Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Stefan van der Walt]

Hi Matthew,

On August 4, 2018 00:23:44 Matthew Harrigan  wrote:
One concern I have is the phrase "explicitly honour" in "we explicitly 
honour diversity in: age, culture, ...".  Honour is a curious word choice.  
honour is defined as, among other things, "to worship", "high public 
esteem; fame; glory", and "a source of credit or distinction".  I would 
object to some of those interpretations.  Also its not clear to me how 
honouring diversity relates to conduct.  I would definitely agree to follow 
the other parts of the CoC and also to welcome others regardless of where 
they fall on the various axes of diversity.  "Explicitly welcome" is better 
and much more closely related to conduct IMO.


While honor may be a slightly strange choice, I don't think it is as 
strange as this specific definition makes it out to be. You also say "I 
honor my promise", i.e., I take it seriously, and it has meaning to me.


Diversity has meaning to our community (it enriches us, both intellectually 
and otherwise) and should be cherished.


How does honoring diversity relate to the CoC? It is part of the motivation 
for having a CoC. You cannot build diverse communities without providing a 
friendly environment for interaction.


Best regards,
Stéfan

___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Matthew Harrigan]

One concern I have is the phrase "explicitly honour" in "we explicitly
honour diversity in: age, culture, ...".  Honour is a curious word choice.
honour  is defined as, among
other things, "to worship", "high public esteem; fame; glory", and "a source
of credit or distinction".  I would object to some of those
interpretations.  Also its not clear to me how honouring diversity relates
to conduct.  I would definitely agree to follow the other parts of the CoC
and also to welcome others regardless of where they fall on the various
axes of diversity.  "Explicitly welcome" is better and much more closely
related to conduct IMO.
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Charles R Harris]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Peter Creasey  wrote:

> +1 for keeping the same CoC as Scipy, making a new thing just seems a
> bigger surface area to maintain. Personally I already assumed Scipy's
> "honour[ing] diversity in..." did not imply any protection of
> behaviours that violate the CoC *itself*, but if you wanted to be
> really explicit you could add "to the extent that these do not
> conflict with this code of conduct." to that line.
>

I prefer that to the proposed modification, short and sweet.

Chuck
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Chris Barker]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Stefan van der Walt 
wrote:

> I'll note that at least the Contributor Covenant is pretty vague about
>> enforcement:
>>
>> """
>> All complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a
>> response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances.
>> """
>>
>> I'd think refining THAT part for the project may provide the benefits of
>> discussion...
>>
>
> But the SciPy CoC has a whole additional document that goes into further
> detail on this specific issue, so let's not concern ourselves with the
> weaknesses of the Covenant (there are plenty),
>

Actually, I did not indent that to be highlighting a limitation in the
Covenant, but rather pointing out that there is plenty to discuss, even if
one does adopt an existing CoC.

But at Ralf points out, that discussion has been had in the context of
scipy, so I agree -- numpy should adopt scipy's CoC and be done with it.

In fact, if someone still feels strongly that "political beliefs" should be
removed, then it's probably better to bring that up in the context of
scipy, rather than numpy -- as has been said, it is practically the same
community.

To the point where the scipy developers guide and the numpy developers
guide are published on the same web site.

-CHB


-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

chris.bar...@noaa.gov
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Peter Creasey]

+1 for keeping the same CoC as Scipy, making a new thing just seems a
bigger surface area to maintain. Personally I already assumed Scipy's
"honour[ing] diversity in..." did not imply any protection of
behaviours that violate the CoC *itself*, but if you wanted to be
really explicit you could add "to the extent that these do not
conflict with this code of conduct." to that line.

Best,
Peter
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Stefan van der Walt]

On August 3, 2018 20:51:00 Chris Barker  wrote:
I'll note that at least the Contributor Covenant is pretty vague about 
enforcement:


"""
All complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a 
response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances.

"""

I'd think refining THAT part for the project may provide the benefits of 
discussion...


But the SciPy CoC has a whole additional document that goes into further 
detail on this specific issue, so let's not concern ourselves with the 
weaknesses of the Covenant (there are plenty), but rather on what is being 
proposed for adoption here:


https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/conduct/report_handling_manual.html#coc-reporting-manual

Best regards,
Stéfan
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Chris Barker]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 11:33 AM, Nelle Varoquaux 
wrote:

I think what matters in code of conduct is community buy-in and the
> discussions around it, more than the document itself.
>

This is a really good point. Though I think a community could still have
that discussion around whether and which CoC to adopt, rather than the
bike-shedding of the document itself.

And the reality is that a small sub-fraction of eh community takes part in
the conversation anyway.

I'm very much on the fence about whether this thread has been truly
helpful, for instance, though it's certainly got me trolling the web
reading about the issue -- which I probably would not have if this were
simply a: "should we adopt the NumFocos CoC" thread...

By off-loading the discussion and writing process to someone else, you are
> missing most of the benefits of codes of conducts.
>

well, when reading about CoCs, it seem a large part of their benefit is not
to the existing community, but rather what it projects to the rest of the
world, particularly possible new contributors.


> This is also the reason why I think codes of conduct should be revisited
> regularly.
>

That is a good idea, yes.

I'll note that at least the Contributor Covenant is pretty vague about
enforcement:

"""
All complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a
response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances.
"""

I'd think refining THAT part for the project may provide the benefits of
discussion...

-CHB



-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

chris.bar...@noaa.gov
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Ralf Gommers]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Chris Barker  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Chris Barker 
> wrote:
>
>> Given Jupyter, numpy, scipy, matplotlib?, etc, are all working on a CoC
>> -- maybe we could have NumFocus take a lead on this for the whole community?
>>
>
Nelle is right about the process and community buy-in.


>
> or adopt an existing one, like maybe:
>
> The Contributor Covenant  was
> adopted by several prominent open source projects, including Atom,
> AngularJS, Eclipse, and even Rails. According to Github, total adoption of
> the Contributor Covenant is nearing an astounding ten thousand open source
> projects.
>

The tone of the Contributor Covenant is far from good. All of this and more
was extensively discussed when introducing the SciPy CoC. Can you please
read the mailing list discussion on scipy-dev before suggesting a major
change in direction?

Also keep in mind that the SciPy and NumPy communities strongly overlap,
and everyone was okay with the SciPy CoC. We're discussing one tweak to
that; removing two words or adding 1-2 sentences. It is counter-productive
to start from scratch.

Cheers,
Ralf



>
> I'm trying to figure out why numpy (Or any project, really) has either
> unique needs or people better qualified to write a CoC than any other
> project or community. So much like OSS licences -- it's much better to pick
> an established one than write your own.
>
> For the record, the Covenant does have a laundry list of "classes", that
> does not include political belief, but does mention "political" here:
>
> """
> Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
> ...
> Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
>  ...
> """
>
> -CHB
>
>
> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> Oceanographer
>
> Emergency Response Division
> NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
> 7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
> Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception
>
> chris.bar...@noaa.gov
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Chris Barker]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Chris Barker  wrote:

> Given Jupyter, numpy, scipy, matplotlib?, etc, are all working on a CoC --
> maybe we could have NumFocus take a lead on this for the whole community?
>

or adopt an existing one, like maybe:

The Contributor Covenant  was adopted
by several prominent open source projects, including Atom, AngularJS,
Eclipse, and even Rails. According to Github, total adoption of the
Contributor Covenant is nearing an astounding ten thousand open source
projects.

I'm trying to figure out why numpy (Or any project, really) has either
unique needs or people better qualified to write a CoC than any other
project or community. So much like OSS licences -- it's much better to pick
an established one than write your own.

For the record, the Covenant does have a laundry list of "classes", that
does not include political belief, but does mention "political" here:

"""
Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
...
Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
 ...
"""

-CHB


Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

chris.bar...@noaa.gov
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Nelle Varoquaux]

On 3 August 2018 at 11:20, Chris Barker  wrote:

> One other thought:
>
> Given Jupyter, numpy, scipy, matplotlib?, etc, are all working on a CoC --
> maybe we could have NumFocus take a lead on this for the whole community?
>
> I think most (all?) of the NumFocus projects have essentially the same
> goals in this regard.
>

I think what matters in code of conduct is community buy-in and the
discussions around it, more than the document itself. By off-loading the
discussion and writing process to someone else, you are missing most of the
benefits of codes of conducts. This is also the reason why I think codes of
conduct should be revisited regularly.

My 2 cents,
N



> -CHB
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Chris Barker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Hameer Abbasi 
>> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>> I’ve created a PR, and I’ve kept the language “not too stern”.
>>> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9109
>>>
>>
>> Thanks -- for ease of this thread, the sentence Hameer added is:
>>
>> "We expect that you will extend the same courtesy and open-mindedness
>> towards other members of the SciPy community."
>>
>> LGTM
>>
>> -CHB
>>
>> --
>>
>> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
>> Oceanographer
>>
>> Emergency Response Division
>> NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
>> 7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
>> Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception
>>
>> chris.bar...@noaa.gov
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> Oceanographer
>
> Emergency Response Division
> NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
> 7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
> Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception
>
> chris.bar...@noaa.gov
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Chris Barker]

One other thought:

Given Jupyter, numpy, scipy, matplotlib?, etc, are all working on a CoC --
maybe we could have NumFocus take a lead on this for the whole community?

I think most (all?) of the NumFocus projects have essentially the same
goals in this regard.

-CHB





On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Chris Barker  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Hameer Abbasi 
> wrote
>>
>>
>> I’ve created a PR, and I’ve kept the language “not too stern”.
>> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9109
>>
>
> Thanks -- for ease of this thread, the sentence Hameer added is:
>
> "We expect that you will extend the same courtesy and open-mindedness
> towards other members of the SciPy community."
>
> LGTM
>
> -CHB
>
> --
>
> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> Oceanographer
>
> Emergency Response Division
> NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
> 7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
> Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception
>
> chris.bar...@noaa.gov
>



-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

chris.bar...@noaa.gov
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Chris Barker]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Hameer Abbasi 
wrote
>
>
> I’ve created a PR, and I’ve kept the language “not too stern”.
> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9109
>

Thanks -- for ease of this thread, the sentence Hameer added is:

"We expect that you will extend the same courtesy and open-mindedness
towards other members of the SciPy community."

LGTM

-CHB

-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

chris.bar...@noaa.gov
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Hameer Abbasi]

> On 3. Aug 2018, at 17:44, Ralf Gommers  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Matthew Brett  > wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Stefan van der Walt
> mailto:stef...@berkeley.edu>> wrote:
> > On August 3, 2018 09:50:38 Robert Kern  > > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:01 PM Robert Kern  >> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  Nope, concision is definitely not my strength. But I hope I
> >>> made the argument clear, at least.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, wait. I got it:
> >>
> >> Bad actors use "diversity of political beliefs" in bad faith as cover for
> >> undermining the goals of the diversity statement. Marginalized groups want
> >> more assurance that our community (1) isn't one of those bad actors and (2)
> >> is willing and capable of resisting those bad actors when they come.
> >
> >
> > That's a very useful summary; thank you.
> >
> > I think we can fairly easily add a sentence that encourages participation
> > from a wide diversity of people, while making it clear that including
> > someone in the conversation does not give them free reigns in contradiction
> > with the rest of the guidelines.
> >
> > Ralf, if you agree, shall we do this for SciPy, and use the new version for
> > NumPy too?
> 
> If someone with good wordsmithing skills could draft 1-2 sentences and send a 
> PR to the SciPy repo, so we have something concrete to discuss/approve, that 
> would be great. If not, I can take a stab at it early next week.
> 
> 
> I must say, I disagree.  I think we're already treading close to the
> edge with the current document, and it's more likely we'd get closer
> still with virtually any addition on this line.   I'm in favor of
> keeping the political beliefs in there, on the basis 
> 
> There's a much more straightforward basis one can think of. There are many 
> countries in the world that have dictatorships or one-party rule. This 
> includes countries that we get regular contributions from. Expressing support 
> for, e.g., democratic elections, can land you in all sorts of trouble there.
> 
> For a US conference it may be okay to take a purely US perspective, and even 
> then the inclusion/removal of "political beliefs" can be argued (as evidenced 
> by this thread). For a project with a global reach like NumPy it's really not 
> very good to take into account only US/Western voices.
> 
> it's really not
> too hard to distinguish good-faith political beliefs, and the current
> atmosphere is so repellent to people who would not identify as
> progressive, that I would like them to feel they have some protection.
> If you will not allow me "no change"
> 
> I think "not allow" is too strong. Your opinion matters as well, so I'm happy 
> to have/facilitate a higher bandwidth discussion on this if you want (after 
> Monday). 
>  
> and you offered me a) paragraph
> by group of the not-discriminated trying to imagine something
> comforting to imagined extremely sensitive and progressive (name your
> other group here) or b) no stated defense for not-progressive persons,
> I'd take b).
> 
> Imho Robert made a very compelling argument here, so I don't completely 
> understand the choice.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ralf
> 
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@python.org 
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion 
> 

I’ve created a PR, and I’ve kept the language “not too stern”. 
https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9109 


Hameer Abbasi___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Ralf Gommers]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Matthew Brett 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Stefan van der Walt
>  wrote:
> > On August 3, 2018 09:50:38 Robert Kern  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:01 PM Robert Kern 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  Nope, concision is definitely not my strength. But I hope
> I
> >>> made the argument clear, at least.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, wait. I got it:
> >>
> >> Bad actors use "diversity of political beliefs" in bad faith as cover
> for
> >> undermining the goals of the diversity statement. Marginalized groups
> want
> >> more assurance that our community (1) isn't one of those bad actors and
> (2)
> >> is willing and capable of resisting those bad actors when they come.
> >
> >
> > That's a very useful summary; thank you.
> >
> > I think we can fairly easily add a sentence that encourages participation
> > from a wide diversity of people, while making it clear that including
> > someone in the conversation does not give them free reigns in
> contradiction
> > with the rest of the guidelines.
> >
> > Ralf, if you agree, shall we do this for SciPy, and use the new version
> for
> > NumPy too?
>

If someone with good wordsmithing skills could draft 1-2 sentences and send
a PR to the SciPy repo, so we have something concrete to discuss/approve,
that would be great. If not, I can take a stab at it early next week.


> I must say, I disagree.  I think we're already treading close to the
> edge with the current document, and it's more likely we'd get closer
> still with virtually any addition on this line.   I'm in favor of
> keeping the political beliefs in there, on the basis


There's a much more straightforward basis one can think of. There are many
countries in the world that have dictatorships or one-party rule. This
includes countries that we get regular contributions from. Expressing
support for, e.g., democratic elections, can land you in all sorts of
trouble there.

For a US conference it may be okay to take a purely US perspective, and
even then the inclusion/removal of "political beliefs" can be argued (as
evidenced by this thread). For a project with a global reach like NumPy
it's really not very good to take into account only US/Western voices.

it's really not
> too hard to distinguish good-faith political beliefs, and the current
> atmosphere is so repellent to people who would not identify as
> progressive, that I would like them to feel they have some protection.
> If you will not allow me "no change"


I think "not allow" is too strong. Your opinion matters as well, so I'm
happy to have/facilitate a higher bandwidth discussion on this if you want
(after Monday).


> and you offered me a) paragraph
> by group of the not-discriminated trying to imagine something
> comforting to imagined extremely sensitive and progressive (name your
> other group here) or b) no stated defense for not-progressive persons,
> I'd take b).
>

Imho Robert made a very compelling argument here, so I don't completely
understand the choice.

Cheers,
Ralf
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Charles R Harris]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 3:04 AM, Matthew Brett 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Stefan van der Walt
>  wrote:
> > On August 3, 2018 09:50:38 Robert Kern  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:01 PM Robert Kern 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  Nope, concision is definitely not my strength. But I hope
> I
> >>> made the argument clear, at least.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, wait. I got it:
> >>
> >> Bad actors use "diversity of political beliefs" in bad faith as cover
> for
> >> undermining the goals of the diversity statement. Marginalized groups
> want
> >> more assurance that our community (1) isn't one of those bad actors and
> (2)
> >> is willing and capable of resisting those bad actors when they come.
> >
> >
> > That's a very useful summary; thank you.
> >
> > I think we can fairly easily add a sentence that encourages participation
> > from a wide diversity of people, while making it clear that including
> > someone in the conversation does not give them free reigns in
> contradiction
> > with the rest of the guidelines.
> >
> > Ralf, if you agree, shall we do this for SciPy, and use the new version
> for
> > NumPy too?
>
> I must say, I disagree.  I think we're already treading close to the
> edge with the current document, and it's more likely we'd get closer
> still with virtually any addition on this line.   I'm in favor of
> keeping the political beliefs in there, on the basis it's really not
> too hard to distinguish good-faith political beliefs, and the current
> atmosphere is so repellent to people who would not identify as
> progressive, that I would like them to feel they have some protection.
> If you will not allow me "no change" and you offered me a) paragraph
> by group of the not-discriminated trying to imagine something
> comforting to imagined extremely sensitive and progressive (name your
> other group here) or b) no stated defense for not-progressive persons,
> I'd take b).
>
>
I propose that we accept the CoC as is. It seems fine to me and there seems
to be general support for it.

Chuck
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Matthew Brett]

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Stefan van der Walt
 wrote:
> On August 3, 2018 09:50:38 Robert Kern  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:01 PM Robert Kern  wrote:
>>>
>>>  Nope, concision is definitely not my strength. But I hope I
>>> made the argument clear, at least.
>>
>>
>> No, wait. I got it:
>>
>> Bad actors use "diversity of political beliefs" in bad faith as cover for
>> undermining the goals of the diversity statement. Marginalized groups want
>> more assurance that our community (1) isn't one of those bad actors and (2)
>> is willing and capable of resisting those bad actors when they come.
>
>
> That's a very useful summary; thank you.
>
> I think we can fairly easily add a sentence that encourages participation
> from a wide diversity of people, while making it clear that including
> someone in the conversation does not give them free reigns in contradiction
> with the rest of the guidelines.
>
> Ralf, if you agree, shall we do this for SciPy, and use the new version for
> NumPy too?

I must say, I disagree.  I think we're already treading close to the
edge with the current document, and it's more likely we'd get closer
still with virtually any addition on this line.   I'm in favor of
keeping the political beliefs in there, on the basis it's really not
too hard to distinguish good-faith political beliefs, and the current
atmosphere is so repellent to people who would not identify as
progressive, that I would like them to feel they have some protection.
If you will not allow me "no change" and you offered me a) paragraph
by group of the not-discriminated trying to imagine something
comforting to imagined extremely sensitive and progressive (name your
other group here) or b) no stated defense for not-progressive persons,
I'd take b).

Cheers,

Matthew
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Steve Pointer]

less is more.
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Hameer Abbasi]

Hi!

I feel we should make it clear that being in any specific category does not 
give you a free pass on any of the other rules. We should make that explicit, 
otherwise this looks fine to me.

Best Regards,
Hameer Abbasi

> On 3. Aug 2018, at 10:57, Stefan van der Walt  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On August 3, 2018 10:35:57 Stefan van der Walt  wrote:
> 
>> On August 3, 2018 09:50:38 Robert Kern  wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:01 PM Robert Kern >> > wrote:
>>>  Nope, concision is definitely not my strength. But I hope I 
>>> made the argument clear, at least.
>>> 
>>> No, wait. I got it:
>>> 
>>> Bad actors use "diversity of political beliefs" in bad faith as cover for 
>>> undermining the goals of the diversity statement. Marginalized groups want 
>>> more assurance that our community (1) isn't one of those bad actors and (2) 
>>> is willing and capable of resisting those bad actors when they come.
>> 
>> 
>> That's a very useful summary; thank you. 
>> 
>> I think we can fairly easily add a sentence that encourages participation 
>> from a wide diversity of people, while making it clear that including 
>> someone in the conversation does not give them free reigns in contradiction 
>> with the rest of the guidelines. 
>> 
>> Ralf, if you agree, shall we do this for SciPy, and use the new version for 
>> NumPy too?
> 
> 
> Although, perhaps, a better question to answer is how many people feel that 
> the current document is deficient, and does not go far enough in stating 
> explicitly what we want from our community interactions. 
> 
> It is always hard to tell the opinion of the sometimes silent majority? 
> 
> Best regards, 
> Stéfan 
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Stefan van der Walt]

On August 3, 2018 10:35:57 Stefan van der Walt  wrote:

On August 3, 2018 09:50:38 Robert Kern  wrote:

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:01 PM Robert Kern  wrote:
 Nope, concision is definitely not my strength. But I hope I 
made the argument clear, at least.


No, wait. I got it:

Bad actors use "diversity of political beliefs" in bad faith as cover for 
undermining the goals of the diversity statement. Marginalized groups want 
more assurance that our community (1) isn't one of those bad actors and (2) 
is willing and capable of resisting those bad actors when they come.


That's a very useful summary; thank you.

I think we can fairly easily add a sentence that encourages participation 
from a wide diversity of people, while making it clear that including 
someone in the conversation does not give them free reigns in contradiction 
with the rest of the guidelines.


Ralf, if you agree, shall we do this for SciPy, and use the new version for 
NumPy too?


Although, perhaps, a better question to answer is how many people feel that 
the current document is deficient, and does not go far enough in stating 
explicitly what we want from our community interactions.


It is always hard to tell the opinion of the sometimes silent majority?

Best regards,
Stéfan
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Stefan van der Walt]

On August 3, 2018 09:50:38 Robert Kern  wrote:

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:01 PM Robert Kern  wrote:
 Nope, concision is definitely not my strength. But I hope I 
made the argument clear, at least.


No, wait. I got it:

Bad actors use "diversity of political beliefs" in bad faith as cover for 
undermining the goals of the diversity statement. Marginalized groups want 
more assurance that our community (1) isn't one of those bad actors and (2) 
is willing and capable of resisting those bad actors when they come.


That's a very useful summary; thank you.

I think we can fairly easily add a sentence that encourages participation 
from a wide diversity of people, while making it clear that including 
someone in the conversation does not give them free reigns in contradiction 
with the rest of the guidelines.


Ralf, if you agree, shall we do this for SciPy, and use the new version for 
NumPy too?


Best regards,
Stéfan
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Antoine Pitrou]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 14:58:05 -0700
Nathaniel Smith  wrote:
> 
> Now if you see "religion" there, then what does that tell you? Maybe
> it means that these people are really excited about protecting
> oppressive religions. Or... maybe it means that they're opposed to
> anti-semitism, Islamophobia, etc. That would be a pretty obvious
> interpretation too, and makes a lot more sense in the context of the
> rest of the text. Of course you're not certain, and yeah, maybe
> someone will harass you and then claim it's because of their religion
> and then the community will point at the CoC and take their side. It's
> possible. But seeing that word isn't a huge red flag either.
> 
> What about "political affiliation"? Well, if it's the US in the 1950s,
> obviously they're taking a brave stand against McCarthyism... but
> that's probably not what jumps to anyone's mind today :-). Context
> matters! Especially in the OSCON case, where apparently they slipped
> "political affiliation" into their CoC immediately after the US
> election in 2016, without telling anyone or giving any explanation.
> That's like... perfectly designed to make people nervous and
> suspicious about their intentions.

I think we're coming back to what other posters said.  If "political
opinion" sends more of a red flag than "religion", then it probably
says a lot about US society.

Now the question is whether the CoC should be American or global.
Personally, I'm ok with an American CoC, as long as it only applies to
Americans ;-)

Regards

Antoine.
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Robert Kern]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:01 PM Robert Kern  wrote:

>  Nope, concision is definitely not my strength. But I hope I
> made the argument clear, at least.
>

No, wait. I got it:

Bad actors use "diversity of political beliefs" in bad faith as cover for
undermining the goals of the diversity statement. Marginalized groups want
more assurance that our community (1) isn't one of those bad actors and (2)
is willing and capable of resisting those bad actors when they come.

There. Okay. Vacation time.

-- 
Robert Kern
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Robert Kern]

I think I'm going to leave it there for the time being and mute this thread
until I get back from vacation. I know that's terribly rude, and you all
have my abject apologies.

-- 
Robert Kern
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion