I'm not going to read the comments here, for obvious reasons, but I do just want to clarify three things:
- I accept the apology.
- I do not accept the assertion that "At the time of the interview, the committee had not determined that there was a violation of the code of conduct, only that there were two complaints filed and being examined." The email to set up the call said "We would like to schedule a meeting so that we can discuss the results of our investigation with you" - nothing further. During the call, the committee stated the list of violations, and said "that is what the reporters stated, and what we found". I asked why they didn't take a statement from me before that finding, and they said "we all watched the video, so we could see for ourselves the violation".
- The committee offered in their apology email to me to have a follow-up discussion, and I declined the offer.
I respect and admire your class in response to these events. The temptation to get vindictive must be enormous, as must be the temptation to demand a groveling apology.
I noted your support for diversity and inclusion initiatives —- with which I sympathize —- but I’m also increasingly uneasy about the pressure from certain interest groups to “judicialize” organizations. I’ve noticed a tendency for many (though certainly not all) CoC-enforcement bodies to devolve into witch hunts, and this appears to be part of what happened in the present case. If this is something you’re interested in discussing publicly, I’d be interested in your thoughts on the matter. I can also understand if you’d prefer to stay away from that discussion.
In any case, please let me reiterate: I admire how you handled this.
It seems to say that Jeremy is still considered guilty of a CoC violation but if he appeals then the board will hear it (rather than the committee). So Jeremey has to file an appeal or the decision will stand? So the onus to fix this is on Jeremy who seems so exhausted by this whole process that he's quit conference talks?
That seems a response that lacks any sense of empathy to Jeremy.
edit: Okay. On Twitter they said that no judgement was made even now. However their enforcement policy (which the apology explicitly references) only mentions appeal if an action was already decided upon "Give them a place to appeal to if there is one, but in the meantime the action stands." Given that not adhering to their own process and written documents was a chief complaint it seems they haven't learned much yet from the incident.
You will also note that the word "sorry" is entirely missing. And the list of things that they failed to "acknowledge" includes their not telling him what rule he was accused of violating, what action of his violated the rule, having literally laughed at him, and having violated their own code of conduct.
They also offer nothing in the way of amends. Or do anything to suggest that there will be consequences to the people who screwed up.
Given that, their assurance that they will use this "to improve our policies going forward" sounds like the meaningless hollow BS that it is.
Saying "we apologize" multiple times is the same as "we're sorry".
They've said their communications were in error in the way they described the complaints, the status of the investigation, and their charged language.
They've kicked the whole thing up to the responsible organizational Board of Directors for more action - which is to say, completely removed the group that made the errors from next steps.
That's about as good an public apology from one specific committee, with limited remit, as is possible!
If NumFocus as a whole takes further steps, I'm sure we'll hear. But there's no reason to hold up this 'mea culpa' until everything is settled at all levels. Promptness is better than perfection!
They're apologizing for how they handled the incident:
> We apologize for causing this stress and will work to improve our process to avoid this from happening in the future.
> We apologize for not communicating that clearly from the beginning.
They are not apologizing for the existence of the complaints. They do not imply that Jeremy is considered guilty -- they say that the issue is unresolved:
> We should have been clearer saying multiple complaints have been made and the alleged violation investigation had not been resolved.
Their language does not seem to put the onus on Jeremy:
> Because of the missteps of this committee, we have asked the NumFOCUS Board of Directors to take over the work of the committee as outlined in the appeals process of our enforcement guide.
>They are not apologizing for the existence of the complaints. They do not imply that Jeremy is considered guilty -- they say that the issue is unresolved:
It's very unclear to me if they meant to say Jeremy was not guilty when they talked to him at a certain point in time or if he is still not guilty.
>Their language does not seem to put the onus on Jeremy:
What you quoted also says:
>outlined in the appeals process of our enforcement guide.
Are appeals automatic in the enforcement guide or is an appeal already pending?
edit: And if he was never found guilty then why is this an appeals process. Doesn't that usually mean an initial judgement was rendered and is being appealed?
What's the point of appealing this thing, anyway? I wouldn't appeal it on the grounds that that would mean I'm conceding that they have some sort of power here. From my (naive) perspective, they really don't. Besides looking incompetent to me and (hopefully) others, this entire ordeal just looks like a huge waste of time and energy.
I read it quite differently. It sounds to me that he is still accused but they have not confirmed the violation yet. The committee has recused themselves from that decision.
That seems correct based on their Twitter comments however their apology reference something (appeal) and a context (enforcement policy) which only applies (as written in the enforcement policy) if an action (read: penalty) was already decided upon. Given the original issues Jeremy had I would have assumed they'd take extra care to follow their own as written process and documents in the follow up. Clearly not.
Their own communication to him said that they were discussing the results of the investigation with him, without talking to him during the investigation. They're not being honest.
This all reminds me of a talk Justice Scalia once gave. The gist was that the US Constitution isn't very good compared to a lot of countries' equivalent document. For example, the Soviet's Bill of Rights was undoubtedly better.
The important issue is how you structure the governing bodies and separate powers. If you don't do this correctly then your Constitution, or bill of rights, or Code of Conduct, is worthless.
I don't think the tech community has figured out this second part.
What fascinates me is that all companies and organisations (at a certain scale) will have to decide a governance structure that is better than - that guy is in charge.
Co-ops are one step forward but that was basically a century ago and stopped. What's the 21 C answer?
> This all reminds me of a talk Justice Scalia once gave. The gist was that the US Constitution isn't very good compared to a lot of countries' equivalent document. For example, the Soviet's Bill of Rights was undoubtedly better.
I am assuming Scalia would have been referring to the 1977 Soviet Constitution [0], which has no "Bill of Rights", but does have Chapter 6 (concerning equality) and Chapter 7 (concerning basic rights and duties of citizens). Taken together, are Chapter 6 & 7 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution "undoubtedly better" than the US Constitutions "Bill of Rights" (Amendments I-X, possibly also XXVII, which was one of the original 12 articles proposed as the Bill of Rights)? I'm going to say most Americans would say "no".
I mean, sure, lots of people would say that Article 34-35, in Chapter 6, are more explicit and complete on their face than the protections in the US Constitution (which have been mostly read into the Bill of Rights against the federal government by way of the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment, and against the states through the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th, but aren't very explicit in either case.) But I think many people who start out liking where Article 36 seems headed in the first sentence (though they might wonder why it is reiterating what is already explicit in Article 34) would be worried by the turn it takes after that: "Citizens of the USSR of different races and nationalities have equal rights. Exercise of these rights is ensured by a policy of all-round development and drawing together of all the nations and nationalities of the USSR, by educating citizens in the spirit of Soviet patriotism and socialist internationalism, and by the possibility to use their native language and the languages of other peoples in The USSR. Any direct or indirect limitation of the rights of citizens or establishment of direct or indirect privileges on grounds of race or nationality, and any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law.")
And I think many in the US (especially left of center) would like most of the first part of Chapter 7, say Articles 39-58, with the exception of the last sentence of Article 39 ("Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state, or infringe the rights of other citizens") which would raise a lot of alarm bells, and the introduction to Article 51 ("In accordance with the aims of building communism") which pretty much everyone not a Communist would have problems with.
But then things take a big turn starting at Article 59 ("Citizens' exercise of their rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance of their duties and obligations. Citizens of the USSR are obliged to observe the Constitution of the USSR and Soviet laws, comply with the standards of socialist conduct, and uphold the honour and dignity of Soviet citizenship") which raises the same alarm bells that were probably going off from Article 39.
There are people who make arguments that something liek Article 60 ("It is the duty of, and matter of honour for, every able-bodied citizen of the USSR to work conscientiously in his chosen, socially useful occupation, and strictly to observe labour discipline. Evasion of socially useful work is incompatible with the principles of socialist society") ought to be a rule in the US, but they tend to be exactly the people that would find the positive rights earlier in Chapter 7 unacceptable, and vice versa.
I think, left to right (even if they express something similar as a social expectation) most Americans would recoil at the first sentence of Article 62 as a Constitutional mandate: "Citizens of the USSR are obliged to safeguard the interests of the Soviet state, and to enhance its power and prestige."
And, while there might be broad support for the idea that the duties of citizenship articulated in the rest of Articles 60-69 are legitimate duties of citizenship, or at least virtues of citizenship, at least if you stripped the explicit references to socialism, I don't think most Americans would accept them as Constitutional mandates tied to the express relationship between freedom and duties in Article 59.
Ask yourself, would you really accept the base US Constitution and its structure of separation of powers, with the Bill of Rights and similar amendments that deal with rights of people and not primarily structure of government (say, Amendments I-X, XIII-XV, XIX, XXIV, and XXVI) replaced by Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution (even with removal of by-name references to socialism/communism)?
I'm going to say that while most Americans might like some aspects of Chapter 6/7, they'd reject that idea and the concept that the Soviet "Bill of Rights" was "undoubtedly better", even if they didn't know the source was the 1977 Soviet Constitution.
It was a very effective response from Jeremy. He clearly describes his side of the story and convincingly explains why he thought he did nothing wrong.
What is a little more troubling is that he (A) describes codes of conduct in detail and repeatedly affirms his allegiance to the general idea behind CoCs, including describing "previous sexual assault allegations" as "behaviors" he "strongly agrees" should be stopped. (B) He goes some way towards portraying himself as a victim, describing in graphic detail his lack of "emotional resilience". I wonder if he realized what a thin line he was walking with (A), because he now has a "previous CoC violation allegation" on his permanent record, regardless of his acquittal.
In other words, he very strongly backs the spirit, letter, and zeitgeist of CoCs before describing why he thinks he did not violate them in this specific case. I think these were very wise tactical moves, although they leave a bad taste in my mouth, and I can't help but wonder if this approach affected the outcome. I don't recall seeing an apology ever given, let alone changes instituted, for CoC violation allegations.
I think you are vastly overestimating the significance behind having a "previous CoC violation allegation on [one's] permanent record". Who's keeping, and enforcing on, permanent records of this sort? Every org is going to call this one for themselves, and the facts are out there.
> NumFOCUS found I violated their Code of Conduct (CoC) at JupyterCon because my talk was not “kind”, because I said Joel Grus was “wrong” regarding his opinion that Jupyter Notebook is not a good software development environment
Don't leave out the best part (the very next sentence)
> Joel (who I greatly respect, and consider an asset to the data science community) was not involved in NumFOCUS’s action, was not told about it, and did not support it.
Remember, this is just one side. Is there any detailed response from the other side? With something like this the tone and atmosphere has a grave weight on the perception. Like you can say someone is wrong in a nice, professional way, but also in a meany, bullying way.
And it doesn't even need to be seen by the involved people as mean, if they have such a "toxic" type relationship. But a Code of Conduct is also a bit about the perception of others, and how it sells a project.
In his statement there are hints indicating in this direction. He mentions his talk was made as a parody. Parodies by nature are on a thin line between being funny englightment, and being mean bullying. So it can be the case that his see himself as funny, while other might see it as a mean insult.
And he mentions some unwritten rules which were applied to him specifically because his talk was somewhat special because it was an opener(?) or something. Which means he got more attention than your regular talk.
Whenever I see things like this, it always makes me think out of all the problems we have right now in the world do we really need to spend time in trivial things like this?
This is the real issue. CoC proponents seem to think writing down the correct rules is sufficient. But rules are only as good or bad as their enforcement.
CoCs didn't jump out of the void for no reason. They are a response to years of harassment and unprofessional behavior at conferences. Conferences have always had a list of rules to follow and breaking the rules could get you ejected from the conference. In theory all a CoC should do is codify some bad behaviors that people believe to be acceptable but are actually not, so in that regard they shouldn't be controversial.
You hit the nail on the head though: if the people enforcing the conference rules don't act in good faith or don't follow the rules then the rules don't matter.
In theory a conference could just have a rule that says "act professionally" and if properly enforced that would be sufficient. On the flip side such a conference could have a petty tyrant rules lawyer for an enforcer and decide anyone they don't like was not acting "professionally".
There is no outside body that could (or should) be adjudicators. Conferences live and die by their reputation. All we can do is judge them by their actions.
This apology rings hollow to me. A person of Jeremy Howard's statue was able to raise the issue in the media and get it resolved.
I would like to understand what would happen to a person who is not of a Jeremy Howard's statue and does not have such a access to the public discourse?
One thing I found interesting is the only name in the letter is Jeremy's. It's "signed" by the committee. Is that a reputation protection technique? A way to diffuse responsibility? It seems like an imbalance of power to be able to drag someone's name through the mud while being anonymous yourself
> A person of Jeremy Howard's statue was able to raise the issue in the media and get it resolved.
But it's not though. They aren't apologizing for dragging him through the mud, they're apologizing that people got the impression that they had already rendered judgement on these complaints. They're still "under investigation."
This is a good response as far as the actual process goes, but it doesn't really do anything to address the claims that "There were two totally different Codes of Conduct with different requirements linked in different places" and "I was held to a different, undocumented and uncommunicated standard"
I read the apology without knowing the backstory. It just feels so weasel-worded: they apologise for their process but certainly don’t make any suggestion that was innocent so actually increasing the smear. A proper apology also needs personal, private apologies from the committee members. I can only hope that Jeremy receives a better apology than this for the shit he has been made to chew by them.
They don't believe he was innocent, at best they believe the question is still up for debate and at worst they believe he is guilty but are putting off a public claim until things calm down.
Ok, I'm not heavily steeped in this, but at first glance this seems like total bullshit.
Note that the original complaint was both 1) that the code of conduct people were being, well, total assholes, and 2) that the complaints were so obviously ridiculous that the entire exercise seemed like it could only be a power trip for those involved.
The apology addressed neither. They apologized for being unclear about what stage of the investigation they were in. No apology for laughing at Jeremy's distress, no apology for the witch hunt, etc.
The grand remedy? Replace 3/4 of the people on the committee.
The apology is so vague and PR-washed that it’s nearly impossible to draw any conclusions.
At this point, they won’t even acknowledge that the initial accusations were unreasonable. In fact, it appears they’ve simply transferred the investigation up a level to the board of directors so it can continue.
A real apology would have acknowledged that they mishandled the situation and taken steps to resolve it as fast as possible. This feels more like an attempt to justify their actions, move the goal posts about what they did wrong, and move the investigation back behind closed doors within NumFOCUS.
Please just publicly acknowledge that this should have been resolved within a day or two by absolving Jeremey of wrongdoing, and without this never ending inquisition that now involves even more and higher-ranking individuals at NumFOCUS.
This is such a simple issue that never should have gone this far.
Why would you expect people who have shown little empathy up to this point and seem to enjoy their sense of power to suddenly act different when confronted? It's a bureaucratic BS statement from people who revel in bureaucratic BS.
The CoC members should all be expelled from the NumFocus community. They have done far more to make NumFocus a a non-welcoming community than just about any CoC violation.
Another option is to just directly fund developers instead of through organizations. I tried to find the audits on the NumFOCUS website, but I wasn't able to find how much of the donations they are getting gets to the developers themselves. I would imagine, that it could be even under 50%.
At very least the action is something to point to, and maintain reputation. Almost 5 years ago a hostile employer did this to me and since then most of my huge former network built over 15+ years have stopped associating with me and are starting to assume I’m mentally ill and hung up on it, but in truth I simply can’t work anymore due to the reference check process having been compromised and former associates lacking support.
I’m now forced to go through legal channels to clear my name. If I can get an acknowledgement of their mistake then life will get much easier to explain. Too bad about the content, non-apology, but I’d not undetestimate the act alone.
Except their apology doesn't do what you're saying as it doesn't say he was innocent or that he didn't violate the CoC. It simply says they didn't fully follow their process and that if he wants to appeal the board will hear it. As I read it he is still considered guilty unless the board accepts the appeal.
edit: And since he seems too emotionally exhausted by this to deal with it further there will possibly be no appeal filed and thus he will stay guilty by default.
Readit News
- I accept the apology.
- I do not accept the assertion that "At the time of the interview, the committee had not determined that there was a violation of the code of conduct, only that there were two complaints filed and being examined." The email to set up the call said "We would like to schedule a meeting so that we can discuss the results of our investigation with you" - nothing further. During the call, the committee stated the list of violations, and said "that is what the reporters stated, and what we found". I asked why they didn't take a statement from me before that finding, and they said "we all watched the video, so we could see for ourselves the violation".
- The committee offered in their apology email to me to have a follow-up discussion, and I declined the offer.
I noted your support for diversity and inclusion initiatives —- with which I sympathize —- but I’m also increasingly uneasy about the pressure from certain interest groups to “judicialize” organizations. I’ve noticed a tendency for many (though certainly not all) CoC-enforcement bodies to devolve into witch hunts, and this appears to be part of what happened in the present case. If this is something you’re interested in discussing publicly, I’d be interested in your thoughts on the matter. I can also understand if you’d prefer to stay away from that discussion.
In any case, please let me reiterate: I admire how you handled this.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
It seems to say that Jeremy is still considered guilty of a CoC violation but if he appeals then the board will hear it (rather than the committee). So Jeremey has to file an appeal or the decision will stand? So the onus to fix this is on Jeremy who seems so exhausted by this whole process that he's quit conference talks?
That seems a response that lacks any sense of empathy to Jeremy.
edit: Okay. On Twitter they said that no judgement was made even now. However their enforcement policy (which the apology explicitly references) only mentions appeal if an action was already decided upon "Give them a place to appeal to if there is one, but in the meantime the action stands." Given that not adhering to their own process and written documents was a chief complaint it seems they haven't learned much yet from the incident.
You will also note that the word "sorry" is entirely missing. And the list of things that they failed to "acknowledge" includes their not telling him what rule he was accused of violating, what action of his violated the rule, having literally laughed at him, and having violated their own code of conduct.
They also offer nothing in the way of amends. Or do anything to suggest that there will be consequences to the people who screwed up.
Given that, their assurance that they will use this "to improve our policies going forward" sounds like the meaningless hollow BS that it is.
Saying "we apologize" multiple times is the same as "we're sorry".
They've said their communications were in error in the way they described the complaints, the status of the investigation, and their charged language.
They've kicked the whole thing up to the responsible organizational Board of Directors for more action - which is to say, completely removed the group that made the errors from next steps.
That's about as good an public apology from one specific committee, with limited remit, as is possible!
If NumFocus as a whole takes further steps, I'm sure we'll hear. But there's no reason to hold up this 'mea culpa' until everything is settled at all levels. Promptness is better than perfection!
> We apologize for causing this stress and will work to improve our process to avoid this from happening in the future.
> We apologize for not communicating that clearly from the beginning.
They are not apologizing for the existence of the complaints. They do not imply that Jeremy is considered guilty -- they say that the issue is unresolved:
> We should have been clearer saying multiple complaints have been made and the alleged violation investigation had not been resolved.
Their language does not seem to put the onus on Jeremy:
> Because of the missteps of this committee, we have asked the NumFOCUS Board of Directors to take over the work of the committee as outlined in the appeals process of our enforcement guide.
(emphasis mine)
It's very unclear to me if they meant to say Jeremy was not guilty when they talked to him at a certain point in time or if he is still not guilty.
>Their language does not seem to put the onus on Jeremy:
What you quoted also says:
>outlined in the appeals process of our enforcement guide.
Are appeals automatic in the enforcement guide or is an appeal already pending?
edit: And if he was never found guilty then why is this an appeals process. Doesn't that usually mean an initial judgement was rendered and is being appealed?
The important issue is how you structure the governing bodies and separate powers. If you don't do this correctly then your Constitution, or bill of rights, or Code of Conduct, is worthless.
I don't think the tech community has figured out this second part.
Co-ops are one step forward but that was basically a century ago and stopped. What's the 21 C answer?
The article talks about the various ways of structuring organisations, giving each a colour. The author sees teal companies as the latest evolution.
[1]: https://www.strategy-business.com/article/00344?gko=30876
I am assuming Scalia would have been referring to the 1977 Soviet Constitution [0], which has no "Bill of Rights", but does have Chapter 6 (concerning equality) and Chapter 7 (concerning basic rights and duties of citizens). Taken together, are Chapter 6 & 7 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution "undoubtedly better" than the US Constitutions "Bill of Rights" (Amendments I-X, possibly also XXVII, which was one of the original 12 articles proposed as the Bill of Rights)? I'm going to say most Americans would say "no".
I mean, sure, lots of people would say that Article 34-35, in Chapter 6, are more explicit and complete on their face than the protections in the US Constitution (which have been mostly read into the Bill of Rights against the federal government by way of the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment, and against the states through the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th, but aren't very explicit in either case.) But I think many people who start out liking where Article 36 seems headed in the first sentence (though they might wonder why it is reiterating what is already explicit in Article 34) would be worried by the turn it takes after that: "Citizens of the USSR of different races and nationalities have equal rights. Exercise of these rights is ensured by a policy of all-round development and drawing together of all the nations and nationalities of the USSR, by educating citizens in the spirit of Soviet patriotism and socialist internationalism, and by the possibility to use their native language and the languages of other peoples in The USSR. Any direct or indirect limitation of the rights of citizens or establishment of direct or indirect privileges on grounds of race or nationality, and any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law.")
And I think many in the US (especially left of center) would like most of the first part of Chapter 7, say Articles 39-58, with the exception of the last sentence of Article 39 ("Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state, or infringe the rights of other citizens") which would raise a lot of alarm bells, and the introduction to Article 51 ("In accordance with the aims of building communism") which pretty much everyone not a Communist would have problems with.
But then things take a big turn starting at Article 59 ("Citizens' exercise of their rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance of their duties and obligations. Citizens of the USSR are obliged to observe the Constitution of the USSR and Soviet laws, comply with the standards of socialist conduct, and uphold the honour and dignity of Soviet citizenship") which raises the same alarm bells that were probably going off from Article 39.
There are people who make arguments that something liek Article 60 ("It is the duty of, and matter of honour for, every able-bodied citizen of the USSR to work conscientiously in his chosen, socially useful occupation, and strictly to observe labour discipline. Evasion of socially useful work is incompatible with the principles of socialist society") ought to be a rule in the US, but they tend to be exactly the people that would find the positive rights earlier in Chapter 7 unacceptable, and vice versa.
I think, left to right (even if they express something similar as a social expectation) most Americans would recoil at the first sentence of Article 62 as a Constitutional mandate: "Citizens of the USSR are obliged to safeguard the interests of the Soviet state, and to enhance its power and prestige."
And, while there might be broad support for the idea that the duties of citizenship articulated in the rest of Articles 60-69 are legitimate duties of citizenship, or at least virtues of citizenship, at least if you stripped the explicit references to socialism, I don't think most Americans would accept them as Constitutional mandates tied to the express relationship between freedom and duties in Article 59.
Ask yourself, would you really accept the base US Constitution and its structure of separation of powers, with the Bill of Rights and similar amendments that deal with rights of people and not primarily structure of government (say, Amendments I-X, XIII-XV, XIX, XXIV, and XXVI) replaced by Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution (even with removal of by-name references to socialism/communism)?
I'm going to say that while most Americans might like some aspects of Chapter 6/7, they'd reject that idea and the concept that the Soviet "Bill of Rights" was "undoubtedly better", even if they didn't know the source was the 1977 Soviet Constitution.
[0] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Soviet_Un...
https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/
What is a little more troubling is that he (A) describes codes of conduct in detail and repeatedly affirms his allegiance to the general idea behind CoCs, including describing "previous sexual assault allegations" as "behaviors" he "strongly agrees" should be stopped. (B) He goes some way towards portraying himself as a victim, describing in graphic detail his lack of "emotional resilience". I wonder if he realized what a thin line he was walking with (A), because he now has a "previous CoC violation allegation" on his permanent record, regardless of his acquittal.
In other words, he very strongly backs the spirit, letter, and zeitgeist of CoCs before describing why he thinks he did not violate them in this specific case. I think these were very wise tactical moves, although they leave a bad taste in my mouth, and I can't help but wonder if this approach affected the outcome. I don't recall seeing an apology ever given, let alone changes instituted, for CoC violation allegations.
To use an extreme comparison: I suspect that most of the people who are falsely accused of murder still believe that murder should be illegal.
I wonder how much this has affected his lifetime earning potential?
Couple that with the "public apology" seems like an open and shut lawsuit that many lawyers would be happy to take on contingency.
Wow.
> Joel (who I greatly respect, and consider an asset to the data science community) was not involved in NumFOCUS’s action, was not told about it, and did not support it.
And it doesn't even need to be seen by the involved people as mean, if they have such a "toxic" type relationship. But a Code of Conduct is also a bit about the perception of others, and how it sells a project.
In his statement there are hints indicating in this direction. He mentions his talk was made as a parody. Parodies by nature are on a thin line between being funny englightment, and being mean bullying. So it can be the case that his see himself as funny, while other might see it as a mean insult.
And he mentions some unwritten rules which were applied to him specifically because his talk was somewhat special because it was an opener(?) or something. Which means he got more attention than your regular talk.
Running a fair, competent and accountable court is really hard, and to think otherwise is hubris at best, and unbridled ideology at worst.
Edit: apologies for the multiple edits. It sometimes takes me a few tries to precisely express my thoughts.
You hit the nail on the head though: if the people enforcing the conference rules don't act in good faith or don't follow the rules then the rules don't matter.
In theory a conference could just have a rule that says "act professionally" and if properly enforced that would be sufficient. On the flip side such a conference could have a petty tyrant rules lawyer for an enforcer and decide anyone they don't like was not acting "professionally".
There is no outside body that could (or should) be adjudicators. Conferences live and die by their reputation. All we can do is judge them by their actions.
I would like to understand what would happen to a person who is not of a Jeremy Howard's statue and does not have such a access to the public discourse?
Sadly, it seems true. If you don't have an audience, no one will care what happens to you.
But it's not though. They aren't apologizing for dragging him through the mud, they're apologizing that people got the impression that they had already rendered judgement on these complaints. They're still "under investigation."
It's really not an apology at all.
Deleted Comment
Note that the original complaint was both 1) that the code of conduct people were being, well, total assholes, and 2) that the complaints were so obviously ridiculous that the entire exercise seemed like it could only be a power trip for those involved.
The apology addressed neither. They apologized for being unclear about what stage of the investigation they were in. No apology for laughing at Jeremy's distress, no apology for the witch hunt, etc.
The grand remedy? Replace 3/4 of the people on the committee.
Did I miss something here?
At this point, they won’t even acknowledge that the initial accusations were unreasonable. In fact, it appears they’ve simply transferred the investigation up a level to the board of directors so it can continue.
A real apology would have acknowledged that they mishandled the situation and taken steps to resolve it as fast as possible. This feels more like an attempt to justify their actions, move the goal posts about what they did wrong, and move the investigation back behind closed doors within NumFOCUS.
Please just publicly acknowledge that this should have been resolved within a day or two by absolving Jeremey of wrongdoing, and without this never ending inquisition that now involves even more and higher-ranking individuals at NumFOCUS.
This is such a simple issue that never should have gone this far.
I’m now forced to go through legal channels to clear my name. If I can get an acknowledgement of their mistake then life will get much easier to explain. Too bad about the content, non-apology, but I’d not undetestimate the act alone.
edit: And since he seems too emotionally exhausted by this to deal with it further there will possibly be no appeal filed and thus he will stay guilty by default.