Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community]

Friends

I second what Tom says below.

Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when disagreeing.  The 
exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at least in the extent of 
the offence caused.   That does not make them unimportant, because a slow 
slippage in our collective standards is, over time corrosive.  But it does mean 
that we can draw breath, as Tom has helpfully done here, and without condemning 
anyone reset our standards.

I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful to 
have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online communities 
have one (e.g. Rust), and it 
might be helpful for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an 
unwritten standard.  Any views on that?

Simon

From: Libraries [mailto:libraries-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Tom Murphy
Sent: 02 April 2017 19:18
To: Fumiaki Kinoshita 
Cc: libraries 
Subject: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

Hi Fumiaki!
 I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have soured 
this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off of the 
productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think it's largely 
been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our -1/+1 votes, I for 
one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced view than before 
talking with everyone here.
 Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the +1/-1 
chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important progress to 
finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler changes).
 To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a pretty stark 
example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared away and feeling 
unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part to fix it. I'd 
propose:

 - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt letter on 
the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly we're not finished.
 - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From a 
distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we don't 
make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone makes mistakes 
- try to give people space to apologize and move on.
 - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a sign 
to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.

 If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again, regardless 
of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire for civil 
conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not trying to 
cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's your fault if you 
didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything at all. Ideal would be 
a quick "Sorry!"
Thanks, all!
Tom

[0] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2016-September/024995.html


On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita 
mailto:fumiex...@gmail.com>> wrote:
The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I guess I 
shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a patch instead.

2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fumiaki Kinoshita 
mailto:fumiex...@gmail.com>>:
It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make people 
grumpy).


___
Libraries mailing list
librar...@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

___
Haskell-community mailing list
Haskell-community@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Tikhon Jelvis]

Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct
that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear
guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite
way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at
least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).

One of the best examples I've seen in the wild had a single rule: no
personal attacks. It's simple to understand and follow with no risk of
stifling or derailing real discussions, and yet unambiguously rules out the
majority of rude comments I see online (ignoring spam and outright
trolling).

I do *not* like Rust's code of conduct specifically. It does not provide
clear guidelines on civility/politeness and covers too many other things,
including a lot of (often political) baggage. Why is the idea that
"everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule? The rule on politeness is
clearly deemphasized: "Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be
mean or rude." is so vague it may as well not be in the code of conduct. We
should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do
that consistently. The "Citizen Code of Conduct" they link to has even more
baggage and I believe it should *not* serve as the basis for anything we
might adopt as a community.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html see section "In
Comments"

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community <
haskell-community@haskell.org> wrote:

> Friends
>
>
>
> I second what Tom says below.
>
>
>
> Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when
> disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at
> least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them
> unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over
> time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has
> helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.
>
>
>
> I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful
> to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online
> communities have one (e.g. Rust
> ), and it might be helpful
> for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten
> standard.  Any views on that?
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Libraries [mailto:libraries-boun...@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Tom
> Murphy
> *Sent:* 02 April 2017 19:18
> *To:* Fumiaki Kinoshita 
> *Cc:* libraries 
> *Subject:* Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")
>
>
>
> Hi Fumiaki!
>
>  I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have
> soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off
> of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think
> it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our
> -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced
> view than before talking with everyone here.
>
>  Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the +1/-1
> chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important progress
> to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler changes).
>
>  To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a pretty
> stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared away
> and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part to
> fix it. I'd propose:
>
>  - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt
> letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly
> we're not finished.
>
>  - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From a
> distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we
> don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone
> makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.
>
>  - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a
> sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.
>
>
>
>  If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again,
> regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire
> for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not
> trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's
> your fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything
> at all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"
>
> Thanks, all!
>
> Tom
>
>
> [0] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2016-September/024995.html
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita 
> wrote:
>
> The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I
> guess I shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a
> patch instead.
>
>
>
> 2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fu

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Francesco Ariis]

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:52:38AM -0700, Tikhon Jelvis wrote:
> Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct
> that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear
> guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite
> way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at
> least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).

You might be interested in Ruby's COC [1] too. They had a discussion
some time ago and Matz&co requirements were "short and to the point".
Indeed it's very clear to read.

[1] https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/conduct/
___
Haskell-community mailing list
Haskell-community@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Henning Thielemann]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Simon Peyton Jones via Libraries wrote:

I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful 
to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online 
communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone 
to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any 
views on that?


I think these Code of Conducts make things even worse because then some 
people start to check every word against these codes. Instead I suggest we 
make more use of humor. E.g. Carter Schonwald's comment about grumpy 
people made me think about renaming my prelude-compat package to 
grumpy-prelude. :-)___
Haskell-community mailing list
Haskell-community@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Bryan Richter]

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:32:01AM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:52:38AM -0700, Tikhon Jelvis wrote:
> > Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct
> > that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear
> > guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite
> > way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at
> > least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).
> 
> You might be interested in Ruby's COC [1] too. They had a discussion
> some time ago and Matz&co requirements were "short and to the point".
> Indeed it's very clear to read.

+1 to having an explicit code of conduct. All communities have such a
code; some are merely unwritten and harder to scrutinize.

For a slightly longer example that is still rather clear, Snowdrift.coop
has its code here: https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/community/conduct. It can
be summarized as, "Act with honor and good will, assume good faith, and
do not use hostile language." It's very similar to Ruby's code, with
Ruby's first item captured in "act with honor and good will", and Ruby's
second and forth items captured in "do not use hostile language".

I like that they both include the assumption of good faith.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Haskell-community mailing list
Haskell-community@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Carter Schonwald]

:)

I look forward to the ways we all disagree.

I personally worry that a code of conduct still has a crucial weakness,
 HUMANS.

interpretation of natural language rules or human behavior always has an
ambiguous element, and this is why any sufficiently not sure set of rules
*must* have a legal enforcment and judicial infrastructure.

(i think Tikhon articulates my perspective on code of conducts way better
than I could )

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Henning Thielemann <
lemm...@henning-thielemann.de> wrote:

>
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Simon Peyton Jones via Libraries wrote:
>
> I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful
>> to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online
>> communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone to
>> have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any views on
>> that?
>>
>
> I think these Code of Conducts make things even worse because then some
> people start to check every word against these codes. Instead I suggest we
> make more use of humor. E.g. Carter Schonwald's comment about grumpy people
> made me think about renaming my prelude-compat package to grumpy-prelude.
> :-)
> ___
> Libraries mailing list
> librar...@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
___
Haskell-community mailing list
Haskell-community@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Carter Schonwald]

agreed with Tikhon's points, they say it way better than I could

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Tikhon Jelvis  wrote:

> Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct
> that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear
> guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite
> way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at
> least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).
>
> One of the best examples I've seen in the wild had a single rule: no
> personal attacks. It's simple to understand and follow with no risk of
> stifling or derailing real discussions, and yet unambiguously rules out the
> majority of rude comments I see online (ignoring spam and outright
> trolling).
>
> I do *not* like Rust's code of conduct specifically. It does not provide
> clear guidelines on civility/politeness and covers too many other things,
> including a lot of (often political) baggage. Why is the idea that
> "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule? The rule on politeness is
> clearly deemphasized: "Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be
> mean or rude." is so vague it may as well not be in the code of conduct. We
> should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do
> that consistently. The "Citizen Code of Conduct" they link to has even more
> baggage and I believe it should *not* serve as the basis for anything we
> might adopt as a community.
>
> [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html see section "In
> Comments"
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community <
> haskell-community@haskell.org> wrote:
>
>> Friends
>>
>>
>>
>> I second what Tom says below.
>>
>>
>>
>> Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when
>> disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at
>> least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them
>> unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over
>> time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has
>> helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful
>> to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online
>> communities have one (e.g. Rust
>> ), and it might be helpful
>> for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten
>> standard.  Any views on that?
>>
>>
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Libraries [mailto:libraries-boun...@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Tom
>> Murphy
>> *Sent:* 02 April 2017 19:18
>> *To:* Fumiaki Kinoshita 
>> *Cc:* libraries 
>> *Subject:* Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Fumiaki!
>>
>>  I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have
>> soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off
>> of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think
>> it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our
>> -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced
>> view than before talking with everyone here.
>>
>>  Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the +1/-1
>> chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important progress
>> to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler changes).
>>
>>  To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a pretty
>> stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared away
>> and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part to
>> fix it. I'd propose:
>>
>>  - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt
>> letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly
>> we're not finished.
>>
>>  - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From
>> a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we
>> don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone
>> makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.
>>
>>  - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a
>> sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.
>>
>>
>>
>>  If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again,
>> regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire
>> for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not
>> trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's
>> your fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything
>> at all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"
>>
>> Thanks, all!
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> [0] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2016-September/024995.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Paolo Giarrusso]

Rust's code of conduct (and the conduct of leaders) have been very
successful at creating a welcoming community. However, those rules were
there from the start.

What's crucial is that a code of conduct is really agreed upon by a
community and its elders. So thanks to Simon Peyton Jones for starting this
conversation.
In particular, a CoC to address known issues (not just in the present
discussion) would probably be easier to agree on.

> We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them
do that consistently.

The guideline I find useful is "assume good faith" (used for instance in
Wikipedia), as long as you don't have extraordinary evidence. And that's a
guidelines that needs to be stated.
Opinions on politeness in the wild are much more varied. How polite do you
need to be, if somebody insists on being wrong? And with actual trolls?

> Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule?

I don't know if it's a strict rule there, how strict it should be, or
whether it works in a CoC. But I find it a very good guideline for educated
debate. I learned it (implicitly) in my academic PL training: PL design is
founded on math but is no science yet. Debate in hard sciences is different.

Because this rule is in fact fundamental to establish respect under
disagreement. The Rust CoC says "There is *seldom* a right answer." If a
question has a right answer, the others become wrong, misguided, heretics,
 idiots... OK, you can censor the word "idiot", but that won't help
much. Or you can admit that reasonable people might disagree on `Foldable
((,) a)` (as most already agree), and give that as a guideline, just as
"assume good faith". That doesn't make "2 + 2 = 5" legitimate of
course—some "common sense" is still needed.

"There is *seldom* a right answer" is an unstated rule in academic papers
(where it's implied by peer review), and it IMHO works rather well there,
even on the few academics who will loudly proclaim elsewhere there is a
right answer.

Indeed, I don't want to misrepresent SPJ, but I feel he is often happy to
talk about Haskell tradeoffs when they're there, even when others loudly
proclaim Haskell is strictly and clearly better than X.

Cheers,
Paolo

On Apr 3, 2017 10:55, "Tikhon Jelvis"  wrote:

> Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct
> that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear
> guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite
> way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at
> least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).
>
> One of the best examples I've seen in the wild had a single rule: no
> personal attacks. It's simple to understand and follow with no risk of
> stifling or derailing real discussions, and yet unambiguously rules out the
> majority of rude comments I see online (ignoring spam and outright
> trolling).
>
> I do *not* like Rust's code of conduct specifically. It does not provide
> clear guidelines on civility/politeness and covers too many other things,
> including a lot of (often political) baggage. Why is the idea that
> "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule? The rule on politeness is
> clearly deemphasized: "Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be
> mean or rude." is so vague it may as well not be in the code of conduct. We
> should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do
> that consistently. The "Citizen Code of Conduct" they link to has even more
> baggage and I believe it should *not* serve as the basis for anything we
> might adopt as a community.
>
> [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html see section "In
> Comments"
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community <
> haskell-community@haskell.org> wrote:
>
>> Friends
>>
>>
>>
>> I second what Tom says below.
>>
>>
>>
>> Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when
>> disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at
>> least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them
>> unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over
>> time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has
>> helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful
>> to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online
>> communities have one (e.g. Rust
>> ), and it might be helpful
>> for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten
>> standard.  Any views on that?
>>
>>
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Libraries [mailto:libraries-boun...@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Tom
>> Murphy
>> *Sent:* 02 April 2017 19:18
>> *To:* Fumiaki Kinoshita 
>> *Cc:* libraries 
>> *Subject:* Civility notes (was "Traversable instanc

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[amindfv]

I'm also +1 to a CoC, although have less of an opinion on what shape it should 
take. CoCs are an effective way of making people who may feel like outsiders to 
a community feel more welcome. The Haskell community is amazing and inclusive 
but not the most diverse, and projects which are doing better on that front 
largely all have CoCs.

In terms of what shape it takes: there are lots of off-the-shelf ones for 
different needs: I'd suggest picking one of them.

Tom


> El 5 abr 2017, a las 11:44, Paolo Giarrusso  escribió:
> 
> Rust's code of conduct (and the conduct of leaders) have been very successful 
> at creating a welcoming community. However, those rules were there from the 
> start.
> 
> What's crucial is that a code of conduct is really agreed upon by a community 
> and its elders. So thanks to Simon Peyton Jones for starting this 
> conversation.
> In particular, a CoC to address known issues (not just in the present 
> discussion) would probably be easier to agree on.
> 
> > We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do 
> > that consistently.
> 
> The guideline I find useful is "assume good faith" (used for instance in 
> Wikipedia), as long as you don't have extraordinary evidence. And that's a 
> guidelines that needs to be stated.
> Opinions on politeness in the wild are much more varied. How polite do you 
> need to be, if somebody insists on being wrong? And with actual trolls?
> 
> > Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule?
> 
> I don't know if it's a strict rule there, how strict it should be, or whether 
> it works in a CoC. But I find it a very good guideline for educated debate. I 
> learned it (implicitly) in my academic PL training: PL design is founded on 
> math but is no science yet. Debate in hard sciences is different.
> 
> Because this rule is in fact fundamental to establish respect under 
> disagreement. The Rust CoC says "There is *seldom* a right answer." If a 
> question has a right answer, the others become wrong, misguided, heretics, 
>  idiots... OK, you can censor the word "idiot", but that won't help much. 
> Or you can admit that reasonable people might disagree on `Foldable ((,) a)` 
> (as most already agree), and give that as a guideline, just as "assume good 
> faith". That doesn't make "2 + 2 = 5" legitimate of course—some "common 
> sense" is still needed.
> 
> "There is *seldom* a right answer" is an unstated rule in academic papers 
> (where it's implied by peer review), and it IMHO works rather well there, 
> even on the few academics who will loudly proclaim elsewhere there is a right 
> answer.
> 
> Indeed, I don't want to misrepresent SPJ, but I feel he is often happy to 
> talk about Haskell tradeoffs when they're there, even when others loudly 
> proclaim Haskell is strictly and clearly better than X.
> 
> Cheers,
> Paolo
> 
>> On Apr 3, 2017 10:55, "Tikhon Jelvis"  wrote:
>> Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct that 
>> specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear guidelines 
>> that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite way. 
>> Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at least 
>> the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).
>> 
>> One of the best examples I've seen in the wild had a single rule: no 
>> personal attacks. It's simple to understand and follow with no risk of 
>> stifling or derailing real discussions, and yet unambiguously rules out the 
>> majority of rude comments I see online (ignoring spam and outright trolling).
>> 
>> I do *not* like Rust's code of conduct specifically. It does not provide 
>> clear guidelines on civility/politeness and covers too many other things, 
>> including a lot of (often political) baggage. Why is the idea that 
>> "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule? The rule on politeness is 
>> clearly deemphasized: "Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be 
>> mean or rude." is so vague it may as well not be in the code of conduct. We 
>> should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do 
>> that consistently. The "Citizen Code of Conduct" they link to has even more 
>> baggage and I believe it should *not* serve as the basis for anything we 
>> might adopt as a community.
>> 
>> [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html see section "In 
>> Comments"
>> 
>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community 
>>>  wrote:
>>> Friends
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I second what Tom says below.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when disagreeing.  
>>> The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at least in the 
>>> extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them unimportant, 
>>> because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over time 
>>> corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom ha

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Jack Hill]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017, amin...@gmail.com wrote:


I'm also +1 to a CoC, although have less of an opinion on what shape it should 
take. CoCs are an effective way of making people who may feel like outsiders to 
a community feel
more welcome. The Haskell community is amazing and inclusive but not the most 
diverse, and projects which are doing better on that front largely all have 
CoCs.

In terms of what shape it takes: there are lots of off-the-shelf ones for 
different needs: I'd suggest picking one of them.

Tom


+1 to a CoC. My sentiments almost exactly mirror Tom's.

In addition, one thing that I really like about the Python community is 
that in addition to a CoC, which I see as a means document (i.e. it is by 
adhering to the CoC that we create the community that we want), they also 
have a diversity statement, which I see as an ends document (i.e. an 
aspirational statement about what the community we want should be). I 
encourage us to adopt a similar approach. In fact, I imagine that 
eventually we would have multiple means of working towards our ends; in 
addition to a CoC, we could have, for example, policies to promote respect 
and inclusivity in our Summer of Code projects.


Best,
Jack

[0] https://www.python.org/community/diversity/
___
Haskell-community mailing list
Haskell-community@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Harendra Kumar]

+1 for a CoC,  for the reason that written guidelines are easy to point
someone to rather than reiterating the same guidelines in different ways
every now and then. However, it should be very succinct. Though these are
pretty much common sense guidelines, some of us need to be sensitized
towards them.

-harendra

On 5 April 2017 at 23:38, Jack Hill  wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017, amin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I'm also +1 to a CoC, although have less of an opinion on what shape it
>> should take. CoCs are an effective way of making people who may feel like
>> outsiders to a community feel
>> more welcome. The Haskell community is amazing and inclusive but not the
>> most diverse, and projects which are doing better on that front largely all
>> have CoCs.
>>
>> In terms of what shape it takes: there are lots of off-the-shelf ones for
>> different needs: I'd suggest picking one of them.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>
> +1 to a CoC. My sentiments almost exactly mirror Tom's.
>
> In addition, one thing that I really like about the Python community is
> that in addition to a CoC, which I see as a means document (i.e. it is by
> adhering to the CoC that we create the community that we want), they also
> have a diversity statement, which I see as an ends document (i.e. an
> aspirational statement about what the community we want should be). I
> encourage us to adopt a similar approach. In fact, I imagine that
> eventually we would have multiple means of working towards our ends; in
> addition to a CoC, we could have, for example, policies to promote respect
> and inclusivity in our Summer of Code projects.
>
> Best,
> Jack
>
> [0] https://www.python.org/community/diversity/
>
> ___
> Haskell-community mailing list
> Haskell-community@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
>
___
Haskell-community mailing list
Haskell-community@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Theodore Lief Gannon]

I'm also -1 to an explicit code of conduct. Sure, once in a while someone
has to step in with Wheaton's Law or what I can't resist calling Simon
Says; but all it takes is a gentle reminder. Nobody here is genuinely
contemptuous toward anyone else. The barrier of entry is too high -- the
trolls are happy enough on reddit. ;)

On Apr 6, 2017 6:17 AM, "Andreas Abel"  wrote:

On 03.04.2017 10:42, Henning Thielemann wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Simon Peyton Jones via Libraries wrote:
>
> I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be
>> useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many
>> online communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for
>> everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten
>> standard.  Any views on that?
>>
>
> I think these Code of Conducts make things even worse because then some
> people start to check every word against these codes. Instead I suggest
> we make more use of humor. E.g. Carter Schonwald's comment about grumpy
> people made me think about renaming my prelude-compat package to
> grumpy-prelude. :-)
>

I agree with Henning.  The discussion gets heated because people are
passionate about Haskell; and the latter is a good thing.

I rather stomach some insults on a mailing list than having a formal code
of conduct.  Severe violations of politeness can be pointed out without
having such a formal code.  We can apply common sense.


-- 
Andreas Abel  <><  Du bist der geliebte Mensch.

Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers and Gothenburg University, Sweden

andreas.a...@gu.se
http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~abela/

___
Libraries mailing list
librar...@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
___
Haskell-community mailing list
Haskell-community@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Andreas Abel]

On 03.04.2017 10:42, Henning Thielemann wrote:

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Simon Peyton Jones via Libraries wrote:


I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be
useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many
online communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for
everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten
standard.  Any views on that?


I think these Code of Conducts make things even worse because then some
people start to check every word against these codes. Instead I suggest
we make more use of humor. E.g. Carter Schonwald's comment about grumpy
people made me think about renaming my prelude-compat package to
grumpy-prelude. :-)


I agree with Henning.  The discussion gets heated because people are 
passionate about Haskell; and the latter is a good thing.


I rather stomach some insults on a mailing list than having a formal 
code of conduct.  Severe violations of politeness can be pointed out 
without having such a formal code.  We can apply common sense.



--
Andreas Abel  <><  Du bist der geliebte Mensch.

Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers and Gothenburg University, Sweden

andreas.a...@gu.se
http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~abela/
___
Haskell-community mailing list
Haskell-community@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Elliot Cameron]

+1 on Tikhon's points as well. Short and sweet. Get to the point. Leave it
at that. The bigger it is, the more there is to argue about!

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Carter Schonwald <
carter.schonw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> agreed with Tikhon's points, they say it way better than I could
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Tikhon Jelvis  wrote:
>
>> Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct
>> that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear
>> guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite
>> way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at
>> least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).
>>
>> One of the best examples I've seen in the wild had a single rule: no
>> personal attacks. It's simple to understand and follow with no risk of
>> stifling or derailing real discussions, and yet unambiguously rules out the
>> majority of rude comments I see online (ignoring spam and outright
>> trolling).
>>
>> I do *not* like Rust's code of conduct specifically. It does not provide
>> clear guidelines on civility/politeness and covers too many other things,
>> including a lot of (often political) baggage. Why is the idea that
>> "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule? The rule on politeness is
>> clearly deemphasized: "Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be
>> mean or rude." is so vague it may as well not be in the code of conduct. We
>> should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do
>> that consistently. The "Citizen Code of Conduct" they link to has even more
>> baggage and I believe it should *not* serve as the basis for anything we
>> might adopt as a community.
>>
>> [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html see section "In
>> Comments"
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Friends
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I second what Tom says below.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when
>>> disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at
>>> least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them
>>> unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over
>>> time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has
>>> helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful
>>> to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online
>>> communities have one (e.g. Rust
>>> ), and it might be
>>> helpful for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten
>>> standard.  Any views on that?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Libraries [mailto:libraries-boun...@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Tom
>>> Murphy
>>> *Sent:* 02 April 2017 19:18
>>> *To:* Fumiaki Kinoshita 
>>> *Cc:* libraries 
>>> *Subject:* Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Fumiaki!
>>>
>>>  I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have
>>> soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off
>>> of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think
>>> it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our
>>> -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced
>>> view than before talking with everyone here.
>>>
>>>  Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the
>>> +1/-1 chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important
>>> progress to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler
>>> changes).
>>>
>>>  To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a
>>> pretty stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared
>>> away and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part
>>> to fix it. I'd propose:
>>>
>>>  - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt
>>> letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly
>>> we're not finished.
>>>
>>>  - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From
>>> a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we
>>> don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone
>>> makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.
>>>
>>>  - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a
>>> sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again,
>>> regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire
>>> for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not
>>> trying to cite any

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[wren romano]

I'm +1 to having a CoC. It doesn't have to be complicated, and indeed
CoCs are better when they're uncomplicated (but explicit! vague CoCs
help noone).

The point of a CoC is not to change people's behavior (if you want
that, there are more effective approaches). The point is to serve as a
touchstone for community values. Without a touchstone, communities
drift over time as people age and come and go. Drifting itself is
unavoidable and not necessarily bad, but sometimes that drifting is
the slipping that becomes corrosive. Touchstones give communities a
way to correct for corrosion: by concretely recording the past they
make the past visible, and thus make the present visible as something
that has changed from the past.

CoCs also, as Tom says, make the community values explicit for
outsiders to see. This is especially important for women and
minorities, because we are disproportionately affected by breaches of
civility. This is why numerous organizations for women in STEM
advocate for having CoCs. To pick a few examples:

https://www.ashedryden.com/blog/codes-of-conduct-101-faq
https://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/
https://geekfeminism.org/2014/06/30/

The mere existence of a CoC indicates that at least at some point the
community cared enough about civility to try to ensure it. That alone
indicates that the community has higher standards for civility than
the vast bulk of online communities for programming. And it is
something we look for. If you want to avoid discouraging women and
minorities from joining, it's not enough to play Simon Says, you have
to write the rules down too.

-- 
Live well,
~wren
___
Haskell-community mailing list
Haskell-community@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Paul Connolley]

Hello all,

(I've been lurking on the Haskell community list for a good while now and
I'm just now plucking up the courage to say hello.)

I feel that Wren is spot on: this isn't somehow an attempt to change the
existing behaviour but a way to confirm to existing members and *advertise
to newcomers* that this is a safe and friendly community.

As more of a reader than a contributor to this community I don't feel I
have earnt much say in what a future Haskell Community CoC contains.
However, Wren has linked to some good articles that talk about existing
CoCs that are being used in anger. I think that they would be a really
valuable resource in this endeavour.

I believe that Rust's CoC is MIT licensed and that some of the other codes
of conduct mentioned in those articles are licensed under the Creative
Commons. Deriving our own from one of these which have had a diverse set of
people writing, discussing and refining it sounds, to me, like a good
starting point.

No matter what, I look forward to seeing this discussion continue and also
to the finished document!

Regards,
Paul.


On 25 April 2017 at 02:39, wren romano  wrote:

> I'm +1 to having a CoC. It doesn't have to be complicated, and indeed
> CoCs are better when they're uncomplicated (but explicit! vague CoCs
> help noone).
>
> The point of a CoC is not to change people's behavior (if you want
> that, there are more effective approaches). The point is to serve as a
> touchstone for community values. Without a touchstone, communities
> drift over time as people age and come and go. Drifting itself is
> unavoidable and not necessarily bad, but sometimes that drifting is
> the slipping that becomes corrosive. Touchstones give communities a
> way to correct for corrosion: by concretely recording the past they
> make the past visible, and thus make the present visible as something
> that has changed from the past.
>
> CoCs also, as Tom says, make the community values explicit for
> outsiders to see. This is especially important for women and
> minorities, because we are disproportionately affected by breaches of
> civility. This is why numerous organizations for women in STEM
> advocate for having CoCs. To pick a few examples:
>
> https://www.ashedryden.com/blog/codes-of-conduct-101-faq
> https://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/
> https://geekfeminism.org/2014/06/30/
>
> The mere existence of a CoC indicates that at least at some point the
> community cared enough about civility to try to ensure it. That alone
> indicates that the community has higher standards for civility than
> the vast bulk of online communities for programming. And it is
> something we look for. If you want to avoid discouraging women and
> minorities from joining, it's not enough to play Simon Says, you have
> to write the rules down too.
>
> --
> Live well,
> ~wren
> ___
> Haskell-community mailing list
> Haskell-community@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
>



-- 
Paul Connolley
*Software Developer*
https://connrs.uk
___
Haskell-community mailing list
Haskell-community@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[lennart spitzner]

A couple weeks earlier there was a discussion on tuple instances on this list
that got somewhat out of hand, leading to a meta-discussion on civility.
There was the suggestion to create and endorse a CoC for this community.

Now both topics have not received much further contribution, an indication that
not much more can be gained from these discussions. Yet I have a bad
feeling about leaving them in such a manner, because: There is no real
conclusion, there is no agreement, and I do not see much advancement of how
we, as a community, cope with negative situations. And while I can understand
that there is little incentive/motivation to continue due to negative
emotions involved, I also fear that ending discussions on such negative
emotions will discourage contributions in general not only now, but in the
future as well.

So I will dare to continue, ask a couple of questions, and make some
suggestions:

1. At which point of the particular tuple instance discussion would it have
   helped to have some CoC, and in what way? Is the hope that the participants
   had considered this CoC and not said something in the way that they did?
   Or would it have allowed us to quickly point out the CoC at some specific
   point in response to some mail? Or something else?

   I _can_ see a couple of instances where a CoC could have been pointed out,
   but these don't convince me, because
   a) in those cases giving clear, respectful negative feedback (for example
  regarding "joking") (would/should) have worked just as well if not better
  and
   b) because simply pointing out the CoC during a discussion is rather
  non-constructive because it is a vague form of criticism and the
  receiving party will most likely consider it inappropriate, and so it has
  the opposite effect.

2. on a related note, I have a hard time pinpointing the moment in the
   discussion where things transitioned from cool to flaming. I'd perhaps name
   as important factors the useless rhetoric (go and ask those mathematicians)
   and the case of hiding behind "it was a dumb joke" followed by what in my
   eyes reads like a dishonest apology. But I am not certain and perhaps
   unfair.

   My subjective estimation is that discussing this a bit further is more
   constructive than working on a CoC. What parts of the discussion were
   unfortunate, exactly, and why? The general opinion here seems to be to
   ask for civility without naming names. I disagree: I have little hope that
   giving the vague feedback to all participants that some parts of the
   discussion were non-constructive/disrespectful will improve things in the
   future.

   As an example, we might take the following advice from this:
   "Humour is important and generally welcome, but it is necessary to be
   especially careful to make it clear when exactly we talk in jest, and to
   not let slip phrases that can easily interpreted as offensive if not
   interpreted as a joke. We will not accept retroactively hiding behind
   'it was a joke'."

   (perhaps some people think such a statement belonged in a CoC, but then
   this is a different/more specific kind of advice than what I can see in
   existing/proposed CoCs.)

3. And back to first discussion: I refuse to vote -1 or +1, because the topic
   is more nuanced than that. Instead, I vote for the following:
   "Additional tuple instances shall be added after such a point in time where
   either the methods have been renamed as to avoid confusion, or after the
   generic versions are no longer exposed in the default Prelude.
   (and whether this point will come is intentionally left open.)"

4. And reflecting on the previous point, I encourage all participants to try to
   not make pure -1/+1 votes, but to include conditions under which they may
   switch, especially for controversial subjects. I have hopes that this will
   help finding a majority-backed compromise.

5. It would help to have the discussion and the arguments made by both sides
   archived somewhere other than on the mailing list. In one of the last
   mails I wrote to this list I implicitly complained about the
   signal-to-noise, and to be clear, I don't mean that any messages consist
   of noise. But it can easily take a couple of mails back-and-forth to get
   some point across, and these threads can grow to over a hundred mails
   quickly.
   I realize that the main issue here of course is the amount of work it would
   mean to somewhat objectively summarize an (often heated) debate. But then
   the alternative is the reiteration of the same topics in an almost
   predicable frequency.
   Thoughts?

(Sorry, Tony, for somewhat singling out the "joking" as the negative example.
This might be unfair. You have a valid point, but conveyed it rather poorly
especially to the end of the discussion.)

-- lennart
___
Haskell-community mailing list
Haskell-community@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Tom Murphy]

To address your point about:

"My subjective estimation is that discussing this a bit further is more
   constructive than working on a CoC. What parts of the discussion were
   unfortunate, exactly, and why?"

The problem with just discussing it further here is that:
  a) Nothing specific needs to get explicitly agreed upon, so we can all
leave with our own interpretations and conclusions of what was decided
  b) We're 20-something emails into an email chain. All of us discussing
will have developed more nuanced views, but for example a new person coming
to the community will have no idea about what was discussed here.

A CoC, on the other hand, is a big neon sign at the front door of the
community, summarizing the basic bullet points of what we can agree we want
our community to be.

(By the way, I agreed with much of what you talked about but I think your
points could have been made without calling anyone else out by name. Just
my 2c.)

Tom






On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 5:49 AM, lennart spitzner <
l...@informatik.uni-kiel.de> wrote:

> A couple weeks earlier there was a discussion on tuple instances on this
> list
> that got somewhat out of hand, leading to a meta-discussion on civility.
> There was the suggestion to create and endorse a CoC for this community.
>
> Now both topics have not received much further contribution, an indication
> that
> not much more can be gained from these discussions. Yet I have a bad
> feeling about leaving them in such a manner, because: There is no real
> conclusion, there is no agreement, and I do not see much advancement of how
> we, as a community, cope with negative situations. And while I can
> understand
> that there is little incentive/motivation to continue due to negative
> emotions involved, I also fear that ending discussions on such negative
> emotions will discourage contributions in general not only now, but in the
> future as well.
>
> So I will dare to continue, ask a couple of questions, and make some
> suggestions:
>
> 1. At which point of the particular tuple instance discussion would it have
>helped to have some CoC, and in what way? Is the hope that the
> participants
>had considered this CoC and not said something in the way that they did?
>Or would it have allowed us to quickly point out the CoC at some
> specific
>point in response to some mail? Or something else?
>
>I _can_ see a couple of instances where a CoC could have been pointed
> out,
>but these don't convince me, because
>a) in those cases giving clear, respectful negative feedback (for
> example
>   regarding "joking") (would/should) have worked just as well if not
> better
>   and
>b) because simply pointing out the CoC during a discussion is rather
>   non-constructive because it is a vague form of criticism and the
>   receiving party will most likely consider it inappropriate, and so
> it has
>   the opposite effect.
>
> 2. on a related note, I have a hard time pinpointing the moment in the
>discussion where things transitioned from cool to flaming. I'd perhaps
> name
>as important factors the useless rhetoric (go and ask those
> mathematicians)
>and the case of hiding behind "it was a dumb joke" followed by what in
> my
>eyes reads like a dishonest apology. But I am not certain and perhaps
>unfair.
>
>My subjective estimation is that discussing this a bit further is more
>constructive than working on a CoC. What parts of the discussion were
>unfortunate, exactly, and why? The general opinion here seems to be to
>ask for civility without naming names. I disagree: I have little hope
> that
>giving the vague feedback to all participants that some parts of the
>discussion were non-constructive/disrespectful will improve things in
> the
>future.
>
>As an example, we might take the following advice from this:
>"Humour is important and generally welcome, but it is necessary to be
>especially careful to make it clear when exactly we talk in jest, and to
>not let slip phrases that can easily interpreted as offensive if not
>interpreted as a joke. We will not accept retroactively hiding behind
>'it was a joke'."
>
>(perhaps some people think such a statement belonged in a CoC, but then
>this is a different/more specific kind of advice than what I can see in
>existing/proposed CoCs.)
>
> 3. And back to first discussion: I refuse to vote -1 or +1, because the
> topic
>is more nuanced than that. Instead, I vote for the following:
>"Additional tuple instances shall be added after such a point in time
> where
>either the methods have been renamed as to avoid confusion, or after the
>generic versions are no longer exposed in the default Prelude.
>(and whether this point will come is intentionally left open.)"
>
> 4. And reflecting on the previous point, I encourage all participants to
> try to
>not make pure -1/+1 votes, but to include cond

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Tony Morris]

On 28/04/17 19:49, lennart spitzner wrote:
> the case of hiding behind "it was a dumb joke" followed by what in my
>eyes reads like a dishonest apology. But I am not certain and perhaps
>unfair.
>
>We will not accept retroactively hiding behind
>'it was a joke'."
>
>
> (Sorry, Tony, 

Thank you for your incredibly genuine apology. Please leave me out of
this discussion.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Haskell-community mailing list
Haskell-community@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

[Theodore Lief Gannon]

On Apr 30, 2017 8:52 AM, "Tom Murphy"  wrote:

We're 20-something emails into an email chain. All of us discussing will
have developed more nuanced views, but for example a new person coming to
the community will have no idea about what was discussed here.

A CoC, on the other hand, is a big neon sign at the front door of the
community, summarizing the basic bullet points of what we can agree we want
our community to be.


...okay, that point has tipped me to +1 on at least putting together a set
of guidelines. Quote Simon, invoke Wheaton's Law, etc.

I'm still -1 on any sort of "code" designed to enable enforcement, but a
sign on the door saying "here's what we've learned" sounds like a pretty
good idea.
___
Haskell-community mailing list
Haskell-community@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community