Re: [racket-users] RacketCon Code of Conduct

[Andrew Gwozdziewycz]

I used to run a Meetup in NYC called "Hack and Tell." For the first 5
years or something I kind of expected people to just be nice to each
other, and do the right thing. Then, I started having private
conversations with people, some women, some POC, and realized they had
bad interactions that I just simply wasn't aware of.

So, yeah, it's nice to think that people will behave and do the right
thing, but it's not guaranteed, and everyone will have a *better*
experience if there's a code of conduct and it's taken seriously and
enforced.

+1000 on having a code of conduct. Sorry, Matthias.

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:13 PM, 'William J. Bowman' via Racket Users
 wrote:
> If men were angels... +1 for a CoC.
>
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 09:50:53PM +0300, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>>
>> A code of conduct is a totally stupid idea for RacketCon. Racketeers were 
>> raised properly by their parents and are well behaved. I really hate 
>> attending conferences that need to impose a code.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Racket Users" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Racket Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



-- 
http://www.apgwoz.com

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [racket-users] RacketCon Code of Conduct

['William J. Bowman' via Racket Users]

If men were angels... +1 for a CoC.

On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 09:50:53PM +0300, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> 
> A code of conduct is a totally stupid idea for RacketCon. Racketeers were 
> raised properly by their parents and are well behaved. I really hate 
> attending conferences that need to impose a code. 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Racket Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [racket-users] RacketCon Code of Conduct

[Matt Jadud]

I'm with Claire 100%.

I think the code of conduct proposed as a starting point is completely
reasonable.

So, "+1."

Cheers,
Matt

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 12:07 PM, claire alvis 
wrote:

> On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 2:53:23 PM UTC-4, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> > A code of conduct is a totally stupid idea for RacketCon. Racketeers
> were raised properly by their parents and are well behaved. I really hate
> attending conferences that need to impose a code.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [racket-users] RacketCon Code of Conduct

[claire alvis]

On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 2:53:23 PM UTC-4, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> A code of conduct is a totally stupid idea for RacketCon. Racketeers were 
> raised properly by their parents and are well behaved. I really hate 
> attending conferences that need to impose a code.

Not all people at the conference will be Racketeers.

Not all people at the conference will have the same definition of "raised 
properly by their parents".

Not all people considering attending the conference will know whether or not 
this is a safe community.  Some may be unwilling to spend the money to attend 
RacketCon without knowing ahead of time that they are meant to be welcome.  
Some may not be interested in a community that refuses to explicitly say toxic 
people are unwelcome.

If you all have a definition of what "raised properly by their parents" means, 
writing down that definition both deters potentially toxic people from 
attending and, more importantly, attracts people who have previously had bad 
experiences at programming language conferences.  A code of conduct is a simple 
signal of inclusivity and it helps people decide whether a community is worth 
their time and energy.

I don't doubt that you all will continue to treat each other with respect (and 
deal with people who are not respectful) with or without a code of conduct.  
But I would suggest by not being explicit, you are making an unfortunate 
tradeoff: excluding a set of people who could otherwise be valuable members of 
your community by leaving the door open for toxicity.

Needless to say, as a RacketCon attendee, Racket observer, and person who has 
experienced harassment and other inappropriate behavior at conferences in the 
past, +1 for a code of conduct.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [racket-users] RacketCon Code of Conduct

[Stephen De Gabrielle]

As a middle-aged white heterosexual male I've never needed a COC.

It is my understanding that clear COCs (that are enforced) are valuable in
that they reduce the both the incidence and impact of discrimination and
harassment.

Kind regards

Stephen

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 at 19:53, Matthias Felleisen 
wrote:

>
> A code of conduct is a totally stupid idea for RacketCon. Racketeers were
> raised properly by their parents and are well behaved. I really hate
> attending conferences that need to impose a code.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Racket Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
-- 
Kind regards,
Stephen
--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [racket-users] Simple define-require-syntax question

[Matthew Flatt]

At Sun, 18 Jun 2017 06:47:24 -0400, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
> First, it seems like since the whole point of require is to pollute the
> surrounding namespace, an "unhygienic" require would be better.

Generally, I don't see the difference between `require` and `define` in
terms of the intent to bind identifiers. Many parts of Racket rely on
`require` binding being hygienic in the same way as definitions.

But...

> My past experiences of this kind of problem have all been related to
> #lang and module and require-level binding, come to think of it. It
> seems a murky area. Perhaps other kinds of hygiene-preserving techniques
> than those that work well for expressions are needed for these areas?

... I agree that hygiene is not always a convenient default for module
languages, which frequently want to introduce non-hygienic bindings. I
don't know how to make this better, but it's something to think about.

Also, the way that `require` forms synthesize binding names is
non-hygienic in a sense or at some level, which is probably what you're
getting at initially.


> And second, I'm used to macros hinging on the binding of the identifier
> in their car, namely `submod` here.

That would be worse, because `submod` itself is bound (as a `require`
form), and you might want to introduce a binding using `submod` in a
context that doesn't have a binding for `submod` itself.

Most binding-synthesizing macros in Racket work that way (or should)
--- using the context of the parentheses for introducing bindings,
instead of the context of the identifier. Non-hygienic macros don't
compose well, but that distinction makes them usefully more composable.

In the case of `submod`, the context of the submodule name would work
just as well as the context of the parentheses, and would have been
more convenient for your use, but it's less convenient in some other
uses.

> PS. Why do *parentheses* have a binding context, anyway??

Mostly for `#%app`, but it's also a handy as a general convention for
distinguishing binding context from use context.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [racket-users] Simple define-require-syntax question

[Tony Garnock-Jones]

On 06/17/2017 08:02 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> As a `require` form, a `submod`'s binding context is taken from the
> parenthesis around the `submod`. With options (A) and (B), the context
> of those parentheses is macro-introduced.

Thanks!

So this `submod` binding context is being used to mark the
ultimately-introduced identifiers, right? So, in the example, v1 would
be marked with the (macro-introduced) context of the `submod` form. And
it is this marking that prevents the use of v1 in `main` from lining up
with the definition of v1.

This seems weird to me for two reasons.

First, it seems like since the whole point of require is to pollute the
surrounding namespace, an "unhygienic" require would be better. (I don't
know how this would work!)

And second, I'm used to macros hinging on the binding of the identifier
in their car, namely `submod` here. (Using #'submod instead of 'submod
in option (C) works fine too, incidentally.) This point is definitely
minor compared to the first one.

Either way, I was confused that the obvious thing didn't work, and maybe
other authors of define-require-syntax transformers start out confused
too. It took me quite a while, and past scars from mysterious binding
problems, to think of option (C).

My past experiences of this kind of problem have all been related to
#lang and module and require-level binding, come to think of it. It
seems a murky area. Perhaps other kinds of hygiene-preserving techniques
than those that work well for expressions are needed for these areas?

Cheers,
  Tony

PS. Why do *parentheses* have a binding context, anyway??

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.