Re: Add Code of Conduct

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
42 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct

Flaming Hakama by Elaine
Regarding the CoC.

If there is no enforcement, then it is not clear what is the point.

In the abstract, such a document could help to set expectations of
behavior, including clarifying types of behavior that is considered
unacceptable.  Such that everyone/anyone in the community would be able to
have something to point to to say, "see this type of behavior is considered
unacceptable".

However, even with a clear CoC, any accusations of violation could be
disputed.  Reasonable people can disagree on many things, especially human
feelings, actions, and intentions.  Without an offiical enforcement
mechanism, we only really have peer pressure.  Which is exactly what we
have now.  And I don't think any of us need a CoC to identify uncivil
behavior.


The main issues with the original enforcement proposal is that it delegates
authority to the people most likely to have a conflict of interest:  the
core contributors.

If we want such a committee to be effective, it should be populated by
people who have fewer conflict of interest.  Ideally, it would include
people who primarily have good standing among the community with track
records of being helpful and diplomatic--coding chops should not be the
main criteria.  Likewise, I think we should consider recruiting at least
one person from outside the community who has experience with such things
(mediators, facilitiators, open source mentors, diversity trainers).  This
should be clear by considering the one suggested use case (sexual
harassment), since we would want a committee that is able to understand and
handle such complaints, and to which community members will feel
comfortable bringing forward such complaints.  That is not an easy thing to
construct entirely in-house.

Any such proposal should also make it clear how this committee gets
elected, have some mechanisms for limiting terms, and how to handle appeals.

In my opinion, in the abstract a CoC with enforcement is useful, but only
once the community is large enough, and if the enforcement mechanism is
transparent, democratic, and constructed to actually handle well the task
it is charged with.

I don't think either the lilypond community nor this specific proposal
comes anywhere close to this.



There are two things that have been said in this discussion so far that I
would like to point out as being un-collaborative and in violation of any
CoC worth its salt:

1) "Adopt this CoC or I will leave the community"  Such threats amount to a
my-way-or-the-highway attitude, which is an attempt to enforce veto power
in what is supposed to be a collaborative / concensus / democratic
approach.  Also difficult to disentangle the degree to which this is
intentionally or unintentionally an unprofessional attempt to elicit
praise, with the expected reactions of "oh no, don't leave, you're too
valuable".  To me, this is toxic behavior and I would welcome their
self-removal from the community if this is their idea of how to conduct
themselves in an exemplary manner.

2) Being disingenuous regarding the point of the CoC.  While it may be a
bit overboard for DK to assume that removing him is the sole point of the
proposal, it is equally disingenuous for the proposers of the CoC to
suggest that any such consequences would be unintended, since that is the
*only* actionalble part of the proposal, and DK is the most obvious target
for such concerns.  What has become clear to me is that there is a
disharmony between the original BDFL and the incumbent BDFL.  This specific
proposal for a CoC seems to me to be an attempt to provide the *appearance*
of some kind of consensus-based or otherwise democratic process, in an
effort to reinstate the original BDFL and dethrone the incumbent BDFL, when
in fact there is nothing consensus-based or democratic about the proposal
at all.  So, it has a taste of insencerity and disguised motives, which is
exactly the opposite of what a CoC should be engendering.

For both sides of this kerfuffle, I'd offer the following reality check:

* The current process relies too heavily on one contributor, and any
improvements to the process will inherently invovle untangling the many
hats being worn by the current BDFL, such that others can wear them--and
probably also reconstituting the hat wardrobe.

* Those wanting more input and responsibility should be frank about their
aims, and not disguise them behind a lofty CoC proposal.  They should
recognize that such a proposal is, in part, difficult to distinguish from a
personal attack, since it does essentially target one individual, even if
that is not the intention and eventual scope of the proposal when applied
to a future 'pond that does operate among a larger number of contributors.

* Those who currently have oversized roles should be willing to help
transform the workflow and workload such that collaboration is expanded,
such that they can focus on their areas of genius.  Also, recognize that,
while the desire to disentangle the workflows of the incumbent BDFL, it is
not intended as a personal attack, despite the fact that it is being
carried out in a way that does not make this clear.



Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954                                           "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
[hidden email]
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist ~ Educator
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct

Kieren MacMillan
Hi Elaine,

> * The current process relies too heavily on one contributor, and any
> improvements to the process will inherently invovle untangling the many
> hats being worn by the current BDFL, such that others can wear them--and
> probably also reconstituting the hat wardrobe.
>
> * Those who currently have oversized roles should be willing to help
> transform the workflow and workload such that collaboration is expanded,
> such that they can focus on their areas of genius.  Also, recognize that,
> while the desire to disentangle the workflows of the incumbent BDFL, it is
> not intended as a personal attack, despite the fact that it is being
> carried out in a way that does not make this clear.

My whole "let’s make a big hypergranular list of all the tasks" (a.k.a. "let’s reconstitute the hat wardrobe") suggestion has a primary aim of addressing those two issues directly.

Cheers,
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct

Carl Sorensen-3
In reply to this post by Flaming Hakama by Elaine


On 2/6/20, 6:28 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Flaming Hakama by Elaine" <lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

    Regarding the CoC.
   
    If there is no enforcement, then it is not clear what is the point.

Perhaps the point is to provide a support system, so that somebody who feels marginalized has others on their side.
   
    In the abstract, such a document could help to set expectations of
    behavior, including clarifying types of behavior that is considered
    unacceptable.  Such that everyone/anyone in the community would be able to
    have something to point to to say, "see this type of behavior is considered
    unacceptable".
   
    However, even with a clear CoC, any accusations of violation could be
    disputed.  Reasonable people can disagree on many things, especially human
    feelings, actions, and intentions.  Without an offiical enforcement
    mechanism, we only really have peer pressure.  Which is exactly what we
    have now.  And I don't think any of us need a CoC to identify uncivil
    behavior.

Without enforcement, perhaps the response to uncomfortable situations turn away from "accusations of violation" and instead to "I" statements -- "I felt XXX when YYY happened".  Such statements are less incendiary than accusations.
   
    The main issues with the original enforcement proposal is that it delegates
    authority to the people most likely to have a conflict of interest:  the
    core contributors.

I do not see this as the main issue.  I trust each of the individuals who were proposed to be on the committee.  The main issue I had (and continue to have) with the proposed CoC is the prospect of punitive-appearing enforcement actions taken after a private process with the complainant remaining anonymous.

I would not be concerned about anonymous "I felt" statements were the job of the committee to provide support to the complainant, rather than to provide consequences to the putative offender.
   
    If we want such a committee to be effective, it should be populated by
    people who have fewer conflict of interest.  Ideally, it would include
    people who primarily have good standing among the community with track
    records of being helpful and diplomatic--coding chops should not be the
    main criteria.  Likewise, I think we should consider recruiting at least
    one person from outside the community who has experience with such things
    (mediators, facilitiators, open source mentors, diversity trainers).  This
    should be clear by considering the one suggested use case (sexual
    harassment), since we would want a committee that is able to understand and
    handle such complaints, and to which community members will feel
    comfortable bringing forward such complaints.  That is not an easy thing to
    construct entirely in-house.
   
    Any such proposal should also make it clear how this committee gets
    elected, have some mechanisms for limiting terms, and how to handle appeals.

I agree that if we are to have a committee with the authority to banish people, the processes need to be fully spelled out and transparent.  Unfortunately, I think that a lot of effort would be spent on such activities without a corresponding amount of benefit.
   
    In my opinion, in the abstract a CoC with enforcement is useful, but only
    once the community is large enough, and if the enforcement mechanism is
    transparent, democratic, and constructed to actually handle well the task
    it is charged with.
   
    I don't think either the lilypond community nor this specific proposal
    comes anywhere close to this.
   
   
   
    There are two things that have been said in this discussion so far that I
    would like to point out as being un-collaborative and in violation of any
    CoC worth its salt:
   
    1) "Adopt this CoC or I will leave the community"  Such threats amount to a
    my-way-or-the-highway attitude, which is an attempt to enforce veto power
    in what is supposed to be a collaborative / concensus / democratic
    approach.  Also difficult to disentangle the degree to which this is
    intentionally or unintentionally an unprofessional attempt to elicit
    praise, with the expected reactions of "oh no, don't leave, you're too
    valuable".  To me, this is toxic behavior and I would welcome their
    self-removal from the community if this is their idea of how to conduct
    themselves in an exemplary manner.
   
    2) Being disingenuous regarding the point of the CoC.  While it may be a
    bit overboard for DK to assume that removing him is the sole point of the
    proposal, it is equally disingenuous for the proposers of the CoC to
    suggest that any such consequences would be unintended, since that is the
    *only* actionalble part of the proposal, and DK is the most obvious target
    for such concerns.  What has become clear to me is that there is a
    disharmony between the original BDFL and the incumbent BDFL.  This specific
    proposal for a CoC seems to me to be an attempt to provide the *appearance*
    of some kind of consensus-based or otherwise democratic process, in an
    effort to reinstate the original BDFL and dethrone the incumbent BDFL, when
    in fact there is nothing consensus-based or democratic about the proposal
    at all.  So, it has a taste of insencerity and disguised motives, which is
    exactly the opposite of what a CoC should be engendering.

As far as I can see, Han-Wen is not the person pushing the CoC the most.  I see Han-Wen pushing for simpler review processes and quicker patch implementation.  

I see Mike Solomon and Janek as the most open proponents of the CoC.  Neither one appears to want power in the LilyPond organizational structure.  Both appear to want a more welcoming and less stressful community.  I think it's important to take their requests at face value, rather than assuming hidden agendas.

Thanks,

Carl    

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct

Han-Wen Nienhuys-3
In reply to this post by Flaming Hakama by Elaine
Thanks for your careful observations.

First, the CoC was actually coined by Mike, and I saw it as a proposal to
bring LilyPond into the next decade. A CoC is a pretty normal concept these
days. If having a CoC is required to be taken seriously by developers at
large, we should consider it. I concede that CoCs haven't yet reached this
level of ubiquity, though.

For full disclosure, David has ticked me off in the past, and reacquainting
myself with the community means that I have to reacquaint myself with
David's way of communicating. One of the recent emails (about the
development process), contained a passage that felt like a blow in my
stomach and upset me to the point of considering to leave again. (When I
say this, I am not asking for adulation). If that happens to me, imagine
what happens when a new contributor is on the receiving end of that. So I
am happy to see that David is trying new ways to address this problem.

I have no personal stake in being a CoC committee member, and was actually
volunteered into it by Janek. I am happy to not be part of such a committee
(Elaine, would you be interested?), because my time is limited, and is
probably best spent in mentoring coders and explaining the code base. For
the record, I think Werner is an excellent candidate.



On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 2:28 AM Flaming Hakama by Elaine <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Regarding the CoC.
>
> If there is no enforcement, then it is not clear what is the point.
>
> In the abstract, such a document could help to set expectations of
> behavior, including clarifying types of behavior that is considered
> unacceptable.  Such that everyone/anyone in the community would be able to
> have something to point to to say, "see this type of behavior is considered
> unacceptable".
>
> However, even with a clear CoC, any accusations of violation could be
> disputed.  Reasonable people can disagree on many things, especially human
> feelings, actions, and intentions.  Without an offiical enforcement
> mechanism, we only really have peer pressure.  Which is exactly what we
> have now.  And I don't think any of us need a CoC to identify uncivil
> behavior.
>
>
> The main issues with the original enforcement proposal is that it delegates
> authority to the people most likely to have a conflict of interest:  the
> core contributors.
>
> If we want such a committee to be effective, it should be populated by
> people who have fewer conflict of interest.  Ideally, it would include
> people who primarily have good standing among the community with track
> records of being helpful and diplomatic--coding chops should not be the
> main criteria.  Likewise, I think we should consider recruiting at least
> one person from outside the community who has experience with such things
> (mediators, facilitiators, open source mentors, diversity trainers).  This
> should be clear by considering the one suggested use case (sexual
> harassment), since we would want a committee that is able to understand and
> handle such complaints, and to which community members will feel
> comfortable bringing forward such complaints.  That is not an easy thing to
> construct entirely in-house.
>
> Any such proposal should also make it clear how this committee gets
> elected, have some mechanisms for limiting terms, and how to handle
> appeals.
>
> In my opinion, in the abstract a CoC with enforcement is useful, but only
> once the community is large enough, and if the enforcement mechanism is
> transparent, democratic, and constructed to actually handle well the task
> it is charged with.
>
> I don't think either the lilypond community nor this specific proposal
> comes anywhere close to this.
>
>
>
> There are two things that have been said in this discussion so far that I
> would like to point out as being un-collaborative and in violation of any
> CoC worth its salt:
>
> 1) "Adopt this CoC or I will leave the community"  Such threats amount to a
> my-way-or-the-highway attitude, which is an attempt to enforce veto power
> in what is supposed to be a collaborative / concensus / democratic
> approach.  Also difficult to disentangle the degree to which this is
> intentionally or unintentionally an unprofessional attempt to elicit
> praise, with the expected reactions of "oh no, don't leave, you're too
> valuable".  To me, this is toxic behavior and I would welcome their
> self-removal from the community if this is their idea of how to conduct
> themselves in an exemplary manner.
>
> 2) Being disingenuous regarding the point of the CoC.  While it may be a
> bit overboard for DK to assume that removing him is the sole point of the
> proposal, it is equally disingenuous for the proposers of the CoC to
> suggest that any such consequences would be unintended, since that is the
> *only* actionalble part of the proposal, and DK is the most obvious target
> for such concerns.  What has become clear to me is that there is a
> disharmony between the original BDFL and the incumbent BDFL.  This specific
> proposal for a CoC seems to me to be an attempt to provide the *appearance*
> of some kind of consensus-based or otherwise democratic process, in an
> effort to reinstate the original BDFL and dethrone the incumbent BDFL, when
> in fact there is nothing consensus-based or democratic about the proposal
> at all.  So, it has a taste of insencerity and disguised motives, which is
> exactly the opposite of what a CoC should be engendering.
>
> For both sides of this kerfuffle, I'd offer the following reality check:
>
> * The current process relies too heavily on one contributor, and any
> improvements to the process will inherently invovle untangling the many
> hats being worn by the current BDFL, such that others can wear them--and
> probably also reconstituting the hat wardrobe.
>
> * Those wanting more input and responsibility should be frank about their
> aims, and not disguise them behind a lofty CoC proposal.  They should
> recognize that such a proposal is, in part, difficult to distinguish from a
> personal attack, since it does essentially target one individual, even if
> that is not the intention and eventual scope of the proposal when applied
> to a future 'pond that does operate among a larger number of contributors.
>
> * Those who currently have oversized roles should be willing to help
> transform the workflow and workload such that collaboration is expanded,
> such that they can focus on their areas of genius.  Also, recognize that,
> while the desire to disentangle the workflows of the incumbent BDFL, it is
> not intended as a personal attack, despite the fact that it is being
> carried out in a way that does not make this clear.
>
>
>
> Elaine Alt
> 415 . 341 .4954                                           "*Confusion is
> highly underrated*"
> [hidden email]
> Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist ~ Educator
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>


--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [hidden email] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct

James Lowe-7
On 07/02/2020 09:50, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Thanks for your careful observations.
>
> First, the CoC was actually coined by Mike, and I saw it as a proposal to
> bring LilyPond into the next decade.

What is that even supposed to mean? Again empty, ]words that sound
'nice' but mean nothing.

> A CoC is a pretty normal concept these
> days.

Here we go ... ".. everyone else does it... so we should .. " still with
no point to any of it that I can see.

> If having a CoC is required to be taken seriously by developers at
> large, we should consider it.
And for those of us who don't take them seriously and see them as an
attempt at behavioral control by certain people for certain people.
> I concede that CoCs haven't yet reached this
> level of ubiquity, though.
Probably for good reason.
> For full disclosure, David has ticked me off in the past, and reacquainting
> myself with the community means that I have to reacquaint myself with
> David's way of communicating.

Can we just stop bashing David?

> One of the recent emails (about the
> development process), contained a passage that felt like a blow in my
> stomach and upset me to the point of considering to leave again. (When I
> say this, I am not asking for adulation). If that happens to me, imagine
> what happens when a new contributor is on the receiving end of that. So I
> am happy to see that David is trying new ways to address this problem.

All without having at CoC.

>
> I have no personal stake in being a CoC committee member, and was actually
> volunteered into it by Janek. I am happy to not be part of such a committee
> (Elaine, would you be interested?), because my time is limited, and is
> probably best spent in mentoring coders and explaining the code base. For
> the record, I think Werner is an excellent candidate.
>
>
>
If we're doing a 'for the record', then just let me state here if/when
we have a CoC, I will be leaving the LP project , so I guess you better
start getting all your automation ducks in a row for patch testing and
shepherding etc, or someone else will need to step in do what I
currently do.

What a shame.

James


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct

Kieren MacMillan
Hi James,

> What a shame.

To me, the greatest shame is that all the positive energy and momentum coming out of the Salzburg conference is, it seems, in real danger of being shut down by toxic energy of the same kind that has led to the community attrition over the last 5-7 years.

Just an observation from someone who’s been here since 2003, and watched this movie before.

Regards,
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

Karlin High
In reply to this post by James Lowe-7
I think the Code of Conduct discussion is reaching (or has reached) the
point of exhaustion and is unlikely to be productive if continued
further in current directions. It seems there is pretty strong
opposition to adopting the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct as
originally proposed.

I'm thankful for the occasion to self-reflect on Lilypond's discussion
environment. I've been thinking about this a lot. A point was made
earlier that the expectation of having Codes of Conduct in open-source
communities is not going to go away. In that case, I think it would be
best to "fill the vacuum" and adopt something everyone finds acceptable.
That, as opposed to having a sufficiently-influential outside party
demand adoption of a Code the community doesn't want, as happened to the
SQLite project.

In the spirit of the recent "RFC" posts that explore different future
directions, I think I could soon propose something for a Code of
Conduct. (It draws on some centuries-old traditions of community
conflict resolution.)

However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe first. To
me, their opposition registered as the strongest.

Question: Would this opposition apply to all Codes of Conduct as a
matter of principle? Or just to the particular one that was proposed,
and you'd consider supporting a more-acceptable alternative?

And, would you like to see an alternative proposal...

* Soon
* Later
* Please never

I'm not going to propose anything now if it's felt the entire issue
needs a rest for the moment.

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

David Kastrup
Karlin High <[hidden email]> writes:

> I think the Code of Conduct discussion is reaching (or has reached)
> the point of exhaustion and is unlikely to be productive if continued
> further in current directions. It seems there is pretty strong
> opposition to adopting the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct as
> originally proposed.
>
> I'm thankful for the occasion to self-reflect on Lilypond's discussion
> environment. I've been thinking about this a lot. A point was made
> earlier that the expectation of having Codes of Conduct in open-source
> communities is not going to go away. In that case, I think it would be
> best to "fill the vacuum" and adopt something everyone finds
> acceptable. That, as opposed to having a sufficiently-influential
> outside party demand adoption of a Code the community doesn't want, as
> happened to the SQLite project.
>
> In the spirit of the recent "RFC" posts that explore different future
> directions, I think I could soon propose something for a Code of
> Conduct. (It draws on some centuries-old traditions of community
> conflict resolution.)
>
> However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe first. To
> me, their opposition registered as the strongest.
>
> Question: Would this opposition apply to all Codes of Conduct as a
> matter of principle? Or just to the particular one that was proposed,
> and you'd consider supporting a more-acceptable alternative?
>
> And, would you like to see an alternative proposal...

I've proposed looking at the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines as
something that one can point to and aim to heed.
<https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html>.  It has
certainly worthwhile advice.  I don't see that an approach focused on
providing a promise of punishment and removal will really work for the
predominant problem we are actually dealing with.  I don't think it
makes sense to promise something that one does not aim to keep, or that
one knows by experience that one will not be able to keep in spite of
trying.  A blind person cannot sensibly promise they'll stop overturning
chairs.

I have no problem with getting told "this is not ok".  By anyone.  And
the less delay there is, the sooner I can try getting the overturned
chairs up again.  Routing things through a committee is not making this
easier.  Having a code that allows people to deduce that it is my
behavior that is out of line and tell me so, pointing out just where
that is the case, might help.  But the promise of penalties is something
that will achieve nothing but frustrating both the offended parties as
well as myself until either leaves.

--
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct

Thomas Morley-2
In reply to this post by Kieren MacMillan
Am Sa., 8. Feb. 2020 um 14:59 Uhr schrieb Kieren MacMillan
<[hidden email]>:

> To me, the greatest shame is that all the positive energy and momentum coming out of the Salzburg conference is, it seems, in real danger of being shut down by toxic energy of the same kind that has led to the community attrition over the last 5-7 years.
>
> Just an observation from someone who’s been here since 2003, and watched this movie before.

Hi Kieren,

I'd like to fully agree to your statement about the positive energy,
etc out of the Salzburg conference.
It was a great event and great to meet so many people and great to
(I'll stop continuing the list ...).
Again a big, big THANK YOU to Werner and all who made it possible!!

We discussed many plans, among them (without claim of completeness)
- developer-tools (move to GitHub or similar)
- implement stuff from openlilylib
- CoC
- finally migrate to guile-2
- ...

Though, those were plans, sometimes more declarations of intents.
Ofcourse there was not the time to discuss the details.
Home again, and making those plans public, not only more people got
involved (with probably different opinions), but one had a better
opportunity to think over the details.
Thus I think it's natural, thoughts will diverge even more than
already noticed in Salzburg.

Let me pick a not so heated discussed point: developer-tools and share
my own thoughts:
While I still object going for GitHub, I changed my mind wrt to other tools.
I reflected some of my reservations, coming from simply lazyness: I
had to do hard work to get to grips with the current reviewing-setup.
Thus I feared the need to do it again. Nowadays I think, it may be
better to move away from Rietveld/sourceforge.

On other plans even more objections may happen, see James' thoughts
about the CoC.

Again, I think it's natural to observe a broader, more diverging
amount of opinions.

We need to deal with this, without starting a flame-war, going toxic
or whatever, but in a civil way.

Not going into details of the CoC-discussion, why not handle it as what it is:
It's a patch. Review showed there are too many objections. Thus it
should be set to 'needs work' or 'waiting'.
Otoh, there are suggestions to replace this proposal. Why not focus on
those proposals?



For me it's more a shame we are distracted by such discussions from
doing our work.
Although my time is very limited during the usual workingweek, I'd
love to do more on the guile-v2-thingy or at least doing tests for the
already done work, etc. Instead I write this mail (okay, a 'make
test-baseline' runs in the background) or read through very long
threads....

Cheers,
  Harm

P.S. that 'make test-baseline' failed, I'll need to investigate after
sending this.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

Karlin High
In reply to this post by David Kastrup
On 2/8/2020 9:17 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> I've proposed looking at the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines as
> something that one can point to and aim to heed.
> <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html>.  It has
> certainly worthwhile advice.

Thanks for the link. I saw it earlier, wanted to read it later, and
finally have. I agree with you that it's good advice.

> I don't see that an approach focused on
> providing a promise of punishment and removal will really work for the
> predominant problem we are actually dealing with.

I agree, and think my intended proposal does not focus on providing
punishment and removal.

> I don't think it
> makes sense to promise something that one does not aim to keep, or that
> one knows by experience that one will not be able to keep in spite of
> trying.  A blind person cannot sensibly promise they'll stop overturning
> chairs.
>
> I have no problem with getting told "this is not ok".  By anyone.  And
> the less delay there is, the sooner I can try getting the overturned
> chairs up again.  Routing things through a committee is not making this
> easier.  Having a code that allows people to deduce that it is my
> behavior that is out of line and tell me so, pointing out just where
> that is the case, might help.  But the promise of penalties is something
> that will achieve nothing but frustrating both the offended parties as
> well as myself until either leaves.

Thanks for sharing. None of that seems like a basic conflict with the
ideas I have.

In light of the 2 questions earlier, I'm registering this as responses of:

* Not opposed to all Codes of Conduct as a matter of principle, but
deeply concerned about provisions for their enforcement.

* No proposal now, give the issue a rest

Corrections are desired if I am wrong in that.
--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct

David Kastrup
In reply to this post by Thomas Morley-2
Thomas Morley <[hidden email]> writes:

> Although my time is very limited during the usual workingweek, I'd
> love to do more on the guile-v2-thingy or at least doing tests for the
> already done work, etc. Instead I write this mail (okay, a 'make
> test-baseline' runs in the background) or read through very long
> threads....
>
> Cheers,
>   Harm
>
> P.S. that 'make test-baseline' failed, I'll need to investigate after
> sending this.

Now that most of the original guile-v2-work branch is in, I should
likely give this another try and also see which of the remaining three
XXX patches is required and why.  And possibly what else.

I think having a state where it works out of the box without byte
compilation would be a less distracting starting point for searching a
solution for the compilation problem.  It would be disruptive if we had
to abandon the markup macro.  Not that I am the least bit fond of it,
but it's almost omnipresent.

--
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct

Kieren MacMillan
In reply to this post by Thomas Morley-2
Hi Harm,

Fair points, all.

> Again a big, big THANK YOU to Werner and all who made it possible!!

+1!

> Not going into details of the CoC-discussion, why not handle it as what it is:
> It's a patch. Review showed there are too many objections. Thus it
> should be set to 'needs work' or 'waiting'.
> Otoh, there are suggestions to replace this proposal. Why not focus on
> those proposals?

Excellent suggestion.

Thanks,
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct

David Kastrup
Kieren MacMillan <[hidden email]> writes:

> Hi Harm,
>
> Fair points, all.
>
>> Again a big, big THANK YOU to Werner and all who made it possible!!
>
> +1!

Major seconded.

>> Not going into details of the CoC-discussion, why not handle it as what it is:
>> It's a patch. Review showed there are too many objections. Thus it
>> should be set to 'needs work' or 'waiting'.
>> Otoh, there are suggestions to replace this proposal. Why not focus on
>> those proposals?
>
> Excellent suggestion.

Unsurprisingly I am partial to that suggestion.

--
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct

David Kastrup
In reply to this post by Thomas Morley-2
Thomas Morley <[hidden email]> writes:

> P.S. that 'make test-baseline' failed, I'll need to investigate after
> sending this.
>
>

input/regression/display-lily-tests.ly:230:1: fatal error: Test unequal: BUG.
in  = \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list))
out = \applyOutput Foo ##f


\test ##[ \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list)) #]


Not much of a surprise here: Guile-2 does not keep the source of
functions around in general.  And Urs turned warnings in that file into
errors so that they would not get overlooked.  Which certainly is
sensible, but it means we need to think about what to do here.

--
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct

Urs Liska-3
Am Samstag, den 08.02.2020, 17:31 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:

> Thomas Morley <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> > P.S. that 'make test-baseline' failed, I'll need to investigate
> > after
> > sending this.
> >
> >
>
> input/regression/display-lily-tests.ly:230:1: fatal error: Test
> unequal: BUG.
> in  = \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list))
> out = \applyOutput Foo ##f
>
>
> \test ##[ \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list)) #]
>
>
> Not much of a surprise here: Guile-2 does not keep the source of
> functions around in general.  And Urs

? (is there another one around here?)

> turned warnings in that file into
> errors so that they would not get overlooked.  Which certainly is
> sensible, but it means we need to think about what to do here.
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct

David Kastrup
Urs Liska <[hidden email]> writes:

> Am Samstag, den 08.02.2020, 17:31 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Thomas Morley <[hidden email]> writes:
>>
>> > P.S. that 'make test-baseline' failed, I'll need to investigate
>> > after
>> > sending this.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> input/regression/display-lily-tests.ly:230:1: fatal error: Test
>> unequal: BUG.
>> in  = \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list))
>> out = \applyOutput Foo ##f
>>
>>
>> \test ##[ \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list)) #]
>>
>>
>> Not much of a surprise here: Guile-2 does not keep the source of
>> functions around in general.  And Urs
>
> ? (is there another one around here?)

Dan.  Knowing my luck, now both will be offended.  Sorry.

>> turned warnings in that file into
>> errors so that they would not get overlooked.  Which certainly is
>> sensible, but it means we need to think about what to do here.

--
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct

Urs Liska-3
Am Samstag, den 08.02.2020, 17:52 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:

> Urs Liska <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> > Am Samstag, den 08.02.2020, 17:31 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> > > Thomas Morley <[hidden email]> writes:
> > >
> > > > P.S. that 'make test-baseline' failed, I'll need to investigate
> > > > after
> > > > sending this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > input/regression/display-lily-tests.ly:230:1: fatal error: Test
> > > unequal: BUG.
> > > in  = \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list))
> > > out = \applyOutput Foo ##f
> > >
> > >
> > > \test ##[ \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list)) #]
> > >
> > >
> > > Not much of a surprise here: Guile-2 does not keep the source of
> > > functions around in general.  And Urs
> >
> > ? (is there another one around here?)
>
> Dan.  Knowing my luck, now both will be offended.  Sorry.

No, I'm not offended ;-)

Urs
>
> > > turned warnings in that file into
> > > errors so that they would not get overlooked.  Which certainly is
> > > sensible, but it means we need to think about what to do here.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

Phil Holmes
In reply to this post by Karlin High
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karlin High" <[hidden email]>
>
> However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe first. To
> me, their opposition registered as the strongest.


I remain strongly opposed to a CoC.

--
Phil Holmes

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

Werner LEMBERG

>> However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe
>> first. To me, their opposition registered as the strongest.
>
> I remain strongly opposed to a CoC.

Hmm.  What about simply using the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines,
maybe adding 'LilyPond' at some strategic places?


    Werner

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

David Kastrup
Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]> writes:

>>> However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe
>>> first. To me, their opposition registered as the strongest.
>>
>> I remain strongly opposed to a CoC.
>
> Hmm.  What about simply using the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines,
> maybe adding 'LilyPond' at some strategic places?

"This page is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License."

Which is sort-of stupid given the character of a loose accumulation of
advice, but one could still put something around them stating how we
desire them to be applied to LilyPond's various media.

--
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

123