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

[Ralf Gommers]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:59 PM Sebastian Berg 
wrote:

> On Tue, 2018-08-14 at 21:30 -0700, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Charles R Harris <
> > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Peter Creasey <
> > > p.e.creasey...@googlemail.com> 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.
> > >
> >
> > This edit to the SciPy CoC has now been merged.
> >
> > It looks to me like we're good to go here and take over the SciPy
> > CoC.
>
>
> Sounds good, so +1.
>

Added in PR https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/11865.


> I am happy with the committee as well, and I guess most/all are, but we
> might want to discuss it separately?
>

I just included it in the PR, to get something up finally. If there's any
concerns about the commitee or if someone wants to volunteer to be on it,
let's discuss it here (or if someone is not comfortable with that, email me
or someone else on the Steering Council privately).

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

[Sebastian Berg]

On Tue, 2018-08-14 at 21:30 -0700, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Peter Creasey <
> > p.e.creasey...@googlemail.com> 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.
> > 
> 
> This edit to the SciPy CoC has now been merged.
> 
> It looks to me like we're good to go here and take over the SciPy
> CoC.


Sounds good, so +1.

I am happy with the committee as well, and I guess most/all are, but we
might want to discuss it separately?

- Sebastian


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


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
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 15, 2018 06:31:08 Ralf Gommers  wrote:



On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Charles R Harris 
 wrote:


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

This edit to the SciPy CoC has now been merged.

It looks to me like we're good to go here and take over the SciPy CoC.


+1

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

[Charles R Harris]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Ralf Gommers 
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Peter Creasey <
>> p.e.creasey...@googlemail.com> 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.
>>
>
> This edit to the SciPy CoC has now been merged.
>
> It looks to me like we're good to go here and take over the SciPy CoC.
>
>
+1

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

[Jarrod Millman]

+1

Jarrod

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Ralf Gommers  wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Charles R Harris 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> This edit to the SciPy CoC has now been merged.
>
> It looks to me like we're good to go here and take over the SciPy CoC.
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Ralf Gommers]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Charles R Harris 
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Peter Creasey <
> p.e.creasey...@googlemail.com> 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.
>

This edit to the SciPy CoC has now been merged.

It looks to me like we're good to go here and take over the SciPy CoC.

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

[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 think that last one is, in fact, the point.
>

So I'll use the last one, honour = "a source of credit or distinction".
The simplest definition of diversity is a range of different things.  What
is the range?  If it just minimum, i.e. more than one, the honouring
diversity loses its power.  If its up to each individual to decide, then
its just a trivial statement that each person can honour what they want to
honour.  Hypothetically if someone defined gender identification diversity
as only a traditional male and female as decided at birth, that is "a range
of things", but that would be blatantly against the point of the CoC.  An
arbiter to decide the range has another large set of problems.  Its clear
to me at least that it must be a maximal range.  Political diversity now
has obvious issues.  Some political views are abhorrent to me, and a range
of political views that includes them is not at all a source of credit or
distinction to me.  And this problem is broader than just politics.  Back
to gender identification, hypothetically if someone identified as a female
on odd days of the month and male on even days of the month, I would
probably think they are just making a mockery of an important issue and
therefore not believe it to be a source of credit or distinction.  My point
is that no matter what I would welcome them, be respectful, and be
friendly.  That is why i suggested replacing honour with welcome.  Finally
I strongly believe that for CoC's to result in positive change they must be
carefully read and reflected upon.  That was my goal here.  I hope it has
been worth the time.  But if not take comfort that this is my last email on
this topic.

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Chris Barker  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Matthew Harrigan <
> harrigan.matt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's also key to note the specific phrasing -- it is *diversity* that is
>>> honored, whereas we would (and do) welcome diverse individuals.
>>>
>>
>> I'm afraid I miss your point.  I understand that diversity is what is
>> being honoured in the current CoC, and that is my central issue.  My issue
>> is not so much diversity, but more that honour is not the right word.  We
>> all agree (I think/hope) that we should and do welcome diverse
>> individuals.  That actually paraphrases my suggested edit:
>>
>> Though no list can hope to be comprehensive, we explicitly *welcome*
>> diversity in: age, culture, ethnicity, genotype, gender identity or
>> expression, language, national origin, neurotype, phenotype, political
>> beliefs, profession, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic
>> status, subculture and technical ability.
>>
>
> I think the authors were explicitly using a stronger word: diversity is
> not jstu welcome, it is more than welcome -- it is honored -- that is, it's
> a good thing that we explicitly want to support.
>
>
>> Practically speaking I don't think my edit means much.  I can't think of
>> a situation where someone is friendly, welcoming, and respectful to
>> everyone yet should be referred referred to CoC committee for failing to
>> honour diversity.  One goal of the CoC should be to make sure that diverse
>> people from potentially marginalized or targeted groups feel welcome and my
>> edit addresses that more directly than the original.  But in principle the
>> difference, to me at least, is stark.  Thank you for considering my view.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Chris Barker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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 think that last one is, in fact, the point.
>
> Anyway, I for one think it's fine either way, but would suggest that any
> minor changes like this be made to the SciPy CoC (of at all), and that
> numpy uses the same one.
>
> -CHB
>
>
> --
>
> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> Oceanographer
>
> Emergency Response Division
> NOAA/NOS/OR(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

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

[Chris Barker]

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Matthew Harrigan  wrote:

> It's also key to note the specific phrasing -- it is *diversity* that is
>> honored, whereas we would (and do) welcome diverse individuals.
>>
>
> I'm afraid I miss your point.  I understand that diversity is what is
> being honoured in the current CoC, and that is my central issue.  My issue
> is not so much diversity, but more that honour is not the right word.  We
> all agree (I think/hope) that we should and do welcome diverse
> individuals.  That actually paraphrases my suggested edit:
>
> Though no list can hope to be comprehensive, we explicitly *welcome*
> diversity in: age, culture, ethnicity, genotype, gender identity or
> expression, language, national origin, neurotype, phenotype, political
> beliefs, profession, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic
> status, subculture and technical ability.
>

I think the authors were explicitly using a stronger word: diversity is not
jstu welcome, it is more than welcome -- it is honored -- that is, it's a
good thing that we explicitly want to support.


> Practically speaking I don't think my edit means much.  I can't think of a
> situation where someone is friendly, welcoming, and respectful to everyone
> yet should be referred referred to CoC committee for failing to honour
> diversity.  One goal of the CoC should be to make sure that diverse people
> from potentially marginalized or targeted groups feel welcome and my edit
> addresses that more directly than the original.  But in principle the
> difference, to me at least, is stark.  Thank you for considering my view.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Chris Barker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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 think that last one is, in fact, the point.

Anyway, I for one think it's fine either way, but would suggest that any
minor changes like this be made to the SciPy CoC (of at all), and that
numpy uses the same one.

-CHB


-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR(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

[Matthew Harrigan]

>
> It's also key to note the specific phrasing -- it is *diversity* that is
> honored, whereas we would (and do) welcome diverse individuals.
>

I'm afraid I miss your point.  I understand that diversity is what is being
honoured in the current CoC, and that is my central issue.  My issue is not
so much diversity, but more that honour is not the right word.  We all
agree (I think/hope) that we should and do welcome diverse individuals.
That actually paraphrases my suggested edit:

Though no list can hope to be comprehensive, we explicitly *welcome*
diversity in: age, culture, ethnicity, genotype, gender identity or
expression, language, national origin, neurotype, phenotype, political
beliefs, profession, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic
status, subculture and technical ability.

Practically speaking I don't think my edit means much.  I can't think of a
situation where someone is friendly, welcoming, and respectful to everyone
yet should be referred referred to CoC committee for failing to honour
diversity.  One goal of the CoC should be to make sure that diverse people
from potentially marginalized or targeted groups feel welcome and my edit
addresses that more directly than the original.  But in principle the
difference, to me at least, is stark.  Thank you for considering my view.


On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Chris Barker  wrote:

>
> 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.
>>
>
> It's also key to note the specific phrasing -- it is *diversity* that is
> honored, whereas we would (and do) welcome diverse individuals.
>
> So I like the phasing as it is.
>
> -CHB
>
> --
>
> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> Oceanographer
>
> Emergency Response Division
> NOAA/NOS/OR(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 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.
>

It's also key to note the specific phrasing -- it is *diversity* that is
honored, whereas we would (and do) welcome diverse individuals.

So I like the phasing as it is.

-CHB

-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR(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

[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

[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(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(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(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(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]

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(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(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(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

[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

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

[Robert Kern]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:04 AM Charles R Harris 
wrote:

> I was opposed to having a list in the first place, because the longer such
> a list is, the more significant the omissions become. And indeed, the
> arguments I have seen for omitting "politics" are that one should be
> allowed to discriminate on the basis of politics, because, reasons.
>

I don't think that's quite fair; I think Nathaniel's example, at least, was
relatively clear, but let me see if I can summarize concisely (it's not my
strength, as these parentheticals attest, but let's give it a whirl
regardless).

The main purpose of diversity statements is to signal that we will make a
special effort to ensure that the less powerful, more vulnerable, or simply
traditionally excluded are able to participate fully, safely, and
comfortably. At the same time, we are not trying to exclude the more
powerful, less vulnerable, or traditionally included that are already
there; they just don't need the extra effort. So diversity statements end
up more or less facially neutral. Bad actors sometimes take advantage of
that facial neutrality, under the guise of "viewpoint diversity" or similar
claims, in bad faith, to make use of the community's platform to reinforce
or reassert the traditional structures that make the community less
welcoming to the less powerful, more vulnerable, and traditionally excluded
individuals. Sometimes the community is well-meaning and being taken
advantage of by the individual bad actor, but sometimes the community
itself is exercising bad faith. Sometimes the community wants the public
cover of a diversity statement in name only but continue to be unwelcoming,
using the facial neutrality of the diversity statement ot undermine the
diversity goals. "Political belief", like "viewpoint diversity", is one of
those common weak points that are exploited by these bad actors. Those
bad-faith actors and bad-faith communities are not theoretical; we have
examples. By including "political belief" in that list, we look like we
might possibly be one of those bad-faith communities. The less powerful,
more vulnerable, and traditionally excluded individuals may rightly want
more of a commitment from us that they would be truly be supported,
protected, and welcomed here.

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

Now, I'm not particularly in favor of just dropping "political belief" from
the CoC. I think the concerns are valid, but I think that those concerns
expose a structural weakness in the CoC that is better addressed with other
statements about how we deal with bad actors. "Political belief" isn't the
only exploitable item in that list, and "political belief" is also an axis
along which less powerful, etc. such that I think it's worth keeping on the
list as a reminder. Removing the list entirely for a "we welcome everyone"
message is also exploitable, as bad-faith actors will just read in whatever
they feel like they need.

Personally, I view the list best as not defining a legalistic set of
protected classes, but rather as a helpful set of examples for community
members to keep in mind as they interact with the community. This is why I
don't like a simple "follow the Golden Rule" or "Don't be a dick". It gives
absolutely no guidance to the reader. Everyone is a good person in their
own head. Telling them to be a good person doesn't give them any tools to
be better at welcoming a broader diversity in our community. They will read
that and carry on with their own personal status quo with no more
reflection. And this requires reflection and work.

-- 
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

[Hameer Abbasi]

> On 28. Jul 2018, at 00:02, Stefan van der Walt  wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> A while ago, SciPy (the library) adopted its Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/conduct/code_of_conduct.html
> 
> We worked hard to make that document friendly, while at the same time
> stating clearly the kinds of behavior that would and would not be
> tolerated.
> 
> I propose that we adopt the SciPy code of conduct for NumPy as well.  It
> is a good way to signal to newcomers that this is a community that cares
> about how people are treated.  And I think we should do anything in our
> power to make NumPy as attractive as possible!
> 
> If we adopt this document as policy, we will need to select a Code of
> Conduct committee, to whom potential transgressions can be reported.
> The individuals doing this for SciPy may very well be happy to do the
> same for NumPy, but the community should decide whom will best serve
> those roles.
> 
> Let me know your thoughts.
> 
> Thanks!
> Stéfan
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Hi all!

I’ve been following this thread mainly from the sidelines and thought I’d give 
a few of my thoughts.
I like the idea that one of the rules or “protected classes” such as people of 
a certain race, gender, political affiliation etc. can’t use their “class 
status” to break any of the other rules. I believe we can make that clear in 
not so many words.
Nathaniel’s WeAllJS CoC seems a bit too conservative, and might promote an 
overly uptight and formal atmosphere, cruising through some of the examples. 
People should be allowed to joke and express themselves, so long as it isn’t 
derogatory towards others. Use of the word “crazy” should be allowed if it 
isn’t directed towards a person/group/work, or if it expresses extremes rather 
than a mental condition.
However, I do agree that a some people do like to insult people/groups/work out 
of habit and then just call it “jokes” or “shitposting”. No version of this 
should be allowed, even in humour.

Best Regards,
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

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Antoine Pitrou  wrote:
> What if someone is wearing a religious symbol?
>
> If one is concerned about horrible beliefs or opinions, there are a
> good deal of them in many religious ("holy") books (*), yet CoCs are
> generally meant to prohibit discrimination based on religious
> beliefs...  So the argument that CoCs should not protect political
> beliefs is starting to become flimsy (horrible beliefs are ok if they
> are part of a religious system, not otherwise?).
>
> And it's not just theoretical, because people are physically repressed,
> in various parts of the world, in the name of religious beliefs.

Yeah, it's difficult. But to address specifically the question of
"what's the difference between listing religion and listing political
affiliation":

Say you're considering whether to participate in a project. Maybe
you're marginalized on some axis, or have been harassed before, and
before joining in you want to know how the community will respond if
something happens. Of course it's impossible to know, but maybe
reading the CoC can help you make some imperfect guess.

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.

What does this mean for NumPy's CoC? Not sure -- obviously the whole
"secretly added to the CoC at the same time everyone is freaking out"
part doesn't apply. I think Robert's message made some good points.

-n

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
___
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

[Allan Haldane]

On 08/02/2018 09:25 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:35 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk
> mailto:m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> I think a legalistic focus on the letter rather than the spirit of
> the code of conduct is not that helpful (and probably what makes if
> feel US centric - funny how court systems end up shaping countries).
> 
> My preference would be to keep exactly the scipy version, so that at
> least for these two highly related project there is just one code of
> conduct. But for what it is worth, it does seem to me political
> views belongs on the list - certainly as likely to give problems
> historically as for any of the others on the list.
> 
> 
> +1 to all of that. If as a result of this discussion we'd want to amend
> the CoC, let's do that to the SciPy version first (or as well) to keep
> things in sync.


+1, I've just read through all this discussion, and I favor this
approach too.

I overall agree with Scipy CoC and would be fine accepting it as is.

I might prefer it to be shorter and less legalistic as well. One of the
goals of the CoC is to attract new and diverse contributors, but we
don't want to push anyone away with a scary legal document either. But
CoCs are a fairly new and somewhat untested phenomenon in open source,
so given that the scipy CoC seems like a good and reasonable effort.

By the way, I thought these articles on CoCs were interesting [1][2],
including the interviews with open-source CoC creators on their
experience in [1] on pros and cons of "rule-based" CoCs.

Allan





[1] Tourani, Adams and Serebrenik, "Code of conduct in open source
projects," 2017 IEEE 24th International Conference on SANER, Klagenfurt,
2017, pp. 24-33.
https://www.win.tue.nl/~aserebre/SANER2017.pdf

[2]
https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-new-normal-codes-of-conduct-in-2015-and-beyond





> Cheers,
> Ralf
> 
> 
> If we do end up with a different version, I'd prefer a really short
> one, like just stating the golden rule (treat others as one would
> like to be treated oneself).
> 
> -- Marten> ___
> 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
> 

___
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 Wed, 1 Aug 2018 21:26:35 -0700
Nathaniel Smith  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:34 PM, Ryan May  wrote:
> > So I hear all the arguments about people feeling unsafe due to some truly
> > despicable, discriminatory behavior, and I want absolutely no parts of
> > protecting that. However, I also recognize that we in the U.S. are in a
> > particularly divisive atmosphere, and people of varied political persuasions
> > want absolutely nothing to do with those who share differing views. So, as a
> > concrete example, if someone were to show up at a NumPy developer summit
> > with a MAGA ("Make America Great Again") hat, or talks about their support
> > for the president in non-numpy channels, WITHOUT expressing anything
> > discriminatory or support for such views, if "political beliefs" is not in
> > the CoC, is this person welcome? I'm not worried about my own views, but I
> > have friends of widely varying views, and I truly wonder if they would be
> > welcome. With differing "political beliefs" listed as something welcomed, I
> > feel ok for them; if this language is removed, I'm much less certain.  
> 
> This is a difficult scenario. I do know lots of people who are
> uncomfortable with MAGA hats, and it's not because of they disagree
> about the details of some farm bill or whatever, it's because it's
> increasingly impossible to use that slogan without also expressing
> support for racism, sexism, transphobia, etc. -- i.e., all the other
> things that the CoC lists as unacceptable.
> 
> So I feel like... to the extent that some political position *isn't*
> tied up with those things, I can't see why people would have a problem
> with it, or why the CoC would need to bother mentioning it. (There are
> all kinds of things we don't mention – "we welcome people with odd
> *and* even telephone numbers!") And to the extent that some political
> position *is* tied up with those things... it would be pretty
> contradictory to list it as a protected class alongside race, sex,
> etc.
> 
> I'm not going to go track people down on facebook and try to guess how
> they voted or something, but if someone wore a MAGA hat to a numpy
> sprint then I'd be totally fine with asking them to take it off in
> consideration of the other participants.

What if someone is wearing a religious symbol?

If one is concerned about horrible beliefs or opinions, there are a
good deal of them in many religious ("holy") books (*), yet CoCs are
generally meant to prohibit discrimination based on religious
beliefs...  So the argument that CoCs should not protect political
beliefs is starting to become flimsy (horrible beliefs are ok if they
are part of a religious system, not otherwise?).

And it's not just theoretical, because people are physically repressed,
in various parts of the world, in the name of religious beliefs.

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

[Ralf Gommers]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:35 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk <
m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think a legalistic focus on the letter rather than the spirit of the
> code of conduct is not that helpful (and probably what makes if feel US
> centric - funny how court systems end up shaping countries).
>
> My preference would be to keep exactly the scipy version, so that at least
> for these two highly related project there is just one code of conduct. But
> for what it is worth, it does seem to me political views belongs on the
> list - certainly as likely to give problems historically as for any of the
> others on the list.
>

+1 to all of that. If as a result of this discussion we'd want to amend the
CoC, let's do that to the SciPy version first (or as well) to keep things
in sync.

Cheers,
Ralf


> If we do end up with a different version, I'd prefer a really short one,
> like just stating the golden rule (treat others as one would like to be
> treated oneself).
>
> -- Marten
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Ralf Gommers]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:57 PM, Nathaniel Smith  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Ralf Gommers 
> wrote:
> >
>
> >> For another perspective on this issue see
> >> https://where.coraline.codes/blog/oscon/, where Coraline Ada describes
> her
> >> reasons for not speaking at OSCON this year due to a similar clause in
> the
> >> code of conduct.
> >
> > There's a lot of very unrealistic examples in that post. Plus retracting
> a
> > week in advance of a conference is, to put it mildly, questionable. So
> not
> > sure what to think of the rest of that post. There may be good points in
> > there, but they're obscured by the obvious flaws in thinking and choice
> of
> > examples.
>
> Ralf, I love you, but this paragraph sounds like a parody from "How to
> suppress women's writing" or something.
>
> Coraline Ada is a prominent expert on code-of-conduct issues, and also
> a trans woman, so she gets death threats and other harassment
> constantly and "will the conference organizers protect me if someone
> comes after me?" is a real question she has to ask. She wrote a blog
> post about how O'Reilly's handling of this (not just the language, but
> the totality of circumstances -- the way it was added, the response to
> her queries, etc.) made her feel that attending would be unsafe for
> her, so she didn't attend. (And about how distressed she was to
> realize this just a week before the conference.)
>
> It seems like you're taking her post as some logical argument about
> CoCs in the abstract, with the withdrawal as some kind of
> brinksmanship, and judging it by those standards?
>

No. For one, from experience as a previous EuroSciPy program chair where we
had a pretty similar case. Keynote speaker accepted invitation, then
shortly before the event says "I cannot speak unless you introduce a CoC".
There was little discussion possible. It felt like blackmail to the whole
committee. Because, well, that's what it was. If existence or exact wording
of a CoC is that important to you as a speaker, you should check it
carefully before accepting an invitation. (and for the record, a CoC was
adding the next year after there was time for a serious discussion)

Also, I probably agree with all or almost all of her political views.
However, starting with unrealistic hypotheticals like people with neo-Nazi
insignia just ruins the credibility of the rest of the post for me.

I'm not too interested in continuing this particular discussion, it won't
be very productive. For the record, I don't much appreciate the parody
comment.

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

[Ralf Gommers]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 10:04 PM, Robert Kern  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:35 PM Ryan May  wrote:
>
>> When experts say that something is a bad idea, and when the people who
>>> a CoC is supposed to protect says it makes them feel unsafe, I feel
>>> like we should listen to that.
>>>
>>> I also thought that the points made in the Jupyter discussion thread
>>> made a lot of sense: of course it's possible for people to start
>>> harassing each other over any excuse, and a CoC can, should, and does
>>> make clear that that's not OK. But if you specifically *call out*
>>> political affiliation as a protected class, at a time when lots of the
>>> people who the CoC is trying to protect are facing governmental
>>> harassment justified as "mere political disagreement", then it really
>>> sends the wrong message.
>>>
>>> Besides, uh... isn't the whole definition of politics that it's topics
>>> where there is active debate? Not really sure why it's even in that
>>> list to start with.
>>>
>>
>> So I hear all the arguments about people feeling unsafe due to some truly
>> despicable, discriminatory behavior, and I want absolutely no parts of
>> protecting that. However, I also recognize that we in the U.S. are in a
>> particularly divisive atmosphere, and people of varied political
>> persuasions want absolutely nothing to do with those who share differing
>> views. So, as a concrete example, if someone were to show up at a NumPy
>> developer summit with a MAGA ("Make America Great Again") hat, or talks
>> about their support for the president in non-numpy channels, WITHOUT
>> expressing anything discriminatory or support for such views, if "political
>> beliefs" is not in the CoC, is this person welcome? I'm not worried about
>> my own views, but I have friends of widely varying views, and I truly
>> wonder if they would be welcome. With differing "political beliefs" listed
>> as something welcomed, I feel ok for them; if this language is removed, I'm
>> much less certain.
>>
>> IMO, "political beliefs" encompasses so much more things than a handful
>> of very specific, hateful views. People can disagree about a wide array of
>> "political beliefs" and it is important that we as a community welcome a
>> wide array of such views. If the CoC needs to protect against the wide
>> array of discriminatory views and behavior that make up U.S. politics right
>> now, how about specifically calling those behaviors out as not-welcome,
>> rather than completely ignoring the fact that 99% of "political beliefs"
>> are perfectly welcome within the community?
>>
>> The CoC is about spelling out the community norms--how about just
>> spelling out that we welcome everyone, but, in the words of Will Wheaton,
>> "Don't be a dick"?
>>
>
> I agree that it's worth clarifying in the text what this clause is
> intended to do. I think it has been misinterpreted as defining a legalistic
> set of protected classes along the lines of anti-discrimination laws and
> can be interpreted by itself outside of the context of the CoC as a whole.
> But it's not that. It's an aspirational statement, and a high one, at that,
> if we interpret it at its broadest. We will fail to meet it, in its
> entirety, and that's *okay* if the spirit of the CoC is being defended. I
> am perfectly happy to keep "political beliefs" explicit in the CoC and
> still boot the neo-feudalist for making the project's/conference's
> environment unwelcoming for a more vulnerable group of people, even if just
> by their presence. I *am* sensitive to how nominally well-intentioned
> "viewpoint diversity" efforts get hijacked by regressives looking to
> (re)assert their traditional power. But that problem is mostly confined to
> conferences who need to seek speakers and has less relevance to numpy,
> which largely doesn't run much except sprints. I think we can resolve that
> elsewhere, if not another document, then at least another clause. A CoC has
> to pull a kind of double duty: be friendly enough to digest for a newcomer
> and also be helpful to project organizers to make tough balancing
> decisions. We don't have to expect each sentence to pull that double duty
> on its own. I don't quite know what the phrasing would be (because, again,
> we don't run conferences), but I think we could make a statement that
> explicitly disclaims that we will be using "viewpoint diversity" to provide
> a platform for viewpoints antithetical to the CoC.
>

This sounds like a good idea. Should be possible to express that in a
couple of sentences, which will make the CoC better.

Cheers,
Ralf



>
> None of these categorizations listed should be interpreted as
> get-out-of-jail-free cards for otherwise unwelcoming behavior, and I think
> maybe we should be explicit about that. Our diversity statement is an
> aspiration, not a suicide pact. Religion, neurotype, national origin, and
> subculture (4chan is a subculture, God help us), at minimum, are all items
> on that list that I have 

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

[Charles R Harris]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:04 PM, Robert Kern  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:35 PM Ryan May  wrote:
>
>> When experts say that something is a bad idea, and when the people who
>>> a CoC is supposed to protect says it makes them feel unsafe, I feel
>>> like we should listen to that.
>>>
>>> I also thought that the points made in the Jupyter discussion thread
>>> made a lot of sense: of course it's possible for people to start
>>> harassing each other over any excuse, and a CoC can, should, and does
>>> make clear that that's not OK. But if you specifically *call out*
>>> political affiliation as a protected class, at a time when lots of the
>>> people who the CoC is trying to protect are facing governmental
>>> harassment justified as "mere political disagreement", then it really
>>> sends the wrong message.
>>>
>>> Besides, uh... isn't the whole definition of politics that it's topics
>>> where there is active debate? Not really sure why it's even in that
>>> list to start with.
>>>
>>
>> So I hear all the arguments about people feeling unsafe due to some truly
>> despicable, discriminatory behavior, and I want absolutely no parts of
>> protecting that. However, I also recognize that we in the U.S. are in a
>> particularly divisive atmosphere, and people of varied political
>> persuasions want absolutely nothing to do with those who share differing
>> views. So, as a concrete example, if someone were to show up at a NumPy
>> developer summit with a MAGA ("Make America Great Again") hat, or talks
>> about their support for the president in non-numpy channels, WITHOUT
>> expressing anything discriminatory or support for such views, if "political
>> beliefs" is not in the CoC, is this person welcome? I'm not worried about
>> my own views, but I have friends of widely varying views, and I truly
>> wonder if they would be welcome. With differing "political beliefs" listed
>> as something welcomed, I feel ok for them; if this language is removed, I'm
>> much less certain.
>>
>> IMO, "political beliefs" encompasses so much more things than a handful
>> of very specific, hateful views. People can disagree about a wide array of
>> "political beliefs" and it is important that we as a community welcome a
>> wide array of such views. If the CoC needs to protect against the wide
>> array of discriminatory views and behavior that make up U.S. politics right
>> now, how about specifically calling those behaviors out as not-welcome,
>> rather than completely ignoring the fact that 99% of "political beliefs"
>> are perfectly welcome within the community?
>>
>> The CoC is about spelling out the community norms--how about just
>> spelling out that we welcome everyone, but, in the words of Will Wheaton,
>> "Don't be a dick"?
>>
>
> I agree that it's worth clarifying in the text what this clause is
> intended to do. I think it has been misinterpreted as defining a legalistic
> set of protected classes along the lines of anti-discrimination laws and
> can be interpreted by itself outside of the context of the CoC as a whole.
> But it's not that. It's an aspirational statement, and a high one, at that,
> if we interpret it at its broadest. We will fail to meet it, in its
> entirety, and that's *okay* if the spirit of the CoC is being defended. I
> am perfectly happy to keep "political beliefs" explicit in the CoC and
> still boot the neo-feudalist for making the project's/conference's
> environment unwelcoming for a more vulnerable group of people, even if just
> by their presence. I *am* sensitive to how nominally well-intentioned
> "viewpoint diversity" efforts get hijacked by regressives looking to
> (re)assert their traditional power. But that problem is mostly confined to
> conferences who need to seek speakers and has less relevance to numpy,
> which largely doesn't run much except sprints. I think we can resolve that
> elsewhere, if not another document, then at least another clause. A CoC has
> to pull a kind of double duty: be friendly enough to digest for a newcomer
> and also be helpful to project organizers to make tough balancing
> decisions. We don't have to expect each sentence to pull that double duty
> on its own. I don't quite know what the phrasing would be (because, again,
> we don't run conferences), but I think we could make a statement that
> explicitly disclaims that we will be using "viewpoint diversity" to provide
> a platform for viewpoints antithetical to the CoC.
>
> None of these categorizations listed should be interpreted as
> get-out-of-jail-free cards for otherwise unwelcoming behavior, and I think
> maybe we should be explicit about that. Our diversity statement is an
> aspiration, not a suicide pact. Religion, neurotype, national origin, and
> subculture (4chan is a subculture, God help us), at minimum, are all items
> on that list that I have personally seen used to justify shitty behavior.
> Political belief is far from unique (nor the most common excuse, in my
> experience) in that 

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

[Marten van Kerkwijk]

I think a legalistic focus on the letter rather than the spirit of the code
of conduct is not that helpful (and probably what makes if feel US centric
- funny how court systems end up shaping countries).

My preference would be to keep exactly the scipy version, so that at least
for these two highly related project there is just one code of conduct. But
for what it is worth, it does seem to me political views belongs on the
list - certainly as likely to give problems historically as for any of the
others on the list.

If we do end up with a different version, I'd prefer a really short one,
like just stating the golden rule (treat others as one would like to be
treated oneself).

-- Marten
___
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

[Sylvain Corlay]

The "political belief" was recently removed from the Jupyter CoC.

One reason for this decision is that *Racism and Sexism are increasingly
considered as mainstream "political beliefs"*, and we wanted to make it
clear that people can still be sanctioned for e.g. sexist or racist
behavior when engaging with the project (at events, on the mailing list or
GitHub...) even if their racism and sexism is corresponds to a "political
belief".

It is still not OK for people to be excluded or discriminated against
because of their political affiliation. The CoC statement reads "*This
includes, but is not limited to...*". Also we* don't wish to prioritize or
elevate any members of a particular political belief to the same level as
any members of the examples remaining in the document*. Ultimately, the CoC
committee uses their own judgement to assess reports and the appropriate
response.

Best,

Sylvain


On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:04 AM, Robert Kern  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:35 PM Ryan May  wrote:
>
>> When experts say that something is a bad idea, and when the people who
>>> a CoC is supposed to protect says it makes them feel unsafe, I feel
>>> like we should listen to that.
>>>
>>> I also thought that the points made in the Jupyter discussion thread
>>> made a lot of sense: of course it's possible for people to start
>>> harassing each other over any excuse, and a CoC can, should, and does
>>> make clear that that's not OK. But if you specifically *call out*
>>> political affiliation as a protected class, at a time when lots of the
>>> people who the CoC is trying to protect are facing governmental
>>> harassment justified as "mere political disagreement", then it really
>>> sends the wrong message.
>>>
>>> Besides, uh... isn't the whole definition of politics that it's topics
>>> where there is active debate? Not really sure why it's even in that
>>> list to start with.
>>>
>>
>> So I hear all the arguments about people feeling unsafe due to some truly
>> despicable, discriminatory behavior, and I want absolutely no parts of
>> protecting that. However, I also recognize that we in the U.S. are in a
>> particularly divisive atmosphere, and people of varied political
>> persuasions want absolutely nothing to do with those who share differing
>> views. So, as a concrete example, if someone were to show up at a NumPy
>> developer summit with a MAGA ("Make America Great Again") hat, or talks
>> about their support for the president in non-numpy channels, WITHOUT
>> expressing anything discriminatory or support for such views, if "political
>> beliefs" is not in the CoC, is this person welcome? I'm not worried about
>> my own views, but I have friends of widely varying views, and I truly
>> wonder if they would be welcome. With differing "political beliefs" listed
>> as something welcomed, I feel ok for them; if this language is removed, I'm
>> much less certain.
>>
>> IMO, "political beliefs" encompasses so much more things than a handful
>> of very specific, hateful views. People can disagree about a wide array of
>> "political beliefs" and it is important that we as a community welcome a
>> wide array of such views. If the CoC needs to protect against the wide
>> array of discriminatory views and behavior that make up U.S. politics right
>> now, how about specifically calling those behaviors out as not-welcome,
>> rather than completely ignoring the fact that 99% of "political beliefs"
>> are perfectly welcome within the community?
>>
>> The CoC is about spelling out the community norms--how about just
>> spelling out that we welcome everyone, but, in the words of Will Wheaton,
>> "Don't be a dick"?
>>
>
> I agree that it's worth clarifying in the text what this clause is
> intended to do. I think it has been misinterpreted as defining a legalistic
> set of protected classes along the lines of anti-discrimination laws and
> can be interpreted by itself outside of the context of the CoC as a whole.
> But it's not that. It's an aspirational statement, and a high one, at that,
> if we interpret it at its broadest. We will fail to meet it, in its
> entirety, and that's *okay* if the spirit of the CoC is being defended. I
> am perfectly happy to keep "political beliefs" explicit in the CoC and
> still boot the neo-feudalist for making the project's/conference's
> environment unwelcoming for a more vulnerable group of people, even if just
> by their presence. I *am* sensitive to how nominally well-intentioned
> "viewpoint diversity" efforts get hijacked by regressives looking to
> (re)assert their traditional power. But that problem is mostly confined to
> conferences who need to seek speakers and has less relevance to numpy,
> which largely doesn't run much except sprints. I think we can resolve that
> elsewhere, if not another document, then at least another clause. A CoC has
> to pull a kind of double duty: be friendly enough to digest for a newcomer
> and also be helpful to project organizers to make tough 

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

[Robert Kern]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:35 PM Ryan May  wrote:

> When experts say that something is a bad idea, and when the people who
>> a CoC is supposed to protect says it makes them feel unsafe, I feel
>> like we should listen to that.
>>
>> I also thought that the points made in the Jupyter discussion thread
>> made a lot of sense: of course it's possible for people to start
>> harassing each other over any excuse, and a CoC can, should, and does
>> make clear that that's not OK. But if you specifically *call out*
>> political affiliation as a protected class, at a time when lots of the
>> people who the CoC is trying to protect are facing governmental
>> harassment justified as "mere political disagreement", then it really
>> sends the wrong message.
>>
>> Besides, uh... isn't the whole definition of politics that it's topics
>> where there is active debate? Not really sure why it's even in that
>> list to start with.
>>
>
> So I hear all the arguments about people feeling unsafe due to some truly
> despicable, discriminatory behavior, and I want absolutely no parts of
> protecting that. However, I also recognize that we in the U.S. are in a
> particularly divisive atmosphere, and people of varied political
> persuasions want absolutely nothing to do with those who share differing
> views. So, as a concrete example, if someone were to show up at a NumPy
> developer summit with a MAGA ("Make America Great Again") hat, or talks
> about their support for the president in non-numpy channels, WITHOUT
> expressing anything discriminatory or support for such views, if "political
> beliefs" is not in the CoC, is this person welcome? I'm not worried about
> my own views, but I have friends of widely varying views, and I truly
> wonder if they would be welcome. With differing "political beliefs" listed
> as something welcomed, I feel ok for them; if this language is removed, I'm
> much less certain.
>
> IMO, "political beliefs" encompasses so much more things than a handful of
> very specific, hateful views. People can disagree about a wide array of
> "political beliefs" and it is important that we as a community welcome a
> wide array of such views. If the CoC needs to protect against the wide
> array of discriminatory views and behavior that make up U.S. politics right
> now, how about specifically calling those behaviors out as not-welcome,
> rather than completely ignoring the fact that 99% of "political beliefs"
> are perfectly welcome within the community?
>
> The CoC is about spelling out the community norms--how about just spelling
> out that we welcome everyone, but, in the words of Will Wheaton, "Don't be
> a dick"?
>

I agree that it's worth clarifying in the text what this clause is intended
to do. I think it has been misinterpreted as defining a legalistic set of
protected classes along the lines of anti-discrimination laws and can be
interpreted by itself outside of the context of the CoC as a whole. But
it's not that. It's an aspirational statement, and a high one, at that, if
we interpret it at its broadest. We will fail to meet it, in its entirety,
and that's *okay* if the spirit of the CoC is being defended. I am
perfectly happy to keep "political beliefs" explicit in the CoC and still
boot the neo-feudalist for making the project's/conference's environment
unwelcoming for a more vulnerable group of people, even if just by their
presence. I *am* sensitive to how nominally well-intentioned "viewpoint
diversity" efforts get hijacked by regressives looking to (re)assert their
traditional power. But that problem is mostly confined to conferences who
need to seek speakers and has less relevance to numpy, which largely
doesn't run much except sprints. I think we can resolve that elsewhere, if
not another document, then at least another clause. A CoC has to pull a
kind of double duty: be friendly enough to digest for a newcomer and also
be helpful to project organizers to make tough balancing decisions. We
don't have to expect each sentence to pull that double duty on its own. I
don't quite know what the phrasing would be (because, again, we don't run
conferences), but I think we could make a statement that explicitly
disclaims that we will be using "viewpoint diversity" to provide a platform
for viewpoints antithetical to the CoC.

None of these categorizations listed should be interpreted as
get-out-of-jail-free cards for otherwise unwelcoming behavior, and I think
maybe we should be explicit about that. Our diversity statement is an
aspiration, not a suicide pact. Religion, neurotype, national origin, and
subculture (4chan is a subculture, God help us), at minimum, are all items
on that list that I have personally seen used to justify shitty behavior.
Political belief is far from unique (nor the most common excuse, in my
experience) in that list. But they all deserve to be on that list. I want
the somewhat fringy progressive hacktivist to feel comfortable here as well
as people more mainstream.

-- 
Robert 

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

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:34 PM, Ryan May  wrote:
> So I hear all the arguments about people feeling unsafe due to some truly
> despicable, discriminatory behavior, and I want absolutely no parts of
> protecting that. However, I also recognize that we in the U.S. are in a
> particularly divisive atmosphere, and people of varied political persuasions
> want absolutely nothing to do with those who share differing views. So, as a
> concrete example, if someone were to show up at a NumPy developer summit
> with a MAGA ("Make America Great Again") hat, or talks about their support
> for the president in non-numpy channels, WITHOUT expressing anything
> discriminatory or support for such views, if "political beliefs" is not in
> the CoC, is this person welcome? I'm not worried about my own views, but I
> have friends of widely varying views, and I truly wonder if they would be
> welcome. With differing "political beliefs" listed as something welcomed, I
> feel ok for them; if this language is removed, I'm much less certain.

This is a difficult scenario. I do know lots of people who are
uncomfortable with MAGA hats, and it's not because of they disagree
about the details of some farm bill or whatever, it's because it's
increasingly impossible to use that slogan without also expressing
support for racism, sexism, transphobia, etc. -- i.e., all the other
things that the CoC lists as unacceptable.

So I feel like... to the extent that some political position *isn't*
tied up with those things, I can't see why people would have a problem
with it, or why the CoC would need to bother mentioning it. (There are
all kinds of things we don't mention – "we welcome people with odd
*and* even telephone numbers!") And to the extent that some political
position *is* tied up with those things... it would be pretty
contradictory to list it as a protected class alongside race, sex,
etc.

I'm not going to go track people down on facebook and try to guess how
they voted or something, but if someone wore a MAGA hat to a numpy
sprint then I'd be totally fine with asking them to take it off in
consideration of the other participants.

-n

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
___
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

[Ryan May]

>
> When experts say that something is a bad idea, and when the people who
> a CoC is supposed to protect says it makes them feel unsafe, I feel
> like we should listen to that.
>
> I also thought that the points made in the Jupyter discussion thread
> made a lot of sense: of course it's possible for people to start
> harassing each other over any excuse, and a CoC can, should, and does
> make clear that that's not OK. But if you specifically *call out*
> political affiliation as a protected class, at a time when lots of the
> people who the CoC is trying to protect are facing governmental
> harassment justified as "mere political disagreement", then it really
> sends the wrong message.
>
> Besides, uh... isn't the whole definition of politics that it's topics
> where there is active debate? Not really sure why it's even in that
> list to start with.
>

So I hear all the arguments about people feeling unsafe due to some truly
despicable, discriminatory behavior, and I want absolutely no parts of
protecting that. However, I also recognize that we in the U.S. are in a
particularly divisive atmosphere, and people of varied political
persuasions want absolutely nothing to do with those who share differing
views. So, as a concrete example, if someone were to show up at a NumPy
developer summit with a MAGA ("Make America Great Again") hat, or talks
about their support for the president in non-numpy channels, WITHOUT
expressing anything discriminatory or support for such views, if "political
beliefs" is not in the CoC, is this person welcome? I'm not worried about
my own views, but I have friends of widely varying views, and I truly
wonder if they would be welcome. With differing "political beliefs" listed
as something welcomed, I feel ok for them; if this language is removed, I'm
much less certain.

IMO, "political beliefs" encompasses so much more things than a handful of
very specific, hateful views. People can disagree about a wide array of
"political beliefs" and it is important that we as a community welcome a
wide array of such views. If the CoC needs to protect against the wide
array of discriminatory views and behavior that make up U.S. politics right
now, how about specifically calling those behaviors out as not-welcome,
rather than completely ignoring the fact that 99% of "political beliefs"
are perfectly welcome within the community?

The CoC is about spelling out the community norms--how about just spelling
out that we welcome everyone, but, in the words of Will Wheaton, "Don't be
a dick"?

Ryan

-- 
Ryan May
___
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

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Ralf Gommers  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Nathan Goldbaum 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Ralf Gommers 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Nathan Goldbaum 
>>> wrote:

 I realize this was probably brought up in the discussions about the
 scipy code of conduct which I have not looked at, but I’m troubled by the
 inclusion of “political beliefs” in the document.
>>>
>>>
>>> It was not brought up explicitly as far as I remember.
>>>

 See e.g.
 https://github.com/jupyter/governance/pull/5
>>>
>>>
>>> That's about moving names around. I don't see any mention of political
>>> beliefs?
>>
>>
>> Sorry about that, I elided the 6. This is the correct link:
>>
>> https://github.com/jupyter/governance/pull/56
>
>
> Thanks, that's useful context for your question.
>
> I'm personally not too attached to "political belief", but I think the
> discussion in that PR and in the OSCON context is very US-centric and
> reflective of the polarized atmosphere there.
>
> If everyone is fine with removing political beliefs then I'm fine with that,
> but I don't think that the argument itself (from a non-US perspective) has
> much merit.

Probably a plurality of contributors are from the US though, so we
can't exactly hand-wave away how it reads in the US...

 As a thought experiment, what if someone’s political beliefs imply that
 other contributors are not deserving of human rights? Increasingly ideas
 like this are coming into the mainstream worldwide and I think this is a
 real concern that should be considered.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a difference between having beliefs, and expressing those
>>> beliefs in ways that offends others. I don't see any problem with saying
>>> that we welcome anyone, irrespective of political belief. However, if
>>> someone starts expressing things that are intolerant (like someone else not
>>> deserving human rights) on any of our communication forums or in an
>>> in-person meeting, that would be a clear violation of the CoC. Which can be
>>> dealt with via the reporting and enforcement mechanism in the CoC.
>>>
>>> I don't see a problem here, but I would see a real problem with removing
>>> the "political beliefs" phrase.

I think there's two separate issues here: (a) whether things people
express outside our forums should be considered relevant within our
forums, (b) what we're communicating by calling out "political belief"
as a thing that we won't exclude people over.

This isn't happening in a vacuum either... if you search for
"lambdaconf" you can see a ton of discussion about a programming
conference that decided to invite a guy who's a high-profile leader in
the pro-feudalism / pro-white-supremacism community (I can't believe
I'm typing that), and then conference justified it by saying things
like "we're supporting diversity of beliefs" and "this talk is purely
about his technical work, let's keep politics out of it". As it turns
out, the technical work in question is actually super tied to his
political activism -- like in the original version of the system, his
crypto key was the "king" that gave him ultimate authority, which he
could delegate to "dukes", etc. (IIRC -- I'm not looking up the
details, but it was something about that blatant.) Also all kinds of
cult-y stuff about how contributors were special chosen ones, them
against the world -- it was super creepy. But then he got VC funding,
because of course he did, and went through and renamed things as a
figleaf, so they could claim it was "purely technical".

FWIW, my personal opinion is that I'm categorically uninterested in
working with anyone like that. I don't care if they only say the
ghastly things in non-numpy channels or claim that it's "merely a
political disagreement", I'm still not interested.

>> For another perspective on this issue see
>> https://where.coraline.codes/blog/oscon/, where Coraline Ada describes her
>> reasons for not speaking at OSCON this year due to a similar clause in the
>> code of conduct.
>
> There's a lot of very unrealistic examples in that post. Plus retracting a
> week in advance of a conference is, to put it mildly, questionable. So not
> sure what to think of the rest of that post. There may be good points in
> there, but they're obscured by the obvious flaws in thinking and choice of
> examples.

Ralf, I love you, but this paragraph sounds like a parody from "How to
suppress women's writing" or something.

Coraline Ada is a prominent expert on code-of-conduct issues, and also
a trans woman, so she gets death threats and other harassment
constantly and "will the conference organizers protect me if someone
comes after me?" is a real question she has to ask. She wrote a blog
post about how O'Reilly's handling of this (not just the language, but
the totality of circumstances -- the way it was added, the response to
her queries, etc.) made her feel that attending would 

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

[Ian Henriksen]

This. Even from a US perspective, we really need to not let political
division into even more apparently non-political things. As far as I can
tell, the current language seems to be there to specifically avoid that. It
isn't there to allow discrimination if someone tries to claim they're
making a political statement.

Best,

Ian

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 10:58 AM Charles R Harris 
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Ralf Gommers 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Nathan Goldbaum 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Ralf Gommers 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Nathan Goldbaum >>> > wrote:

> I realize this was probably brought up in the discussions about the
> scipy code of conduct which I have not looked at, but I’m troubled by the
> inclusion of “political beliefs” in the document.
>

 It was not brought up explicitly as far as I remember.


> See e.g.
> https://github.com/jupyter/governance/pull/5
>

 That's about moving names around. I don't see any mention of political
 beliefs?

>>>
>>> Sorry about that, I elided the 6. This is the correct link:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/jupyter/governance/pull/56
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, that's useful context for your question.
>>
>> I'm personally not too attached to "political belief", but I think the
>> discussion in that PR and in the OSCON context is very US-centric and
>> reflective of the polarized atmosphere there.
>>
>> If everyone is fine with removing political beliefs then I'm fine with
>> that, but I don't think that the argument itself (from a non-US
>> perspective) has much merit.
>>
>
> I'm strongly opposed to removing it. The last thing I want is to have
> politics brought into NumPy development, which is where this discussion is
> already headed. It could get ugly fast.
>
> Chuck
>
> ___
> 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

[Ilhan Polat]

I agree with Ralf. That thread is more towards a US based separation.
Actually we briefly touched upon these on the SciPy side but indeed there
was no real discussion.

Political beliefs (especially communism in US for a practical example) can
offend some people and that's OK because being offended by itself doesn't
have a merit. There will always be someone getting offended by anything.
But racism, sexism etc. are not "political" stances and deserve to be
united against regardless whether someone is offended or not.

Actually calling these discriminating doctrines as "political beliefs" is
making me quite nervous instead.







On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Ralf Gommers  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Nathan Goldbaum 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Ralf Gommers 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Nathan Goldbaum 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I realize this was probably brought up in the discussions about the
 scipy code of conduct which I have not looked at, but I’m troubled by the
 inclusion of “political beliefs” in the document.

>>>
>>> It was not brought up explicitly as far as I remember.
>>>
>>>
 See e.g.
 https://github.com/jupyter/governance/pull/5

>>>
>>> That's about moving names around. I don't see any mention of political
>>> beliefs?
>>>
>>
>> Sorry about that, I elided the 6. This is the correct link:
>>
>> https://github.com/jupyter/governance/pull/56
>>
>
> Thanks, that's useful context for your question.
>
> I'm personally not too attached to "political belief", but I think the
> discussion in that PR and in the OSCON context is very US-centric and
> reflective of the polarized atmosphere there.
>
> If everyone is fine with removing political beliefs then I'm fine with
> that, but I don't think that the argument itself (from a non-US
> perspective) has much merit.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
 As a thought experiment, what if someone’s political beliefs imply that
 other contributors are not deserving of human rights? Increasingly ideas
 like this are coming into the mainstream worldwide and I think this is a
 real concern that should be considered.

>>>
>>> There is a difference between having beliefs, and expressing those
>>> beliefs in ways that offends others. I don't see any problem with saying
>>> that we welcome anyone, irrespective of political belief. However, if
>>> someone starts expressing things that are intolerant (like someone else not
>>> deserving human rights) on any of our communication forums or in an
>>> in-person meeting, that would be a clear violation of the CoC. Which can be
>>> dealt with via the reporting and enforcement mechanism in the CoC.
>>>
>>> I don't see a problem here, but I would see a real problem with removing
>>> the "political beliefs" phrase.
>>>
>>
>> For another perspective on this issue see https://where.coraline.codes/b
>> log/oscon/, where Coraline Ada describes her reasons for not speaking at
>> OSCON this year due to a similar clause in the code of conduct.
>>
>
> There's a lot of very unrealistic examples in that post. Plus retracting a
> week in advance of a conference is, to put it mildly, questionable. So not
> sure what to think of the rest of that post. There may be good points in
> there, but they're obscured by the obvious flaws in thinking and choice of
> examples.
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>> Ralf
>>>
>>>
>>>

 On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:25 PM Charles R Harris <
 charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Stefan van der Walt <
> stef...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> A while ago, SciPy (the library) adopted its Code of Conduct:
>> https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/conduct/code_
>> of_conduct.html
>>
>> We worked hard to make that document friendly, while at the same time
>> stating clearly the kinds of behavior that would and would not be
>> tolerated.
>>
>> I propose that we adopt the SciPy code of conduct for NumPy as well.
>> It
>> is a good way to signal to newcomers that this is a community that
>> cares
>> about how people are treated.  And I think we should do anything in
>> our
>> power to make NumPy as attractive as possible!
>>
>> If we adopt this document as policy, we will need to select a Code of
>> Conduct committee, to whom potential transgressions can be reported.
>> The individuals doing this for SciPy may very well be happy to do the
>> same for NumPy, but the community should decide whom will best serve
>> those roles.
>>
>> Let me know your thoughts.
>>
>
> +1 from me.
>
> 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

[Ralf Gommers]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Nathan Goldbaum 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Ralf Gommers 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Nathan Goldbaum 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I realize this was probably brought up in the discussions about the
>>> scipy code of conduct which I have not looked at, but I’m troubled by the
>>> inclusion of “political beliefs” in the document.
>>>
>>
>> It was not brought up explicitly as far as I remember.
>>
>>
>>> See e.g.
>>> https://github.com/jupyter/governance/pull/5
>>>
>>
>> That's about moving names around. I don't see any mention of political
>> beliefs?
>>
>
> Sorry about that, I elided the 6. This is the correct link:
>
> https://github.com/jupyter/governance/pull/56
>

Thanks, that's useful context for your question.

I'm personally not too attached to "political belief", but I think the
discussion in that PR and in the OSCON context is very US-centric and
reflective of the polarized atmosphere there.

If everyone is fine with removing political beliefs then I'm fine with
that, but I don't think that the argument itself (from a non-US
perspective) has much merit.


>
>
>>
>>
>>> As a thought experiment, what if someone’s political beliefs imply that
>>> other contributors are not deserving of human rights? Increasingly ideas
>>> like this are coming into the mainstream worldwide and I think this is a
>>> real concern that should be considered.
>>>
>>
>> There is a difference between having beliefs, and expressing those
>> beliefs in ways that offends others. I don't see any problem with saying
>> that we welcome anyone, irrespective of political belief. However, if
>> someone starts expressing things that are intolerant (like someone else not
>> deserving human rights) on any of our communication forums or in an
>> in-person meeting, that would be a clear violation of the CoC. Which can be
>> dealt with via the reporting and enforcement mechanism in the CoC.
>>
>> I don't see a problem here, but I would see a real problem with removing
>> the "political beliefs" phrase.
>>
>
> For another perspective on this issue see https://where.coraline.codes/
> blog/oscon/, where Coraline Ada describes her reasons for not speaking at
> OSCON this year due to a similar clause in the code of conduct.
>

There's a lot of very unrealistic examples in that post. Plus retracting a
week in advance of a conference is, to put it mildly, questionable. So not
sure what to think of the rest of that post. There may be good points in
there, but they're obscured by the obvious flaws in thinking and choice of
examples.

Cheers,
Ralf


>
>
> Cheers,
>> Ralf
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:25 PM Charles R Harris <
>>> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Stefan van der Walt <
 stef...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> A while ago, SciPy (the library) adopted its Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/conduct/code_
> of_conduct.html
>
> We worked hard to make that document friendly, while at the same time
> stating clearly the kinds of behavior that would and would not be
> tolerated.
>
> I propose that we adopt the SciPy code of conduct for NumPy as well.
> It
> is a good way to signal to newcomers that this is a community that
> cares
> about how people are treated.  And I think we should do anything in our
> power to make NumPy as attractive as possible!
>
> If we adopt this document as policy, we will need to select a Code of
> Conduct committee, to whom potential transgressions can be reported.
> The individuals doing this for SciPy may very well be happy to do the
> same for NumPy, but the community should decide whom will best serve
> those roles.
>
> Let me know your thoughts.
>

 +1 from me.

 Chuck
 ___
 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
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 Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Nathan Goldbaum  wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Ralf Gommers  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Nathan Goldbaum 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I realize this was probably brought up in the discussions about the scipy
>>> code of conduct which I have not looked at, but I’m troubled by the
>>> inclusion of “political beliefs” in the document.
>>
>>
>> It was not brought up explicitly as far as I remember.
>>
>>>
>>> See e.g.
>>> https://github.com/jupyter/governance/pull/5
>>
>>
>> That's about moving names around. I don't see any mention of political
>> beliefs?
>
>
> Sorry about that, I elided the 6. This is the correct link:
>
> https://github.com/jupyter/governance/pull/56
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> As a thought experiment, what if someone’s political beliefs imply that
>>> other contributors are not deserving of human rights? Increasingly ideas
>>> like this are coming into the mainstream worldwide and I think this is a
>>> real concern that should be considered.
>>
>>
>> There is a difference between having beliefs, and expressing those beliefs
>> in ways that offends others. I don't see any problem with saying that we
>> welcome anyone, irrespective of political belief. However, if someone starts
>> expressing things that are intolerant (like someone else not deserving human
>> rights) on any of our communication forums or in an in-person meeting, that
>> would be a clear violation of the CoC. Which can be dealt with via the
>> reporting and enforcement mechanism in the CoC.
>>
>> I don't see a problem here, but I would see a real problem with removing
>> the "political beliefs" phrase.
>
>
> For another perspective on this issue see
> https://where.coraline.codes/blog/oscon/, where Coraline Ada describes her
> reasons for not speaking at OSCON this year due to a similar clause in the
> code of conduct.

I agree with Ralf.  From your link:

"""
But the inclusion of this language, making political affiliation a
protected class, leads me to believe that alt-right technologists
would be as welcome at the conference as I would be. Including
alt-right technologists who display on their clothing, for example,
neo-Nazi insignia. Or t-shirts printed with anti-trans or anti-Black
slogans. These could easily be interpreted as protected political
speech.
"""

That's the point.  If you wear a t-shirt with anti-trans or anti-Black
slogans to a Scipy event covered by the code of conduct, that would
qualify as 'expressing things that are intolerant', as Ralf put it.

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

[Nathan Goldbaum]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Ralf Gommers  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Nathan Goldbaum 
> wrote:
>
>> I realize this was probably brought up in the discussions about the scipy
>> code of conduct which I have not looked at, but I’m troubled by the
>> inclusion of “political beliefs” in the document.
>>
>
> It was not brought up explicitly as far as I remember.
>
>
>> See e.g.
>> https://github.com/jupyter/governance/pull/5
>>
>
> That's about moving names around. I don't see any mention of political
> beliefs?
>

Sorry about that, I elided the 6. This is the correct link:

https://github.com/jupyter/governance/pull/56


>
>
>> As a thought experiment, what if someone’s political beliefs imply that
>> other contributors are not deserving of human rights? Increasingly ideas
>> like this are coming into the mainstream worldwide and I think this is a
>> real concern that should be considered.
>>
>
> There is a difference between having beliefs, and expressing those beliefs
> in ways that offends others. I don't see any problem with saying that we
> welcome anyone, irrespective of political belief. However, if someone
> starts expressing things that are intolerant (like someone else not
> deserving human rights) on any of our communication forums or in an
> in-person meeting, that would be a clear violation of the CoC. Which can be
> dealt with via the reporting and enforcement mechanism in the CoC.
>
> I don't see a problem here, but I would see a real problem with removing
> the "political beliefs" phrase.
>

For another perspective on this issue see
https://where.coraline.codes/blog/oscon/, where Coraline Ada describes her
reasons for not speaking at OSCON this year due to a similar clause in the
code of conduct.


Cheers,
> Ralf
>
>
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:25 PM Charles R Harris <
>> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Stefan van der Walt <
>>> stef...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>
 Hi everyone,

 A while ago, SciPy (the library) adopted its Code of Conduct:
 https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/conduct/code_
 of_conduct.html

 We worked hard to make that document friendly, while at the same time
 stating clearly the kinds of behavior that would and would not be
 tolerated.

 I propose that we adopt the SciPy code of conduct for NumPy as well.  It
 is a good way to signal to newcomers that this is a community that cares
 about how people are treated.  And I think we should do anything in our
 power to make NumPy as attractive as possible!

 If we adopt this document as policy, we will need to select a Code of
 Conduct committee, to whom potential transgressions can be reported.
 The individuals doing this for SciPy may very well be happy to do the
 same for NumPy, but the community should decide whom will best serve
 those roles.

 Let me know your thoughts.

>>>
>>> +1 from me.
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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

[Ralf Gommers]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Nathan Goldbaum 
wrote:

> I realize this was probably brought up in the discussions about the scipy
> code of conduct which I have not looked at, but I’m troubled by the
> inclusion of “political beliefs” in the document.
>

It was not brought up explicitly as far as I remember.


> See e.g.
> https://github.com/jupyter/governance/pull/5
>

That's about moving names around. I don't see any mention of political
beliefs?


> As a thought experiment, what if someone’s political beliefs imply that
> other contributors are not deserving of human rights? Increasingly ideas
> like this are coming into the mainstream worldwide and I think this is a
> real concern that should be considered.
>

There is a difference between having beliefs, and expressing those beliefs
in ways that offends others. I don't see any problem with saying that we
welcome anyone, irrespective of political belief. However, if someone
starts expressing things that are intolerant (like someone else not
deserving human rights) on any of our communication forums or in an
in-person meeting, that would be a clear violation of the CoC. Which can be
dealt with via the reporting and enforcement mechanism in the CoC.

I don't see a problem here, but I would see a real problem with removing
the "political beliefs" phrase.

Cheers,
Ralf



>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:25 PM Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Stefan van der Walt <
>> stef...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> A while ago, SciPy (the library) adopted its Code of Conduct:
>>> https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/conduct/
>>> code_of_conduct.html
>>>
>>> We worked hard to make that document friendly, while at the same time
>>> stating clearly the kinds of behavior that would and would not be
>>> tolerated.
>>>
>>> I propose that we adopt the SciPy code of conduct for NumPy as well.  It
>>> is a good way to signal to newcomers that this is a community that cares
>>> about how people are treated.  And I think we should do anything in our
>>> power to make NumPy as attractive as possible!
>>>
>>> If we adopt this document as policy, we will need to select a Code of
>>> Conduct committee, to whom potential transgressions can be reported.
>>> The individuals doing this for SciPy may very well be happy to do the
>>> same for NumPy, but the community should decide whom will best serve
>>> those roles.
>>>
>>> Let me know your thoughts.
>>>
>>
>> +1 from me.
>>
>> Chuck
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
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, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Stefan van der Walt 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> A while ago, SciPy (the library) adopted its Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/conduct/
> code_of_conduct.html
>
> We worked hard to make that document friendly, while at the same time
> stating clearly the kinds of behavior that would and would not be
> tolerated.
>
> I propose that we adopt the SciPy code of conduct for NumPy as well.  It
> is a good way to signal to newcomers that this is a community that cares
> about how people are treated.  And I think we should do anything in our
> power to make NumPy as attractive as possible!
>
> If we adopt this document as policy, we will need to select a Code of
> Conduct committee, to whom potential transgressions can be reported.
> The individuals doing this for SciPy may very well be happy to do the
> same for NumPy, but the community should decide whom will best serve
> those roles.
>
> Let me know your thoughts.
>

+1 from me.

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

[Stefan van der Walt]

On July 27, 2018 17:04:23 Marten van Kerkwijk  
wrote:


My ideal version would be substantially shorter, maybe just quote the 
golden rule, but I am happy with the suggestion to just adapt this text.


Agreed! There's some basic ground that needs to be covered, though, and the 
result of exploring that fully is, practically, what you see here.


I'm not opposed to modifying the document in principle, although I reckon 
it would be somewhat easier, from both a maintenance and adoption 
perspective, to use the same.


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

[Stephan Hoyer]

I would be happy to adopt the SciPy code of conduct and code of conduct
committee both.

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:04 PM Marten van Kerkwijk <
m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My ideal version would be substantially shorter, maybe just quote the
> golden rule, but I am happy with the suggestion to just adapt this text. I
> particularly appreciate the lack of absolutism in the text, and the
> acknowledgement that it is possible to have a bad day even while not
> distracting from the overall message.
> -- Marten
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Ralf Gommers 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Stefan van der Walt <
>> stef...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> A while ago, SciPy (the library) adopted its Code of Conduct:
>>>
>>> https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/conduct/code_of_conduct.html
>>>
>>> We worked hard to make that document friendly, while at the same time
>>> stating clearly the kinds of behavior that would and would not be
>>> tolerated.
>>>
>>> I propose that we adopt the SciPy code of conduct for NumPy as well.  It
>>> is a good way to signal to newcomers that this is a community that cares
>>> about how people are treated.  And I think we should do anything in our
>>> power to make NumPy as attractive as possible!
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Maybe a bit of context: the SciPy code of conduct had quite a lot of
>> discussion, and importantly in the end everyone involved in the discussion
>> was happy with (or at least not displeased by) the final document. Hence I
>> see it as a good document to adopt also by other projects.
>>
>> And here's what I wrote as the intro for that CoC discussion:
>> As you probably know, Code of Conduct (CoC) documents are becoming more
>> common every year for open source projects, and there are a number of good
>> reasons to adopt a CoC:
>> 1. It gives us the opportunity to explicitly express the values and
>> behaviors we'd like to see in our community.
>> 2. It is designed to make everyone feel welcome (and while I think we're
>> a welcoming community anyway, not having a CoC may look explicitly
>> unwelcoming to some potential contributors nowadays).
>> 3. It gives us a tool to address a set of problems if and when they
>> occur, as well as a way for anyone to report issues or behavior that is
>> unacceptable to them (much better than having those people potentially
>> leave the community).
>> 4. SciPy is not yet a fiscally sponsored project of NumFOCUS, however I
>> think we'd like to be in the near future.  NumFOCUS has started to require
>> having a CoC as a prerequisite for new projects joining it.  The PSF has
>> the same requirement for any sponsorship for events/projects that it gives.
>>
>> Note on (4): NumPy is a sponsored project of NumFOCUS, and I've been
>> asked several times how it can be that NumPy is sponsored but does not have
>> a CoC.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ralf
>>
>>
>>> If we adopt this document as policy, we will need to select a Code of
>>> Conduct committee, to whom potential transgressions can be reported.
>>> The individuals doing this for SciPy may very well be happy to do the
>>> same for NumPy, but the community should decide whom will best serve
>>> those roles.
>>>
>>> Let me know your thoughts.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> 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
>>
>>
> ___
> 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

[Charles R Harris]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk <
m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My ideal version would be substantially shorter, maybe just quote the
> golden rule, but I am happy with the suggestion to just adapt this text. I
> particularly appreciate the lack of absolutism in the text, and the
> acknowledgement that it is possible to have a bad day even while not
> distracting from the overall message.
>

I tend to the shorter is better side as well, but need to reread what SciPy
ended up with.



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

[Marten van Kerkwijk]

My ideal version would be substantially shorter, maybe just quote the
golden rule, but I am happy with the suggestion to just adapt this text. I
particularly appreciate the lack of absolutism in the text, and the
acknowledgement that it is possible to have a bad day even while not
distracting from the overall message.
-- Marten

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Ralf Gommers 
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Stefan van der Walt <
> stef...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> A while ago, SciPy (the library) adopted its Code of Conduct:
>> https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/conduct/code_
>> of_conduct.html
>>
>> We worked hard to make that document friendly, while at the same time
>> stating clearly the kinds of behavior that would and would not be
>> tolerated.
>>
>> I propose that we adopt the SciPy code of conduct for NumPy as well.  It
>> is a good way to signal to newcomers that this is a community that cares
>> about how people are treated.  And I think we should do anything in our
>> power to make NumPy as attractive as possible!
>>
>
> +1
>
> Maybe a bit of context: the SciPy code of conduct had quite a lot of
> discussion, and importantly in the end everyone involved in the discussion
> was happy with (or at least not displeased by) the final document. Hence I
> see it as a good document to adopt also by other projects.
>
> And here's what I wrote as the intro for that CoC discussion:
> As you probably know, Code of Conduct (CoC) documents are becoming more
> common every year for open source projects, and there are a number of good
> reasons to adopt a CoC:
> 1. It gives us the opportunity to explicitly express the values and
> behaviors we'd like to see in our community.
> 2. It is designed to make everyone feel welcome (and while I think we're a
> welcoming community anyway, not having a CoC may look explicitly
> unwelcoming to some potential contributors nowadays).
> 3. It gives us a tool to address a set of problems if and when they occur,
> as well as a way for anyone to report issues or behavior that is
> unacceptable to them (much better than having those people potentially
> leave the community).
> 4. SciPy is not yet a fiscally sponsored project of NumFOCUS, however I
> think we'd like to be in the near future.  NumFOCUS has started to require
> having a CoC as a prerequisite for new projects joining it.  The PSF has
> the same requirement for any sponsorship for events/projects that it gives.
>
> Note on (4): NumPy is a sponsored project of NumFOCUS, and I've been asked
> several times how it can be that NumPy is sponsored but does not have a
> CoC.
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
>
>> If we adopt this document as policy, we will need to select a Code of
>> Conduct committee, to whom potential transgressions can be reported.
>> The individuals doing this for SciPy may very well be happy to do the
>> same for NumPy, but the community should decide whom will best serve
>> those roles.
>>
>> Let me know your thoughts.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> 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
>
>
___
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, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Stefan van der Walt 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> A while ago, SciPy (the library) adopted its Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/conduct/code_
> of_conduct.html
>
> We worked hard to make that document friendly, while at the same time
> stating clearly the kinds of behavior that would and would not be
> tolerated.
>
> I propose that we adopt the SciPy code of conduct for NumPy as well.  It
> is a good way to signal to newcomers that this is a community that cares
> about how people are treated.  And I think we should do anything in our
> power to make NumPy as attractive as possible!
>

+1

Maybe a bit of context: the SciPy code of conduct had quite a lot of
discussion, and importantly in the end everyone involved in the discussion
was happy with (or at least not displeased by) the final document. Hence I
see it as a good document to adopt also by other projects.

And here's what I wrote as the intro for that CoC discussion:
As you probably know, Code of Conduct (CoC) documents are becoming more
common every year for open source projects, and there are a number of good
reasons to adopt a CoC:
1. It gives us the opportunity to explicitly express the values and
behaviors we'd like to see in our community.
2. It is designed to make everyone feel welcome (and while I think we're a
welcoming community anyway, not having a CoC may look explicitly
unwelcoming to some potential contributors nowadays).
3. It gives us a tool to address a set of problems if and when they occur,
as well as a way for anyone to report issues or behavior that is
unacceptable to them (much better than having those people potentially
leave the community).
4. SciPy is not yet a fiscally sponsored project of NumFOCUS, however I
think we'd like to be in the near future.  NumFOCUS has started to require
having a CoC as a prerequisite for new projects joining it.  The PSF has
the same requirement for any sponsorship for events/projects that it gives.

Note on (4): NumPy is a sponsored project of NumFOCUS, and I've been asked
several times how it can be that NumPy is sponsored but does not have a
CoC.

Cheers,
Ralf


> If we adopt this document as policy, we will need to select a Code of
> Conduct committee, to whom potential transgressions can be reported.
> The individuals doing this for SciPy may very well be happy to do the
> same for NumPy, but the community should decide whom will best serve
> those roles.
>
> Let me know your thoughts.
>
> Thanks!
> 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

[Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Stefan van der Walt]

Hi everyone,

A while ago, SciPy (the library) adopted its Code of Conduct:
https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/dev/conduct/code_of_conduct.html

We worked hard to make that document friendly, while at the same time
stating clearly the kinds of behavior that would and would not be
tolerated.

I propose that we adopt the SciPy code of conduct for NumPy as well.  It
is a good way to signal to newcomers that this is a community that cares
about how people are treated.  And I think we should do anything in our
power to make NumPy as attractive as possible!

If we adopt this document as policy, we will need to select a Code of
Conduct committee, to whom potential transgressions can be reported.
The individuals doing this for SciPy may very well be happy to do the
same for NumPy, but the community should decide whom will best serve
those roles.

Let me know your thoughts.

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