Re: [go-nuts] Re: A message from the CoC committee

['Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts]

Comparisons to legal systems are misguided. Legal systems are a) almost
impossible to escape (barring an international move), b) regulate all
aspects of your lives and c) wield the almost unlimited monopoly of
violence by the state against its citizens. Thus, they have an easily
justified very high moral responsibility in terms of fairness, balance and
transparency.

The Go community is not a legal system. Participation in it is entirely
voluntary and it does not regulate anything but this participation. The CoC
is also not a legal document. It is a declaration of intent given by the Go
community, as a self-enforced standard of conduct. Requiring the same level
of stringency from a PL communities self-regulation as from a legal system
is both unreasonable and IMO undesirable.

And to be blunt, the only reason you'd need to know where the line is
drawn, is if you intend to straddle it. Wanting to straddle the line of
acceptable conduct is, in and off itself, not okay. The lines as drawn in
the CoC itself are broad enough to help you stay clear of them, if that's
what you want (which you should, if you want to participate here).

I've read what I assume are the messages that lead to the actions of the
CoC committee and I simply don't believe that there can be a good-faithed
argument that they were even *close* to within the lines. As such, I don't
think there is a need to debate any of this. Especially as it already has
been debated in the past, quite heatedly.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfE-fVev28JzagarB93EC91K1HUniawuY1940hnz9K%3Dnug%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] Re: A message from the CoC committee

[Jesper Louis Andersen]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 8:18 PM ben...@gmail.com  wrote:

> I'm comparing to various legal systems, in which there is almost always
> the possibility of appeal, even for heinous crimes.
>

It's somewhat the other way around. The worse the crime, the more argument
for an appeal process because you can mess up far more by a mistake. Most
appeal processes have a stop-gap measure built in too, because otherwise it
becomes an infinite ladder of appeals.

However, most legal systems also value transparency in that the "moderation
log" is public. This is important for forward handling: people might vote
differently if they disagree with the law, or they might point out possible
problems with the current state of law. Also, it provides a dampening
effect because people know where the "line in the sand" is drawn. I do note
that the discussions stemming from this usually ain't the prettiest and
most comprehensible :)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAGrdgiUheEX6fnbL1DyJVrcrZrsZ2MZP2Sr4K24TkWSsdxG2AQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] Re: A message from the CoC committee

['Thomas Bushnell BSG' via golang-nuts]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 3:18 PM ben...@gmail.com  wrote:

> I'm comparing to various legal systems, in which there is almost always
> the possibility of appeal, even for heinous crimes.
>

Not forever; and especially not in cases of abuse of process. For example,
the United States Supreme Court has an "in forma pauperis" procedure, where
you don't have to pay normal filing fees and the clerks will be very
lenient in whether a petition is in proper form etc. This provides access
to people with worthy cases and no representation. (If the case might be
accepted, the court makes sure to appoint representation, of course.) But
some people will abuse this, and after there have been too many groundless
petitions, the court will order that no further petitions are to be
accepted from that party (in civil cases) without being in correct form
with the filing fee paid. This basically puts a stop to it, because people
repeatedly filing groundless petitions generally don't care to pay $300 for
each one, together with the expense of duplicating forty bound copies of
the petition in the exacting format required.

Thomas

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CA%2BYjuxvXYEorS-SQNQpUfQLft3UHFFZ2Hq7hqz-LNdsfLEAHRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] Re: A message from the CoC committee

[Ben Hoyt]

Fair response - pragmatic and helpful. Thanks, Ian. -Ben

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:34 AM Ian Lance Taylor  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:19 PM ben...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
> >
> > > permanent bans were given to multiple individuals, with no possibility
> for appeal
> >
> > I don't disagree with the bans, but this part -- the "no possibility for
> appeal" seems very ... totalitarian. What if a mistake was made? (Again,
> not saying it was here, but in general, to err is human.) I'm comparing to
> various legal systems, in which there is almost always the possibility of
> appeal, even for heinous crimes. Another aspect is that sometimes people
> change and realize their mistake later, sometimes even because of an
> excommunication like this. What's the rationale for "no possibility of
> appeal"?
>
> My take on this is that if someone has chosen for whatever reason to
> attack a project, an appeals process just provides another mechanism
> for them to consume project resources.
>
> Also, in practice, we are all pseudonyms here anyhow.  If people
> change their ways, they will likely benefit from adopting a new
> pseudonym that is free of any toxicity attached to the old one.
>
> Finally, this is a process run by human beings, not computer code or
> even a legal system.  There can always be adjustments and exceptions
> over time if there are good reasons for them.
>
> Ian
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAL9jXCF%2BOXG0srpJcw64yXgBgoqH%2B-bgqc3RA98p0-G9oEQgfg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] Re: A message from the CoC committee

[Ian Lance Taylor]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:19 PM ben...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> > permanent bans were given to multiple individuals, with no possibility for 
> > appeal
>
> I don't disagree with the bans, but this part -- the "no possibility for 
> appeal" seems very ... totalitarian. What if a mistake was made? (Again, not 
> saying it was here, but in general, to err is human.) I'm comparing to 
> various legal systems, in which there is almost always the possibility of 
> appeal, even for heinous crimes. Another aspect is that sometimes people 
> change and realize their mistake later, sometimes even because of an 
> excommunication like this. What's the rationale for "no possibility of 
> appeal"?

My take on this is that if someone has chosen for whatever reason to
attack a project, an appeals process just provides another mechanism
for them to consume project resources.

Also, in practice, we are all pseudonyms here anyhow.  If people
change their ways, they will likely benefit from adopting a new
pseudonym that is free of any toxicity attached to the old one.

Finally, this is a process run by human beings, not computer code or
even a legal system.  There can always be adjustments and exceptions
over time if there are good reasons for them.

Ian

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOyqgcV8OnZWJKXbxz4negUipa2Vd3v_%3DF2PNZtdt3WcTuYDVg%40mail.gmail.com.

[go-nuts] Re: A message from the CoC committee

[ben...@gmail.com]

> permanent bans were given to multiple individuals, with no possibility 
for appeal

I don't disagree with the bans, but this part -- the "no possibility for 
appeal" seems very ... totalitarian. What if a mistake was made? (Again, 
not saying it was here, but in general, to err is human.) I'm comparing to 
various legal systems, in which there is almost always the possibility of 
appeal, even for heinous crimes. Another aspect is that sometimes people 
change and realize their mistake later, sometimes even because of an 
excommunication like this. What's the rationale for "no possibility of 
appeal"?

-Ben


On Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 3:01:37 AM UTC+13 can...@google.com wrote:

> Over the last few days, multiple reports were received at 
> con...@golang.org regarding public conduct on golang-nuts, as well as 
> conduct in private channels.  After review, permanent bans were given to 
> multiple individuals, with no possibility for appeal.  Further corrective 
> actions like temporary bans and final warnings are being deliberated, 
> pending further investigation. 
>
> As stated in our Code of Conduct , we believe 
> that healthy debate and disagreement are essential to a healthy project and 
> community. However, it is never ok to be disrespectful. 
>
> When evaluating a response to a report and making decisions on a 
> corrective action, the Go CoC committee takes into account the
>
> * severity of the conduct violation
> * impact of conduct on individuals who report to con...@golang.org
> * impact of conduct on the community (bystanders, those not directly 
> involved in CoC reports) 
> * conduct history in all Go project spaces, assessing patterns of behavior 
> across multiple sites versus one-off or "most recent only" conduct 
> incidents. 
> * impact to people of marginalized groups
>
> The last two factors also necessitate a public response, to assure those 
> who witness unacceptable behavior, particularly in public places, that 
> appropriate and fair corrective action was taken.  
>  
> We pledge  to make participation 
> in the Go project* and our community a harassment-free experience for 
> everyone. 
>
> Thank You,
> Carmen Andoh
> on behalf of the Go CoC committee
>
> *Go project spaces include all golang-* googlegroups, github/golang/go 
> issue repo, and other online forums where the Go CoC is in effect. 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/cbda73ba-78a4-4f9a-ad2b-59e6e6ce2c19n%40googlegroups.com.

[go-nuts] Re: A message from the CoC committee

[Anthony Martin]

can...@google.com once said:
> After review, permanent bans were given to multiple individuals, with no
> possibility for appeal.  Further corrective actions like temporary bans and
> final warnings are being deliberated, pending further investigation.

Where is the moderation log?

  Anthony

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/YFqDmTorc/glZImf%40alice.