Re: [CREATE] Code of Conduct
Hi Susan,
>> The discussion about keeping people safe and providing a reasonable
>> assurance of a respectful environment has been all over the web for years.
These are two completely distinct issues.
>> I can't possibly cover all the bases about this, especially to everyone's
>> satisfaction. I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm avoiding the issue,
But that's exactly what you do.
>> but truly there is so much content that I would be spending several days
>> trying to provide you a synopsis.
If I want to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed scientific magazine, a footnote
following your model ("[T]here is so much content that I would be spending
several days trying to provide [...] a synopsis.") would immediately disqualify
the whole text. I also didn't ask for a synopsis. I asked some very simple
questions, which I'll repeat:
Your bold statement was: "CoCs help keep people safe."
Original reply from me (I changed Q to S -- for "statement"):
>> S: "Both are necessary."
>>C: Please explain why.
No answer so far.
As to the other questions, you cavalierly ignored them, so let me repeat them,
one by one:
- Please explain how a CoC can help to keep people safe.
- Define who's being threatened.
- Who's the threat?
- What's the threat?
- Who's the safeguard against threats?
- If a threat can't be identified with a single person or a group, please
define what else should be considered a threat and how a CoC can "help (to)
keep people safe" other than law enforcement or civic common sense.
Would you mind answering them? Examples would be sufficient.
Your Norwegian example is pretty weak, btw, since this is boilerplate legal
language in many European states.
Christoph
___
CREATE mailing list
CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
Re: [CREATE] OpenRaster specification: updates to support masking
Thank you, Andrew. I took myself to liberty to point the GEGL devs here. Perhaps it's also sth. for the LGM. Kind regards, Sven On 17.1.2014 at 11:08 PM Andrew Chadwick wrote: There is now some working code to test this concept out! → https://gitorious.org/mypaint/achadwick-mypaint/commits/layer-enhancements-exp This partially implements the proposal at → https://gist.github.com/achadwick/7827931 To mask with this branch, open the layers panel, then drag a layer "into" another layer to start building structure, Group ├ Layer 1 └ Layer 2 then draw a mask in pure white in the top layer and something you want to mask in the lower layer in any colour you like. Set the top layer's compositing mode to "Destination In" using the right button menu, and the bottom layer (and anything else in the group) will be masked by the top layer. You may need to refresh the view by dragging it around a bit at the moment, but this annoyance should be gone soon. (It has to be in a group because MyPaint does non-isolated rendering onto its internal background layer. Currently you see black if a layer erases the background layer... The layer group implementation you see here uses isolated rendering only, however, and the results of that are then composited onto the background normally. This is just a workaround for now, allowing some masking experiments.) On 13 December 2013 12:01, Boudewijn Rempt wrote: I firmly intend to look into this into detail -- I'm not forgetting about it :-) On Friday 06 December 2013 Dec 16:49:10 Andrew Chadwick wrote: I'm in the process of (slowly and experimentally) refactoring the layers code in MyPaint to add a bunch of fancy features like masking, nested layers, and layer formats other than raster (but which either rasterize (like SVG) or can be represented usefully as an icon (like basically nothing right now)). I've noticed that the OpenRaster specification will need to be updated to support the Porter-Duff "in" operator, and I'd like to take the opportunity to allow sub-stacks to be composited with user-specifiable blending and compositing operators. Conveniently enough, the W3C Compositing and Blending Level 1 specification has evolved into a very helpful and complete form, and defines neatly an important aspect of how "groups" in formats like SVG - equivalent to our nested stacks - should be expected to render. Therefore I'd like to update the OpenRaster draft specification[1] in accordance with the attached proposal. See https://gist.github.com/achadwick/7827931 in case the attachment hasn't made it through the mailing list software. [1] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/OpenRaster/Draft -- Boudewijn Rempt http://www.valdyas.org, http://www.krita.org, http://www.boudewijnrempt.nl ___ CREATE mailing list CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create ___ CREATE mailing list CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
[CREATE] LGM and divisiveness
As we approach LGM 2014, it would be good to know that at some point we all are rowing in the same direction. We need to put aside differences of opinion and consider how we can make LGM an attractive and trouble-free event for everyone. Even without some artificial code that we might sprinkle holy water on and make sacred, I think we have established that most of us have an opinion that wants to keep LGM a friendly event for everyone who attends. Let's face it, LGM isn't a democracy in some elective/voting sense, since it is very unclear who has voting rights and whether all voting rights are the same. We don't have a clear way of generating consensus. We may have opinions for and against, but the (apparent) absence of an opinion may be an indicator of unawareness of the vote or even what it's about (or just being fed up with it all). And someone who has never attended before and never will again has a vote too. I also think it is magical thinking to believe that somehow this can all be hashed out at LGM. Just look at what happens as the venue for the next LGM gets "decided" at LGM. The vote, such as it is, takes place only with those attending the meeting, as if those not present don't care and don't matter. I suppose if they did care, they might be more likely not to care about decisions they were left out of. I think we all have experiences with people who are obsessed with some issue. All they can talk about is their issue. People don't realize how IMPORTANT this is. How ESSENTIAL it is. About all you can do is to avoid this person, not start up a conversation with this person, unless you like to argue. In an organization, this can be toxic. Let's try not to drift in that direction. Greg ___ CREATE mailing list CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
Re: [CREATE] LGM and divisiveness
-- On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 18:07 GMT Gregory Pittman wrote: >As we approach LGM 2014, it would be good to know that at some point we >all are rowing in the same direction. We need to put aside differences >of opinion and consider how we can make LGM an attractive and >trouble-free event for everyone. > >Even without some artificial code that we might sprinkle holy water on >and make sacred, I think we have established that most of us have an >opinion that wants to keep LGM a friendly event for everyone who attends. > >Let's face it, LGM isn't a democracy in some elective/voting sense, >since it is very unclear who has voting rights and whether all voting >rights are the same. We don't have a clear way of generating consensus. >We may have opinions for and against, but the (apparent) absence of an >opinion may be an indicator of unawareness of the vote or even what it's >about (or just being fed up with it all). And someone who has never >attended before and never will again has a vote too. > I think you are reading too much into this. There is a practical reason why voting for the next venue happened/happens in a face to face meeting. Somebody need to (1) volunteer, (2) be trusted by the community, to *organize* the next event. The latter is most rare - it is not as if any random keen 16-year-old can cope with the logistics of hundreds of people from different countries arriving, nor any random unseen unheard of rarely participating person be trusted to volunteer to organize. >I also think it is magical thinking to believe that somehow this can all >be hashed out at LGM. Just look at what happens as the venue for the >next LGM gets "decided" at LGM. The vote, such as it is, takes place >only with those attending the meeting, as if those not present don't >care and don't matter. I suppose if they did care, they might be more >likely not to care about decisions they were left out of. > >I think we all have experiences with people who are obsessed with some >issue. All they can talk about is their issue. People don't realize how >IMPORTANT this is. How ESSENTIAL it is. About all you can do is to avoid >this person, not start up a conversation with this person, unless you >like to argue. In an organization, this can be toxic. Let's try not to >drift in that direction. > I think you are advocating what some called "social bullying". Many LGM attendees are there because they are passionate about *something*. Of course they will, and rightfully so, should talk about their ONE IDEA all the time. That's the whole point. >Greg >___ >CREATE mailing list >CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org >http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create ___ CREATE mailing list CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
Re: [CREATE] LGM and divisiveness
On 01/18/2014 01:42 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: > > > > -- > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 18:07 GMT Gregory Pittman wrote: > >> As we approach LGM 2014, it would be good to know that at some point we >> all are rowing in the same direction. We need to put aside differences >> of opinion and consider how we can make LGM an attractive and >> trouble-free event for everyone. >> >> Even without some artificial code that we might sprinkle holy water on >> and make sacred, I think we have established that most of us have an >> opinion that wants to keep LGM a friendly event for everyone who attends. >> >> Let's face it, LGM isn't a democracy in some elective/voting sense, >> since it is very unclear who has voting rights and whether all voting >> rights are the same. We don't have a clear way of generating consensus. >> We may have opinions for and against, but the (apparent) absence of an >> opinion may be an indicator of unawareness of the vote or even what it's >> about (or just being fed up with it all). And someone who has never >> attended before and never will again has a vote too. >> > > I think you are reading too much into this. There is a practical reason why > voting for the next venue happened/happens in a face to face meeting. > Somebody need to (1) volunteer, (2) be trusted by the community, to > *organize* the next event. > > The latter is most rare - it is not as if any random keen 16-year-old can > cope with the logistics of hundreds of people from different countries > arriving, nor any random unseen unheard of rarely participating person be > trusted to volunteer to organize. > >> I also think it is magical thinking to believe that somehow this can all >> be hashed out at LGM. Just look at what happens as the venue for the >> next LGM gets "decided" at LGM. The vote, such as it is, takes place >> only with those attending the meeting, as if those not present don't >> care and don't matter. I suppose if they did care, they might be more >> likely not to care about decisions they were left out of. >> >> I think we all have experiences with people who are obsessed with some >> issue. All they can talk about is their issue. People don't realize how >> IMPORTANT this is. How ESSENTIAL it is. About all you can do is to avoid >> this person, not start up a conversation with this person, unless you >> like to argue. In an organization, this can be toxic. Let's try not to >> drift in that direction. >> > > I think you are advocating what some called "social bullying". Many LGM > attendees are there because they are passionate about *something*. Of course > they will, and rightfully so, should talk about their ONE IDEA all the time. > That's the whole point. > I have no idea what you're talking about, but it seems you only give an example of what I'm talking about. Thanks for that. Greg ___ CREATE mailing list CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
Re: [CREATE] [LGM] Code of Conduct
On 17 January 2014 22:04, Louis Desjardins wrote: > 2014/1/16 Gregory Pittman >> *** Proposed LGM COC >> [...] >> ** > > Thanks Greg for this edited version! > > To everyone: Does the proposed LGM CoC meet our expectations? > > What I see here is something easy to understand, concise, to the point. > > Without the idea of rushing anyone, may I ask if someone feels he or she > didn’t have time to express an opinion, share a thought or bring up an > argument we’d need to consider? > > Is it too early or are we ready for a vote? It's a good statement of intent, and as such it has my tentative approval as an initial draft. I think it would needs to go further about con organiser responses as it evolves. The PyCon UK CoC (http://pyconuk.net/CodeOfConduct, full text below) does that very well, and it's about the tersest one with teeth that I've seen. I like the brevity and the "we trust" of its opening 'spirit' paragraphs. I like its reassurances to complainants in the third para (because they may otherwise not come forward, and/or may have a dread of not being taken seriously), and I like how the bullet point 'consequences' section enumerates specifically how it isn't fooling around. Anything based on it should absolutely enumerate different notions of appropriate behaviour to fit LGM's ethos, an excellent point Susan has raised upthread with what has to be *the* perfect example. - - - - - - - - - - - - - ✁ - - - - - - - - - - - Pycon UK Statement on Diversity and Conduct Happily, PyconUK is a diverse community who maintain a reputation as a friendly, welcoming and dynamic group. We trust that attendees will treat each other in a way that reflects the widely held view that diversity and friendliness are strengths of our community to be celebrated and fostered. In cases of inappropriate behaviour (including unsuitable language and imagery in talks) please contact a PyconUK organiser directly and in private. Any complaint will remain confidential, be taken seriously, investigated, and dealt with appropriately. PyconUK reserves the right to carry out any of the following actions relating to a complaint: • The person concerned may be told to stop/modify their behaviour appropriately and a warning will be issued. • The person concerned may be warned that enforcement action may be taken if the behaviour continues. • The person concerned may be asked to leave the venue immediately and/or will be prohibited from continuing to attend PyconUK (without reimbursement). • The incident may be reported to the Police. (This document is released under a creative commons license[1].) [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ✁ - - - - - - - - - - - -- Andrew Chadwick ___ CREATE mailing list CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
Re: [CREATE] Code of Conduct
Hi!
NB: This email offers no practical advice about an LGM CoC, but answers
emails that have not yet been answered about the overall context of CoCs in
the wide tech community today.
Also, the following is my person opinion and doesn't reflect the views of
any clients, organisations or projects I am associated with.
Dear Christoph and Gregory,
On 17 January 2014 12:30, Gregory Pittman wrote:
> On 01/17/2014 01:07 PM, Susan Spencer wrote:
> >
> > The discussion about keeping people safe and providing a reasonable
> > assurance of a respectful environment has been all over the web for
> years.
>
> This just sounds like "everyone is doing it so it must be a good thing
> to do." Or maybe it's just something that's gone viral.
>
> If someone feels unsafe at LGM, they should be notifying the local
> police to have them deal with the issue.
>
and on 18 January 2014 00:09, "Christoph Schäfer" wrote:
>
> >> The discussion about keeping people safe and providing a reasonable
> assurance of a respectful environment has been all over the web for years.
>
> These are two completely distinct issues.
>
> >> I can't possibly cover all the bases about this, especially to
> everyone's satisfaction. I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm avoiding the
> issue,
>
> But that's exactly what you do.
>
> >> but truly there is so much content that I would be spending several
> days trying to provide you a synopsis.
>
> If I want to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed scientific magazine, a
> footnote following your model ("[T]here is so much content that I would be
> spending several days trying to provide [...] a synopsis.") would
> immediately disqualify the whole text. I also didn't ask for a synopsis. I
> asked some very simple questions, which I'll repeat:
>
> Your bold statement was: "CoCs help keep people safe."
>
> Original reply from me (I changed Q to S -- for "statement"):
>
> >> S: "Both are necessary."
> >>C: Please explain why.
>
> No answer so far.
>
> As to the other questions, you cavalierly ignored them, so let me repeat
> them, one by one:
>
> - Please explain how a CoC can help to keep people safe.
>
> - Define who's being threatened.
>
> - Who's the threat?
>
> - What's the threat?
>
> - Who's the safeguard against threats?
>
> - If a threat can't be identified with a single person or a group, please
> define what else should be considered a threat and how a CoC can "help (to)
> keep people safe" other than law enforcement or civic common sense.
>
> Would you mind answering them? Examples would be sufficient.
>
> Your Norwegian example is pretty weak, btw, since this is boilerplate
> legal language in many European states.
>
Your line of questioning is pretty weak, yet I think you show good faith
that you would like to better understand. I hope I can explain what is
going on here to you.
You are both questioning the premise that a CoC improves actual safety or
perceived safety.
But what things mean for very privileged people like you and me is not the
same as what they mean for less privileged people.
That is the point I want to make here, about what 'unsafe' means. To make
this point I want to challenge your most extreme example of safety.
In your emails, you both propose the police as a beacon of safety. Do you
feel certain in your believe about that? Please reflect on the amount of
certainty you feel about that, and read on.
I guess that you would feel very certain, believing the police to be
peaceful, honest, etc, and thinking that these are all rational beliefs. I
guess you have never experienced anything to even suggest the contrary; in
fact it may even be sort of 'unthinkable,' and you are perhaps slightly
frowning as you read these lines, as I am saying that the police are
violent liars who you should fear.
Here's an example of that which I noticed earlier today in the headlines:
www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/18/philadelphia-teen-suffers-ruptured-testicle-and-hit-with-misdemeanors-during-police-patdown/
Here is the quote from the mother:
“I blame myself,” Coney said. “I taught my
son to respect cops, not to fear them.
Maybe if he was afraid, he would have
run like the other boys and he would have
[not had his testicle ruptured by a policewoman,
rendering him unable to be a biological father.]”
Do you respect or fear police? Can you imagine it is rational to teach your
children to fear the police? I expect your default posture towards the
police is one of total respect, as is mine, and you will pass this belief
into your [potential future] kids. [0]
However, I recognize that my sure belief (that I will be treated fairly by
police) is rational because of my circumstances, and my circumstances are
not universal. I understand that it is rational for many people to fear
police, in the same way you and I fear people who look, talk and act like
thugs in the very rare moments we chance upon them. [1]
So far I didn't get disabused of my beliefs about the police, but violently
unfair tr
