Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

amindfv
Hi Fumiaki!

     I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced view than before talking with everyone here.
     Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the +1/-1 chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important progress to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler changes).

     To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a pretty stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared away and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part to fix it. I'd propose:

     - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly we're not finished.
     - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.
     - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.

     If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again, regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's your fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything at all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"

Thanks, all!
Tom

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]> wrote:
The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I guess I shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a patch instead.

2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>:
It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make people grumpy).


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

Tony Morris
> It's your fault if you didn't get the joke"

This never happened.

> Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"

This did.

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:18 AM, Tom Murphy <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Fumiaki!

     I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced view than before talking with everyone here.
     Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the +1/-1 chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important progress to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler changes).

     To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a pretty stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared away and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part to fix it. I'd propose:

     - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly we're not finished.
     - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.
     - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.

     If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again, regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's your fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything at all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"

Thanks, all!
Tom

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]> wrote:
The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I guess I shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a patch instead.

2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>:
It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make people grumpy).


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

Haskell - Libraries mailing list
In reply to this post by amindfv

Friends

 

I second what Tom says below.

 

Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.

 

I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any views on that?

 

Simon

 

From: Libraries [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Murphy
Sent: 02 April 2017 19:18
To: Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>
Cc: libraries <[hidden email]>
Subject: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

 

Hi Fumiaki!

     I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced view than before talking with everyone here.

     Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the +1/-1 chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important progress to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler changes).

     To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a pretty stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared away and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part to fix it. I'd propose:

     - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly we're not finished.

     - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.

     - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.

 

     If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again, regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's your fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything at all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"

Thanks, all!

Tom

 

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]> wrote:

The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I guess I shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a patch instead.

 

2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>:

It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make people grumpy).

 


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

 


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

Tony Morris-4

I was hoping an apology could be accepted, and move on.


On 03/04/17 18:13, Simon Peyton Jones via Libraries wrote:

Friends

 

I second what Tom says below.

 

Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.

 

I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any views on that?

 

Simon

 

From: Libraries [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Murphy
Sent: 02 April 2017 19:18
To: Fumiaki Kinoshita [hidden email]
Cc: libraries [hidden email]
Subject: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

 

Hi Fumiaki!

     I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced view than before talking with everyone here.

     Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the +1/-1 chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important progress to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler changes).

     To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a pretty stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared away and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part to fix it. I'd propose:

     - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly we're not finished.

     - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.

     - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.

 

     If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again, regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's your fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything at all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"

Thanks, all!

Tom

 

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]> wrote:

The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I guess I shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a patch instead.

 

2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>:

It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make people grumpy).

 


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

 



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

Henning Thielemann
In reply to this post by Haskell - Libraries mailing list

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Simon Peyton Jones via Libraries wrote:

> I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful
> to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online
> communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone
> to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any
> views on that?

I think these Code of Conducts make things even worse because then some
people start to check every word against these codes. Instead I suggest we
make more use of humor. E.g. Carter Schonwald's comment about grumpy
people made me think about renaming my prelude-compat package to
grumpy-prelude. :-)
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

Tikhon Jelvis
In reply to this post by Haskell - Libraries mailing list
Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).

One of the best examples I've seen in the wild had a single rule: no personal attacks. It's simple to understand and follow with no risk of stifling or derailing real discussions, and yet unambiguously rules out the majority of rude comments I see online (ignoring spam and outright trolling).

I do *not* like Rust's code of conduct specifically. It does not provide clear guidelines on civility/politeness and covers too many other things, including a lot of (often political) baggage. Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule? The rule on politeness is clearly deemphasized: "Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be mean or rude." is so vague it may as well not be in the code of conduct. We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do that consistently. The "Citizen Code of Conduct" they link to has even more baggage and I believe it should *not* serve as the basis for anything we might adopt as a community.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html see section "In Comments"

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community <[hidden email]> wrote:

Friends

 

I second what Tom says below.

 

Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.

 

I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any views on that?

 

Simon

 

From: Libraries [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Murphy
Sent: 02 April 2017 19:18
To: Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>
Cc: libraries <[hidden email]>
Subject: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

 

Hi Fumiaki!

     I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced view than before talking with everyone here.

     Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the +1/-1 chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important progress to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler changes).

     To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a pretty stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared away and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part to fix it. I'd propose:

     - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly we're not finished.

     - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.

     - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.

 

     If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again, regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's your fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything at all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"

Thanks, all!

Tom

 

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]> wrote:

The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I guess I shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a patch instead.

 

2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>:

It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make people grumpy).

 


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

 


_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

Francesco Ariis
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:52:38AM -0700, Tikhon Jelvis wrote:
> Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct
> that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear
> guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite
> way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at
> least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).

You might be interested in Ruby's COC [1] too. They had a discussion
some time ago and Matz&co requirements were "short and to the point".
Indeed it's very clear to read.

[1] https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/conduct/
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

Bryan Richter-2
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:32:01AM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:52:38AM -0700, Tikhon Jelvis wrote:
> > Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct
> > that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear
> > guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite
> > way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at
> > least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).
>
> You might be interested in Ruby's COC [1] too. They had a discussion
> some time ago and Matz&co requirements were "short and to the point".
> Indeed it's very clear to read.
+1 to having an explicit code of conduct. All communities have such a
code; some are merely unwritten and harder to scrutinize.

For a slightly longer example that is still rather clear, Snowdrift.coop
has its code here: https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/community/conduct. It can
be summarized as, "Act with honor and good will, assume good faith, and
do not use hostile language." It's very similar to Ruby's code, with
Ruby's first item captured in "act with honor and good will", and Ruby's
second and forth items captured in "do not use hostile language".

I like that they both include the assumption of good faith.

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

signature.asc (817 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

Carter Schonwald
In reply to this post by Henning Thielemann
:)

I look forward to the ways we all disagree. 

I personally worry that a code of conduct still has a crucial weakness, .... HUMANS. 

interpretation of natural language rules or human behavior always has an ambiguous element, and this is why any sufficiently not sure set of rules *must* have a legal enforcment and judicial infrastructure. 

(i think Tikhon articulates my perspective on code of conducts way better than I could )

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Henning Thielemann <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Simon Peyton Jones via Libraries wrote:

I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any views on that?

I think these Code of Conducts make things even worse because then some people start to check every word against these codes. Instead I suggest we make more use of humor. E.g. Carter Schonwald's comment about grumpy people made me think about renaming my prelude-compat package to grumpy-prelude. :-)
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

Carter Schonwald
In reply to this post by Tikhon Jelvis
agreed with Tikhon's points, they say it way better than I could

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Tikhon Jelvis <[hidden email]> wrote:
Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).

One of the best examples I've seen in the wild had a single rule: no personal attacks. It's simple to understand and follow with no risk of stifling or derailing real discussions, and yet unambiguously rules out the majority of rude comments I see online (ignoring spam and outright trolling).

I do *not* like Rust's code of conduct specifically. It does not provide clear guidelines on civility/politeness and covers too many other things, including a lot of (often political) baggage. Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule? The rule on politeness is clearly deemphasized: "Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be mean or rude." is so vague it may as well not be in the code of conduct. We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do that consistently. The "Citizen Code of Conduct" they link to has even more baggage and I believe it should *not* serve as the basis for anything we might adopt as a community.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html see section "In Comments"

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community <[hidden email]> wrote:

Friends

 

I second what Tom says below.

 

Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.

 

I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any views on that?

 

Simon

 

From: Libraries [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Murphy
Sent: 02 April 2017 19:18
To: Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>
Cc: libraries <[hidden email]>
Subject: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

 

Hi Fumiaki!

     I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced view than before talking with everyone here.

     Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the +1/-1 chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important progress to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler changes).

     To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a pretty stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared away and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part to fix it. I'd propose:

     - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly we're not finished.

     - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.

     - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.

 

     If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again, regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's your fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything at all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"

Thanks, all!

Tom

 

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]> wrote:

The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I guess I shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a patch instead.

 

2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>:

It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make people grumpy).

 


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

 


_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

Elliot Cameron-2
+1 on Tikhon's points as well. Short and sweet. Get to the point. Leave it at that. The bigger it is, the more there is to argue about!

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Carter Schonwald <[hidden email]> wrote:
agreed with Tikhon's points, they say it way better than I could

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Tikhon Jelvis <[hidden email]> wrote:
Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).

One of the best examples I've seen in the wild had a single rule: no personal attacks. It's simple to understand and follow with no risk of stifling or derailing real discussions, and yet unambiguously rules out the majority of rude comments I see online (ignoring spam and outright trolling).

I do *not* like Rust's code of conduct specifically. It does not provide clear guidelines on civility/politeness and covers too many other things, including a lot of (often political) baggage. Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule? The rule on politeness is clearly deemphasized: "Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be mean or rude." is so vague it may as well not be in the code of conduct. We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do that consistently. The "Citizen Code of Conduct" they link to has even more baggage and I believe it should *not* serve as the basis for anything we might adopt as a community.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html see section "In Comments"

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community <[hidden email]> wrote:

Friends

 

I second what Tom says below.

 

Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.

 

I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any views on that?

 

Simon

 

From: Libraries [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Murphy
Sent: 02 April 2017 19:18
To: Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>
Cc: libraries <[hidden email]>
Subject: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

 

Hi Fumiaki!

     I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced view than before talking with everyone here.

     Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the +1/-1 chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important progress to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler changes).

     To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a pretty stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared away and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part to fix it. I'd propose:

     - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly we're not finished.

     - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.

     - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.

 

     If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again, regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's your fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything at all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"

Thanks, all!

Tom

 

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]> wrote:

The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I guess I shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a patch instead.

 

2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>:

It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make people grumpy).

 


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

 


_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

Paolo Giarrusso
In reply to this post by Tikhon Jelvis
Rust's code of conduct (and the conduct of leaders) have been very successful at creating a welcoming community. However, those rules were there from the start.

What's crucial is that a code of conduct is really agreed upon by a community and its elders. So thanks to Simon Peyton Jones for starting this conversation.
In particular, a CoC to address known issues (not just in the present discussion) would probably be easier to agree on.

> We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do that consistently.

The guideline I find useful is "assume good faith" (used for instance in Wikipedia), as long as you don't have extraordinary evidence. And that's a guidelines that needs to be stated.
Opinions on politeness in the wild are much more varied. How polite do you need to be, if somebody insists on being wrong? And with actual trolls?

> Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule?

I don't know if it's a strict rule there, how strict it should be, or whether it works in a CoC. But I find it a very good guideline for educated debate. I learned it (implicitly) in my academic PL training: PL design is founded on math but is no science yet. Debate in hard sciences is different.

Because this rule is in fact fundamental to establish respect under disagreement. The Rust CoC says "There is *seldom* a right answer." If a question has a right answer, the others become wrong, misguided, heretics, .... idiots... OK, you can censor the word "idiot", but that won't help much. Or you can admit that reasonable people might disagree on `Foldable ((,) a)` (as most already agree), and give that as a guideline, just as "assume good faith". That doesn't make "2 + 2 = 5" legitimate of course—some "common sense" is still needed.

"There is *seldom* a right answer" is an unstated rule in academic papers (where it's implied by peer review), and it IMHO works rather well there, even on the few academics who will loudly proclaim elsewhere there is a right answer.

Indeed, I don't want to misrepresent SPJ, but I feel he is often happy to talk about Haskell tradeoffs when they're there, even when others loudly proclaim Haskell is strictly and clearly better than X.

Cheers,
Paolo

On Apr 3, 2017 10:55, "Tikhon Jelvis" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).

One of the best examples I've seen in the wild had a single rule: no personal attacks. It's simple to understand and follow with no risk of stifling or derailing real discussions, and yet unambiguously rules out the majority of rude comments I see online (ignoring spam and outright trolling).

I do *not* like Rust's code of conduct specifically. It does not provide clear guidelines on civility/politeness and covers too many other things, including a lot of (often political) baggage. Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule? The rule on politeness is clearly deemphasized: "Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be mean or rude." is so vague it may as well not be in the code of conduct. We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do that consistently. The "Citizen Code of Conduct" they link to has even more baggage and I believe it should *not* serve as the basis for anything we might adopt as a community.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html see section "In Comments"

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community <[hidden email]> wrote:

Friends

 

I second what Tom says below.

 

Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.

 

I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any views on that?

 

Simon

 

From: Libraries [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Murphy
Sent: 02 April 2017 19:18
To: Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>
Cc: libraries <[hidden email]>
Subject: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

 

Hi Fumiaki!

     I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced view than before talking with everyone here.

     Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the +1/-1 chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important progress to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler changes).

     To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a pretty stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared away and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part to fix it. I'd propose:

     - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly we're not finished.

     - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.

     - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.

 

     If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again, regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's your fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything at all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"

Thanks, all!

Tom

 

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]> wrote:

The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I guess I shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a patch instead.

 

2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>:

It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make people grumpy).

 


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

 


_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community



_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

amindfv
I'm also +1 to a CoC, although have less of an opinion on what shape it should take. CoCs are an effective way of making people who may feel like outsiders to a community feel more welcome. The Haskell community is amazing and inclusive but not the most diverse, and projects which are doing better on that front largely all have CoCs.

In terms of what shape it takes: there are lots of off-the-shelf ones for different needs: I'd suggest picking one of them.

Tom


El 5 abr 2017, a las 11:44, Paolo Giarrusso <[hidden email]> escribió:

Rust's code of conduct (and the conduct of leaders) have been very successful at creating a welcoming community. However, those rules were there from the start.

What's crucial is that a code of conduct is really agreed upon by a community and its elders. So thanks to Simon Peyton Jones for starting this conversation.
In particular, a CoC to address known issues (not just in the present discussion) would probably be easier to agree on.

> We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do that consistently.

The guideline I find useful is "assume good faith" (used for instance in Wikipedia), as long as you don't have extraordinary evidence. And that's a guidelines that needs to be stated.
Opinions on politeness in the wild are much more varied. How polite do you need to be, if somebody insists on being wrong? And with actual trolls?

> Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule?

I don't know if it's a strict rule there, how strict it should be, or whether it works in a CoC. But I find it a very good guideline for educated debate. I learned it (implicitly) in my academic PL training: PL design is founded on math but is no science yet. Debate in hard sciences is different.

Because this rule is in fact fundamental to establish respect under disagreement. The Rust CoC says "There is *seldom* a right answer." If a question has a right answer, the others become wrong, misguided, heretics, .... idiots... OK, you can censor the word "idiot", but that won't help much. Or you can admit that reasonable people might disagree on `Foldable ((,) a)` (as most already agree), and give that as a guideline, just as "assume good faith". That doesn't make "2 + 2 = 5" legitimate of course—some "common sense" is still needed.

"There is *seldom* a right answer" is an unstated rule in academic papers (where it's implied by peer review), and it IMHO works rather well there, even on the few academics who will loudly proclaim elsewhere there is a right answer.

Indeed, I don't want to misrepresent SPJ, but I feel he is often happy to talk about Haskell tradeoffs when they're there, even when others loudly proclaim Haskell is strictly and clearly better than X.

Cheers,
Paolo

On Apr 3, 2017 10:55, "Tikhon Jelvis" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).

One of the best examples I've seen in the wild had a single rule: no personal attacks. It's simple to understand and follow with no risk of stifling or derailing real discussions, and yet unambiguously rules out the majority of rude comments I see online (ignoring spam and outright trolling).

I do *not* like Rust's code of conduct specifically. It does not provide clear guidelines on civility/politeness and covers too many other things, including a lot of (often political) baggage. Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule? The rule on politeness is clearly deemphasized: "Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be mean or rude." is so vague it may as well not be in the code of conduct. We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do that consistently. The "Citizen Code of Conduct" they link to has even more baggage and I believe it should *not* serve as the basis for anything we might adopt as a community.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html see section "In Comments"

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community <[hidden email]> wrote:

Friends

 

I second what Tom says below.

 

Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.

 

I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any views on that?

 

Simon

 

From: Libraries [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Murphy
Sent: 02 April 2017 19:18
To: Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>
Cc: libraries <[hidden email]>
Subject: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

 

Hi Fumiaki!

     I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced view than before talking with everyone here.

     Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the +1/-1 chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important progress to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler changes).

     To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a pretty stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared away and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part to fix it. I'd propose:

     - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly we're not finished.

     - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.

     - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.

 

     If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again, regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's your fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything at all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"

Thanks, all!

Tom

 

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]> wrote:

The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I guess I shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a patch instead.

 

2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>:

It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make people grumpy).

 


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

 


_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community



_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

Jakub Daniel
What is the expected effect/role of CoC? Is it expected that people would actually exhibit different behaviour because of a document? Is there a reason to believe good behaviour in other communities come from existing CoCs? I honestly doubt people prone to violate such rules tend to read such documents and since there is no way to enforce it, what point is there? Isn't the effort to maintain such a document just a waste?

On 5 Apr 2017, at 20:54, [hidden email] wrote:

I'm also +1 to a CoC, although have less of an opinion on what shape it should take. CoCs are an effective way of making people who may feel like outsiders to a community feel more welcome. The Haskell community is amazing and inclusive but not the most diverse, and projects which are doing better on that front largely all have CoCs.

In terms of what shape it takes: there are lots of off-the-shelf ones for different needs: I'd suggest picking one of them.

Tom


El 5 abr 2017, a las 11:44, Paolo Giarrusso <[hidden email]> escribió:

Rust's code of conduct (and the conduct of leaders) have been very successful at creating a welcoming community. However, those rules were there from the start.

What's crucial is that a code of conduct is really agreed upon by a community and its elders. So thanks to Simon Peyton Jones for starting this conversation.
In particular, a CoC to address known issues (not just in the present discussion) would probably be easier to agree on.

> We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do that consistently.

The guideline I find useful is "assume good faith" (used for instance in Wikipedia), as long as you don't have extraordinary evidence. And that's a guidelines that needs to be stated.
Opinions on politeness in the wild are much more varied. How polite do you need to be, if somebody insists on being wrong? And with actual trolls?

> Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule?

I don't know if it's a strict rule there, how strict it should be, or whether it works in a CoC. But I find it a very good guideline for educated debate. I learned it (implicitly) in my academic PL training: PL design is founded on math but is no science yet. Debate in hard sciences is different.

Because this rule is in fact fundamental to establish respect under disagreement. The Rust CoC says "There is *seldom* a right answer." If a question has a right answer, the others become wrong, misguided, heretics, .... idiots... OK, you can censor the word "idiot", but that won't help much. Or you can admit that reasonable people might disagree on `Foldable ((,) a)` (as most already agree), and give that as a guideline, just as "assume good faith". That doesn't make "2 + 2 = 5" legitimate of course—some "common sense" is still needed.

"There is *seldom* a right answer" is an unstated rule in academic papers (where it's implied by peer review), and it IMHO works rather well there, even on the few academics who will loudly proclaim elsewhere there is a right answer.

Indeed, I don't want to misrepresent SPJ, but I feel he is often happy to talk about Haskell tradeoffs when they're there, even when others loudly proclaim Haskell is strictly and clearly better than X.

Cheers,
Paolo

On Apr 3, 2017 10:55, "Tikhon Jelvis" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).

One of the best examples I've seen in the wild had a single rule: no personal attacks. It's simple to understand and follow with no risk of stifling or derailing real discussions, and yet unambiguously rules out the majority of rude comments I see online (ignoring spam and outright trolling).

I do *not* like Rust's code of conduct specifically. It does not provide clear guidelines on civility/politeness and covers too many other things, including a lot of (often political) baggage. Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule? The rule on politeness is clearly deemphasized: "Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be mean or rude." is so vague it may as well not be in the code of conduct. We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do that consistently. The "Citizen Code of Conduct" they link to has even more baggage and I believe it should *not* serve as the basis for anything we might adopt as a community.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html see section "In Comments"

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community <[hidden email]> wrote:

Friends

 

I second what Tom says below.

 

Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.

 

I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any views on that?

 

Simon

 

From: Libraries [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Murphy
Sent: 02 April 2017 19:18
To: Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>
Cc: libraries <[hidden email]>
Subject: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

 

Hi Fumiaki!

     I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced view than before talking with everyone here.

     Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the +1/-1 chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important progress to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler changes).

     To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a pretty stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared away and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part to fix it. I'd propose:

     - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly we're not finished.

     - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.

     - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.

 

     If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again, regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's your fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything at all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"

Thanks, all!

Tom

 

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]> wrote:

The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I guess I shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a patch instead.

 

2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>:

It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make people grumpy).

 


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

 


_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community



_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

Jay Sulzberger
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

amindfv
In reply to this post by Jakub Daniel


El 5 abr 2017, a las 13:20, Jakub Daniel <[hidden email]> escribió:

What is the expected effect/role of CoC? Is it expected that people would actually exhibit different behaviour because of a document? Is there a reason to believe good behaviour in other communities come from existing CoCs? I honestly doubt people prone to violate such rules tend to read such documents and since there is no way to enforce it, what point is there?

If you'll forgive a strained metaphor: imagine you arrive in an unfamiliar land, one which has a reputation for the occasional food fight. You're wearing nice clothes and don't want your day ruined by getting food on them. Some restaurants have a big sign out front: "Absolutely NO food fighting. Anyone caught food fighting will be ejected". Other restaurants don't have the sign. When picking a place to eat, aren't you likely to gravitate to a restaurant which has a sign?

Isn't the effort to maintain such a document just a waste?

Hopefully it'll be very low-maintenance!

Tom




On 5 Apr 2017, at 20:54, [hidden email] wrote:

I'm also +1 to a CoC, although have less of an opinion on what shape it should take. CoCs are an effective way of making people who may feel like outsiders to a community feel more welcome. The Haskell community is amazing and inclusive but not the most diverse, and projects which are doing better on that front largely all have CoCs.

In terms of what shape it takes: there are lots of off-the-shelf ones for different needs: I'd suggest picking one of them.

Tom


El 5 abr 2017, a las 11:44, Paolo Giarrusso <[hidden email]> escribió:

Rust's code of conduct (and the conduct of leaders) have been very successful at creating a welcoming community. However, those rules were there from the start.

What's crucial is that a code of conduct is really agreed upon by a community and its elders. So thanks to Simon Peyton Jones for starting this conversation.
In particular, a CoC to address known issues (not just in the present discussion) would probably be easier to agree on.

> We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do that consistently.

The guideline I find useful is "assume good faith" (used for instance in Wikipedia), as long as you don't have extraordinary evidence. And that's a guidelines that needs to be stated.
Opinions on politeness in the wild are much more varied. How polite do you need to be, if somebody insists on being wrong? And with actual trolls?

> Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule?

I don't know if it's a strict rule there, how strict it should be, or whether it works in a CoC. But I find it a very good guideline for educated debate. I learned it (implicitly) in my academic PL training: PL design is founded on math but is no science yet. Debate in hard sciences is different.

Because this rule is in fact fundamental to establish respect under disagreement. The Rust CoC says "There is *seldom* a right answer." If a question has a right answer, the others become wrong, misguided, heretics, .... idiots... OK, you can censor the word "idiot", but that won't help much. Or you can admit that reasonable people might disagree on `Foldable ((,) a)` (as most already agree), and give that as a guideline, just as "assume good faith". That doesn't make "2 + 2 = 5" legitimate of course—some "common sense" is still needed.

"There is *seldom* a right answer" is an unstated rule in academic papers (where it's implied by peer review), and it IMHO works rather well there, even on the few academics who will loudly proclaim elsewhere there is a right answer.

Indeed, I don't want to misrepresent SPJ, but I feel he is often happy to talk about Haskell tradeoffs when they're there, even when others loudly proclaim Haskell is strictly and clearly better than X.

Cheers,
Paolo

On Apr 3, 2017 10:55, "Tikhon Jelvis" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).

One of the best examples I've seen in the wild had a single rule: no personal attacks. It's simple to understand and follow with no risk of stifling or derailing real discussions, and yet unambiguously rules out the majority of rude comments I see online (ignoring spam and outright trolling).

I do *not* like Rust's code of conduct specifically. It does not provide clear guidelines on civility/politeness and covers too many other things, including a lot of (often political) baggage. Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule? The rule on politeness is clearly deemphasized: "Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be mean or rude." is so vague it may as well not be in the code of conduct. We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do that consistently. The "Citizen Code of Conduct" they link to has even more baggage and I believe it should *not* serve as the basis for anything we might adopt as a community.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html see section "In Comments"

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community <[hidden email]> wrote:

Friends

 

I second what Tom says below.

 

Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.

 

I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any views on that?

 

Simon

 

From: Libraries [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Murphy
Sent: 02 April 2017 19:18
To: Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>
Cc: libraries <[hidden email]>
Subject: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

 

Hi Fumiaki!

     I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced view than before talking with everyone here.

     Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the +1/-1 chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important progress to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler changes).

     To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a pretty stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared away and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part to fix it. I'd propose:

     - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly we're not finished.

     - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.

     - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.

 

     If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again, regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's your fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything at all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"

Thanks, all!

Tom

 

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]> wrote:

The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I guess I shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a patch instead.

 

2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>:

It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make people grumpy).

 


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

 


_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community



_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

Tikhon Jelvis
Just had a chance to look at Ruby's CoC, as suggested by Francesco Ariis. It looks like exactly what I had in mind. 

I agree with Tom that starting with an existing code would be a good idea and, if we do decide to do it, my vote is definitely for Ruby's over the alternatives I've seen.

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:25 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:


El 5 abr 2017, a las 13:20, Jakub Daniel <[hidden email]> escribió:

What is the expected effect/role of CoC? Is it expected that people would actually exhibit different behaviour because of a document? Is there a reason to believe good behaviour in other communities come from existing CoCs? I honestly doubt people prone to violate such rules tend to read such documents and since there is no way to enforce it, what point is there?

If you'll forgive a strained metaphor: imagine you arrive in an unfamiliar land, one which has a reputation for the occasional food fight. You're wearing nice clothes and don't want your day ruined by getting food on them. Some restaurants have a big sign out front: "Absolutely NO food fighting. Anyone caught food fighting will be ejected". Other restaurants don't have the sign. When picking a place to eat, aren't you likely to gravitate to a restaurant which has a sign?

Isn't the effort to maintain such a document just a waste?

Hopefully it'll be very low-maintenance!

Tom




On 5 Apr 2017, at 20:54, [hidden email] wrote:

I'm also +1 to a CoC, although have less of an opinion on what shape it should take. CoCs are an effective way of making people who may feel like outsiders to a community feel more welcome. The Haskell community is amazing and inclusive but not the most diverse, and projects which are doing better on that front largely all have CoCs.

In terms of what shape it takes: there are lots of off-the-shelf ones for different needs: I'd suggest picking one of them.

Tom


El 5 abr 2017, a las 11:44, Paolo Giarrusso <[hidden email]> escribió:

Rust's code of conduct (and the conduct of leaders) have been very successful at creating a welcoming community. However, those rules were there from the start.

What's crucial is that a code of conduct is really agreed upon by a community and its elders. So thanks to Simon Peyton Jones for starting this conversation.
In particular, a CoC to address known issues (not just in the present discussion) would probably be easier to agree on.

> We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do that consistently.

The guideline I find useful is "assume good faith" (used for instance in Wikipedia), as long as you don't have extraordinary evidence. And that's a guidelines that needs to be stated.
Opinions on politeness in the wild are much more varied. How polite do you need to be, if somebody insists on being wrong? And with actual trolls?

> Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule?

I don't know if it's a strict rule there, how strict it should be, or whether it works in a CoC. But I find it a very good guideline for educated debate. I learned it (implicitly) in my academic PL training: PL design is founded on math but is no science yet. Debate in hard sciences is different.

Because this rule is in fact fundamental to establish respect under disagreement. The Rust CoC says "There is *seldom* a right answer." If a question has a right answer, the others become wrong, misguided, heretics, .... idiots... OK, you can censor the word "idiot", but that won't help much. Or you can admit that reasonable people might disagree on `Foldable ((,) a)` (as most already agree), and give that as a guideline, just as "assume good faith". That doesn't make "2 + 2 = 5" legitimate of course—some "common sense" is still needed.

"There is *seldom* a right answer" is an unstated rule in academic papers (where it's implied by peer review), and it IMHO works rather well there, even on the few academics who will loudly proclaim elsewhere there is a right answer.

Indeed, I don't want to misrepresent SPJ, but I feel he is often happy to talk about Haskell tradeoffs when they're there, even when others loudly proclaim Haskell is strictly and clearly better than X.

Cheers,
Paolo

On Apr 3, 2017 10:55, "Tikhon Jelvis" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).

One of the best examples I've seen in the wild had a single rule: no personal attacks. It's simple to understand and follow with no risk of stifling or derailing real discussions, and yet unambiguously rules out the majority of rude comments I see online (ignoring spam and outright trolling).

I do *not* like Rust's code of conduct specifically. It does not provide clear guidelines on civility/politeness and covers too many other things, including a lot of (often political) baggage. Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule? The rule on politeness is clearly deemphasized: "Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be mean or rude." is so vague it may as well not be in the code of conduct. We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do that consistently. The "Citizen Code of Conduct" they link to has even more baggage and I believe it should *not* serve as the basis for anything we might adopt as a community.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html see section "In Comments"

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community <[hidden email]> wrote:

Friends

 

I second what Tom says below.

 

Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.

 

I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any views on that?

 

Simon

 

From: Libraries [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Murphy
Sent: 02 April 2017 19:18
To: Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>
Cc: libraries <[hidden email]>
Subject: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

 

Hi Fumiaki!

     I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced view than before talking with everyone here.

     Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the +1/-1 chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important progress to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler changes).

     To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a pretty stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared away and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part to fix it. I'd propose:

     - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly we're not finished.

     - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.

     - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.

 

     If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again, regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's your fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything at all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"

Thanks, all!

Tom

 

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]> wrote:

The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I guess I shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a patch instead.

 

2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>:

It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make people grumpy).

 


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

 


_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community



_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

Carter Schonwald
https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/conduct/

looks pretty reasonable. i like how it makes clear intent while not being very "rules lawyery", because at the end of the day human judgment and feedback is what matters

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Tikhon Jelvis <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just had a chance to look at Ruby's CoC, as suggested by Francesco Ariis. It looks like exactly what I had in mind. 

I agree with Tom that starting with an existing code would be a good idea and, if we do decide to do it, my vote is definitely for Ruby's over the alternatives I've seen.

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:25 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:


El 5 abr 2017, a las 13:20, Jakub Daniel <[hidden email]> escribió:

What is the expected effect/role of CoC? Is it expected that people would actually exhibit different behaviour because of a document? Is there a reason to believe good behaviour in other communities come from existing CoCs? I honestly doubt people prone to violate such rules tend to read such documents and since there is no way to enforce it, what point is there?

If you'll forgive a strained metaphor: imagine you arrive in an unfamiliar land, one which has a reputation for the occasional food fight. You're wearing nice clothes and don't want your day ruined by getting food on them. Some restaurants have a big sign out front: "Absolutely NO food fighting. Anyone caught food fighting will be ejected". Other restaurants don't have the sign. When picking a place to eat, aren't you likely to gravitate to a restaurant which has a sign?

Isn't the effort to maintain such a document just a waste?

Hopefully it'll be very low-maintenance!

Tom




On 5 Apr 2017, at 20:54, [hidden email] wrote:

I'm also +1 to a CoC, although have less of an opinion on what shape it should take. CoCs are an effective way of making people who may feel like outsiders to a community feel more welcome. The Haskell community is amazing and inclusive but not the most diverse, and projects which are doing better on that front largely all have CoCs.

In terms of what shape it takes: there are lots of off-the-shelf ones for different needs: I'd suggest picking one of them.

Tom


El 5 abr 2017, a las 11:44, Paolo Giarrusso <[hidden email]> escribió:

Rust's code of conduct (and the conduct of leaders) have been very successful at creating a welcoming community. However, those rules were there from the start.

What's crucial is that a code of conduct is really agreed upon by a community and its elders. So thanks to Simon Peyton Jones for starting this conversation.
In particular, a CoC to address known issues (not just in the present discussion) would probably be easier to agree on.

> We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do that consistently.

The guideline I find useful is "assume good faith" (used for instance in Wikipedia), as long as you don't have extraordinary evidence. And that's a guidelines that needs to be stated.
Opinions on politeness in the wild are much more varied. How polite do you need to be, if somebody insists on being wrong? And with actual trolls?

> Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule?

I don't know if it's a strict rule there, how strict it should be, or whether it works in a CoC. But I find it a very good guideline for educated debate. I learned it (implicitly) in my academic PL training: PL design is founded on math but is no science yet. Debate in hard sciences is different.

Because this rule is in fact fundamental to establish respect under disagreement. The Rust CoC says "There is *seldom* a right answer." If a question has a right answer, the others become wrong, misguided, heretics, .... idiots... OK, you can censor the word "idiot", but that won't help much. Or you can admit that reasonable people might disagree on `Foldable ((,) a)` (as most already agree), and give that as a guideline, just as "assume good faith". That doesn't make "2 + 2 = 5" legitimate of course—some "common sense" is still needed.

"There is *seldom* a right answer" is an unstated rule in academic papers (where it's implied by peer review), and it IMHO works rather well there, even on the few academics who will loudly proclaim elsewhere there is a right answer.

Indeed, I don't want to misrepresent SPJ, but I feel he is often happy to talk about Haskell tradeoffs when they're there, even when others loudly proclaim Haskell is strictly and clearly better than X.

Cheers,
Paolo

On Apr 3, 2017 10:55, "Tikhon Jelvis" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).

One of the best examples I've seen in the wild had a single rule: no personal attacks. It's simple to understand and follow with no risk of stifling or derailing real discussions, and yet unambiguously rules out the majority of rude comments I see online (ignoring spam and outright trolling).

I do *not* like Rust's code of conduct specifically. It does not provide clear guidelines on civility/politeness and covers too many other things, including a lot of (often political) baggage. Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule? The rule on politeness is clearly deemphasized: "Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be mean or rude." is so vague it may as well not be in the code of conduct. We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do that consistently. The "Citizen Code of Conduct" they link to has even more baggage and I believe it should *not* serve as the basis for anything we might adopt as a community.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html see section "In Comments"

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community <[hidden email]> wrote:

Friends

 

I second what Tom says below.

 

Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.

 

I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone to have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any views on that?

 

Simon

 

From: Libraries [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Murphy
Sent: 02 April 2017 19:18
To: Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>
Cc: libraries <[hidden email]>
Subject: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")

 

Hi Fumiaki!

     I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people have soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely off of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I think it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed our -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more nuanced view than before talking with everyone here.

     Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the +1/-1 chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important progress to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler changes).

     To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a pretty stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared away and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part to fix it. I'd propose:

     - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly we're not finished.

     - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced. From a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and we don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.

     - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as a sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.

 

     If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again, regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's your fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything at all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"

Thanks, all!

Tom

 

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]> wrote:

The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I guess I shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a patch instead.

 

2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>:

It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make people grumpy).

 


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

 


_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community



_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

_______________________________________________
Haskell-community mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
This isn't too bad, but if we must have a CoC I would prefer something
based upon [Wheaton's Law] (admittedly, it's probably more open to
abuse due to lack of defining terms).

Wheaton's Law: http://www.wheatonslaw.com/

On 6 April 2017 at 10:11, Carter Schonwald <[hidden email]> wrote:

> https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/conduct/
>
> looks pretty reasonable. i like how it makes clear intent while not being
> very "rules lawyery", because at the end of the day human judgment and
> feedback is what matters
>
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Tikhon Jelvis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Just had a chance to look at Ruby's CoC, as suggested by Francesco Ariis.
>> It looks like exactly what I had in mind.
>>
>> I agree with Tom that starting with an existing code would be a good idea
>> and, if we do decide to do it, my vote is definitely for Ruby's over the
>> alternatives I've seen.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:25 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El 5 abr 2017, a las 13:20, Jakub Daniel <[hidden email]>
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>> What is the expected effect/role of CoC? Is it expected that people would
>>> actually exhibit different behaviour because of a document? Is there a
>>> reason to believe good behaviour in other communities come from existing
>>> CoCs? I honestly doubt people prone to violate such rules tend to read such
>>> documents and since there is no way to enforce it, what point is there?
>>>
>>>
>>> If you'll forgive a strained metaphor: imagine you arrive in an
>>> unfamiliar land, one which has a reputation for the occasional food fight.
>>> You're wearing nice clothes and don't want your day ruined by getting food
>>> on them. Some restaurants have a big sign out front: "Absolutely NO food
>>> fighting. Anyone caught food fighting will be ejected". Other restaurants
>>> don't have the sign. When picking a place to eat, aren't you likely to
>>> gravitate to a restaurant which has a sign?
>>>
>>> Isn't the effort to maintain such a document just a waste?
>>>
>>>
>>> Hopefully it'll be very low-maintenance!
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5 Apr 2017, at 20:54, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm also +1 to a CoC, although have less of an opinion on what shape it
>>> should take. CoCs are an effective way of making people who may feel like
>>> outsiders to a community feel more welcome. The Haskell community is amazing
>>> and inclusive but not the most diverse, and projects which are doing better
>>> on that front largely all have CoCs.
>>>
>>> In terms of what shape it takes: there are lots of off-the-shelf ones for
>>> different needs: I'd suggest picking one of them.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>> El 5 abr 2017, a las 11:44, Paolo Giarrusso <[hidden email]>
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>> Rust's code of conduct (and the conduct of leaders) have been very
>>> successful at creating a welcoming community. However, those rules were
>>> there from the start.
>>>
>>> What's crucial is that a code of conduct is really agreed upon by a
>>> community and its elders. So thanks to Simon Peyton Jones for starting this
>>> conversation.
>>> In particular, a CoC to address known issues (not just in the present
>>> discussion) would probably be easier to agree on.
>>>
>>> > We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help
>>> > them do that consistently.
>>>
>>> The guideline I find useful is "assume good faith" (used for instance in
>>> Wikipedia), as long as you don't have extraordinary evidence. And that's a
>>> guidelines that needs to be stated.
>>> Opinions on politeness in the wild are much more varied. How polite do
>>> you need to be, if somebody insists on being wrong? And with actual trolls?
>>>
>>> > Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule?
>>>
>>> I don't know if it's a strict rule there, how strict it should be, or
>>> whether it works in a CoC. But I find it a very good guideline for educated
>>> debate. I learned it (implicitly) in my academic PL training: PL design is
>>> founded on math but is no science yet. Debate in hard sciences is different.
>>>
>>> Because this rule is in fact fundamental to establish respect under
>>> disagreement. The Rust CoC says "There is *seldom* a right answer." If a
>>> question has a right answer, the others become wrong, misguided, heretics,
>>> .... idiots... OK, you can censor the word "idiot", but that won't help
>>> much. Or you can admit that reasonable people might disagree on `Foldable
>>> ((,) a)` (as most already agree), and give that as a guideline, just as
>>> "assume good faith". That doesn't make "2 + 2 = 5" legitimate of course—some
>>> "common sense" is still needed.
>>>
>>> "There is *seldom* a right answer" is an unstated rule in academic papers
>>> (where it's implied by peer review), and it IMHO works rather well there,
>>> even on the few academics who will loudly proclaim elsewhere there is a
>>> right answer.
>>>
>>> Indeed, I don't want to misrepresent SPJ, but I feel he is often happy to
>>> talk about Haskell tradeoffs when they're there, even when others loudly
>>> proclaim Haskell is strictly and clearly better than X.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Paolo
>>>
>>> On Apr 3, 2017 10:55, "Tikhon Jelvis" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct
>>>> that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear
>>>> guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite
>>>> way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at
>>>> least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).
>>>>
>>>> One of the best examples I've seen in the wild had a single rule: no
>>>> personal attacks. It's simple to understand and follow with no risk of
>>>> stifling or derailing real discussions, and yet unambiguously rules out the
>>>> majority of rude comments I see online (ignoring spam and outright
>>>> trolling).
>>>>
>>>> I do *not* like Rust's code of conduct specifically. It does not provide
>>>> clear guidelines on civility/politeness and covers too many other things,
>>>> including a lot of (often political) baggage. Why is the idea that
>>>> "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule? The rule on politeness is
>>>> clearly deemphasized: "Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be
>>>> mean or rude." is so vague it may as well not be in the code of conduct. We
>>>> should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do
>>>> that consistently. The "Citizen Code of Conduct" they link to has even more
>>>> baggage and I believe it should *not* serve as the basis for anything we
>>>> might adopt as a community.
>>>>
>>>> [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html see section "In
>>>> Comments"
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Friends
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I second what Tom says below.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when
>>>>> disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at
>>>>> least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them
>>>>> unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over
>>>>> time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has
>>>>> helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be
>>>>> useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online
>>>>> communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone to
>>>>> have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any views on
>>>>> that?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Libraries [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom
>>>>> Murphy
>>>>> Sent: 02 April 2017 19:18
>>>>> To: Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>
>>>>> Cc: libraries <[hidden email]>
>>>>> Subject: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Fumiaki!
>>>>>
>>>>>      I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people
>>>>> have soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely
>>>>> off of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I
>>>>> think it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed
>>>>> our -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more
>>>>> nuanced view than before talking with everyone here.
>>>>>
>>>>>      Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the
>>>>> +1/-1 chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important
>>>>> progress to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler
>>>>> changes).
>>>>>
>>>>>      To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a
>>>>> pretty stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared
>>>>> away and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part
>>>>> to fix it. I'd propose:
>>>>>
>>>>>      - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt
>>>>> letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly we're
>>>>> not finished.
>>>>>
>>>>>      - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced.
>>>>> From a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and
>>>>> we don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone
>>>>> makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.
>>>>>
>>>>>      - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as
>>>>> a sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again,
>>>>> regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire
>>>>> for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not
>>>>> trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's your
>>>>> fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything at
>>>>> all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, all!
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [0]
>>>>> https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2016-September/024995.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita
>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I
>>>>> guess I shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a
>>>>> patch instead.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make
>>>>> people grumpy).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Libraries mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Haskell-community mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Haskell-community mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Haskell-community mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Libraries mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Libraries mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Libraries mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>



--
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
[hidden email]
http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Haskell-community] Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (, , ) a b")

Carter Schonwald
YEAH ld be cool with that one too. 

Ultimately as long as we give each other constructive feedback it's all good.   


On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:26 PM Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <[hidden email]> wrote:
This isn't too bad, but if we must have a CoC I would prefer something
based upon [Wheaton's Law] (admittedly, it's probably more open to
abuse due to lack of defining terms).

Wheaton's Law: http://www.wheatonslaw.com/

On 6 April 2017 at 10:11, Carter Schonwald <[hidden email]> wrote:
> https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/conduct/
>
> looks pretty reasonable. i like how it makes clear intent while not being
> very "rules lawyery", because at the end of the day human judgment and
> feedback is what matters
>
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Tikhon Jelvis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Just had a chance to look at Ruby's CoC, as suggested by Francesco Ariis.
>> It looks like exactly what I had in mind.
>>
>> I agree with Tom that starting with an existing code would be a good idea
>> and, if we do decide to do it, my vote is definitely for Ruby's over the
>> alternatives I've seen.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:25 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El 5 abr 2017, a las 13:20, Jakub Daniel <[hidden email]>
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>> What is the expected effect/role of CoC? Is it expected that people would
>>> actually exhibit different behaviour because of a document? Is there a
>>> reason to believe good behaviour in other communities come from existing
>>> CoCs? I honestly doubt people prone to violate such rules tend to read such
>>> documents and since there is no way to enforce it, what point is there?
>>>
>>>
>>> If you'll forgive a strained metaphor: imagine you arrive in an
>>> unfamiliar land, one which has a reputation for the occasional food fight.
>>> You're wearing nice clothes and don't want your day ruined by getting food
>>> on them. Some restaurants have a big sign out front: "Absolutely NO food
>>> fighting. Anyone caught food fighting will be ejected". Other restaurants
>>> don't have the sign. When picking a place to eat, aren't you likely to
>>> gravitate to a restaurant which has a sign?
>>>
>>> Isn't the effort to maintain such a document just a waste?
>>>
>>>
>>> Hopefully it'll be very low-maintenance!
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5 Apr 2017, at 20:54, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm also +1 to a CoC, although have less of an opinion on what shape it
>>> should take. CoCs are an effective way of making people who may feel like
>>> outsiders to a community feel more welcome. The Haskell community is amazing
>>> and inclusive but not the most diverse, and projects which are doing better
>>> on that front largely all have CoCs.
>>>
>>> In terms of what shape it takes: there are lots of off-the-shelf ones for
>>> different needs: I'd suggest picking one of them.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>> El 5 abr 2017, a las 11:44, Paolo Giarrusso <[hidden email]>
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>> Rust's code of conduct (and the conduct of leaders) have been very
>>> successful at creating a welcoming community. However, those rules were
>>> there from the start.
>>>
>>> What's crucial is that a code of conduct is really agreed upon by a
>>> community and its elders. So thanks to Simon Peyton Jones for starting this
>>> conversation.
>>> In particular, a CoC to address known issues (not just in the present
>>> discussion) would probably be easier to agree on.
>>>
>>> > We should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help
>>> > them do that consistently.
>>>
>>> The guideline I find useful is "assume good faith" (used for instance in
>>> Wikipedia), as long as you don't have extraordinary evidence. And that's a
>>> guidelines that needs to be stated.
>>> Opinions on politeness in the wild are much more varied. How polite do
>>> you need to be, if somebody insists on being wrong? And with actual trolls?
>>>
>>> > Why is the idea that "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule?
>>>
>>> I don't know if it's a strict rule there, how strict it should be, or
>>> whether it works in a CoC. But I find it a very good guideline for educated
>>> debate. I learned it (implicitly) in my academic PL training: PL design is
>>> founded on math but is no science yet. Debate in hard sciences is different.
>>>
>>> Because this rule is in fact fundamental to establish respect under
>>> disagreement. The Rust CoC says "There is *seldom* a right answer." If a
>>> question has a right answer, the others become wrong, misguided, heretics,
>>> .... idiots... OK, you can censor the word "idiot", but that won't help
>>> much. Or you can admit that reasonable people might disagree on `Foldable
>>> ((,) a)` (as most already agree), and give that as a guideline, just as
>>> "assume good faith". That doesn't make "2 + 2 = 5" legitimate of course—some
>>> "common sense" is still needed.
>>>
>>> "There is *seldom* a right answer" is an unstated rule in academic papers
>>> (where it's implied by peer review), and it IMHO works rather well there,
>>> even on the few academics who will loudly proclaim elsewhere there is a
>>> right answer.
>>>
>>> Indeed, I don't want to misrepresent SPJ, but I feel he is often happy to
>>> talk about Haskell tradeoffs when they're there, even when others loudly
>>> proclaim Haskell is strictly and clearly better than X.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Paolo
>>>
>>> On Apr 3, 2017 10:55, "Tikhon Jelvis" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I would not be against a *short and simple* code of conduct
>>>> that specifically addresses issues we have seen. I'm imagining clear
>>>> guidelines that help people express themselves in a thoughtful and polite
>>>> way. Something in the style of the Hacker News commenting guidelines[1] (at
>>>> least the first four; the rest are specific to HN/Reddit-like sites).
>>>>
>>>> One of the best examples I've seen in the wild had a single rule: no
>>>> personal attacks. It's simple to understand and follow with no risk of
>>>> stifling or derailing real discussions, and yet unambiguously rules out the
>>>> majority of rude comments I see online (ignoring spam and outright
>>>> trolling).
>>>>
>>>> I do *not* like Rust's code of conduct specifically. It does not provide
>>>> clear guidelines on civility/politeness and covers too many other things,
>>>> including a lot of (often political) baggage. Why is the idea that
>>>> "everything is a tradeoff" enshrined as a rule? The rule on politeness is
>>>> clearly deemphasized: "Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be
>>>> mean or rude." is so vague it may as well not be in the code of conduct. We
>>>> should *assume* people set out to be kind and courteous and help them do
>>>> that consistently. The "Citizen Code of Conduct" they link to has even more
>>>> baggage and I believe it should *not* serve as the basis for anything we
>>>> might adopt as a community.
>>>>
>>>> [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html see section "In
>>>> Comments"
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Friends
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I second what Tom says below.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Almost everyone expresses their views with respect, even when
>>>>> disagreeing.  The exceptions are (in my guess) mostly unintentional, at
>>>>> least in the extent of the offence caused.   That does not make them
>>>>> unimportant, because a slow slippage in our collective standards is, over
>>>>> time corrosive.  But it does mean that we can draw breath, as Tom has
>>>>> helpfully done here, and without condemning anyone reset our standards.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ve been talking to a couple of people about whether it would be
>>>>> useful to have an explicit Haskell Community Code of Conduct.  Many online
>>>>> communities have one (e.g. Rust), and it might be helpful for everyone to
>>>>> have a concrete baseline rather than an unwritten standard.  Any views on
>>>>> that?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Libraries [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom
>>>>> Murphy
>>>>> Sent: 02 April 2017 19:18
>>>>> To: Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>
>>>>> Cc: libraries <[hidden email]>
>>>>> Subject: Civility notes (was "Traversable instances for (,,) a b")
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Fumiaki!
>>>>>
>>>>>      I agree with you that some poorly-chosen words by a few people
>>>>> have soured this conversation, but please don't let that turn you completely
>>>>> off of the productive conversation most of us are attempting to have! I
>>>>> think it's largely been successful, too: even if many of us haven't changed
>>>>> our -1/+1 votes, I for one have had my ideas challenged and have a more
>>>>> nuanced view than before talking with everyone here.
>>>>>
>>>>>      Henning and Edward are two examples (one from each side of the
>>>>> +1/-1 chasm) who have been aided by this discussion, in making important
>>>>> progress to finding a middle ground (each in the form of proposed compiler
>>>>> changes).
>>>>>
>>>>>      To the rest of us: Fumiaki regretting having posted here is a
>>>>> pretty stark example of why speaking politely matters. People being scared
>>>>> away and feeling unwelcome is a real phenomenon, and we need to do our part
>>>>> to fix it. I'd propose:
>>>>>
>>>>>      - If you haven't read it already, SPJ recently wrote a heartfelt
>>>>> letter on the subject [0]. We've gotten better since then, but clearly we're
>>>>> not finished.
>>>>>
>>>>>      - Civility is a norm, and norms sometimes need to be enforced.
>>>>> From a distance, we all look bad (and unwelcoming!) if anyone is hostile and
>>>>> we don't make it clear it's not acceptable. Speak up! That said, everyone
>>>>> makes mistakes - try to give people space to apologize and move on.
>>>>>
>>>>>      - If someone says something insulting to you, please take that as
>>>>> a sign to become more polite, not less so. The downward spiral is real.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      If you're called out for saying something regrettable (again,
>>>>> regardless of if you're +1 or -1 on this issue), *please* take our desire
>>>>> for civil conversation seriously. Responses like (I'm paraphrasing, and not
>>>>> trying to cite anyone specifically): "It was a joke (mostly)" and "It's your
>>>>> fault if you didn't get the joke" are worse than not writing anything at
>>>>> all. Ideal would be a quick "Sorry!"
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, all!
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [0]
>>>>> https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2016-September/024995.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Fumiaki Kinoshita
>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The discussion has diverged to flaming due to a few offensive people. I
>>>>> guess I shouldn't have posted a proposal here, I should have submitted a
>>>>> patch instead.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2017-03-23 19:53 GMT+09:00 Fumiaki Kinoshita <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's surprising that they are missing (forgive me, I'm not here to make
>>>>> people grumpy).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Libraries mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Haskell-community mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Haskell-community mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Haskell-community mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Libraries mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Libraries mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Libraries mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>



--
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
[hidden email]
http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
12
Loading...