tries to cover. >> So, we can say we opened the umbrella without rain, just in case. >> >> Now, after observe the situation, we have decided to retract the code. But >> sadly, we cannot just remove it and let things continue as before because as >> it’s know “it you open a can or worms, you will need a bigger can to put >> them back in”. Which means now we need a code of conduct. >> >> So we are going to take the simplest one we could find that still can serve >> our community, you can see it here: >> >> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4660 >> >> This PR will be accepted, but as anything in our community, you can still >> discuss it and propose modifications. >> Just remember be respectful of people disagreeing with your ideas :) >> >> Cheers, >> Esteban >> >> PS: As personal note: I blocked a github user that insulted a member of our >> community, a user who did not had history with us (or any other visible >> project), who did not had a name or ways to contact him so I assumed it was >> just another troll. Now, he identifies himself here... I will unblock him, >> but that does not means the kind of disrespectful messages he sent can be >> sent :) >> >> >>> On 19 Sep 2019, at 19:47, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: >>> >>> makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful >>> idiot. >>> >>>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users >>>> <pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> wrote: >>>> Let's see, I've posted one email to this list describing the dangers >>>> of abusing CoCs >>> >>> I guess you refer to this one... >>> > On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 19:39, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users >>> > <pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> wrote: >>> > I agree. Technical people are too easy to exploit by malignant >>> > manipulators of people. >>> > All too often they don't even realize it after the fact. >>> >>> Thats fairly benign and doubt it had anything to do with being blocked on >>> github. >>> >>> >>>> and one post to GitHub describing the motivations of >>>> people who introduce CoCs, and immediately get banned on GitHub from >>> >>> Note, the board member who blocked your GIthub account and deleted your >>> post there >>> also voiced their opinion as being... >>> For me a "welcome and be nice" should be enough to just continue as >>> before. >>> I find the introduction of CoC was a noise we didn't need, >>> our community was doing well and self-regulated without problem until >>> now. >>> >>> So in spite of your implication, I doubt there is anything sinister from >>> the CoC in play here. >>> Comments such as "makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian >>> sociopath, or a useful idiot." >>> have been consistently condemned years before thought of a CoC. >>> >>> >>>> I'm getting called a troll and a nobody in public by members of the >>>> project, >>> >>> Its not that you are a "nobody", but actually you were "unknown to us" two >>> days ago. >>> Maybe you don't know Serge, but we've know him for years and his good work >>> including governance of our GSoC participation >>> so please consider why such comments from a newcomer may be dealt with as a >>> troll. >>> Community standards do not maintain themselves: They're maintained by >>> people actively applying them, visibly, in public. >>> >>> Now personally I'm not going to condemn you on one slip. >>> I've been told to pull my head in before and they were right - I was >>> venting after a bad day at work. But no one held it against me long. >>> These nontechnical and emotion-charge debates are infrequent and I hope get >>> a chance to see how things normally run once we are past it. >>> >>> cheers -ben >>
