Recent controversies

[Paul Chiusano]

Hi folks,

By now I think many people have heard about the situation with Tony Morris being banned from the #scalaz IRC channel and also being removed as a GitHub contributor by Lars. The fallout from this situation and how it was handled by both parties is creating conflict in the community, and I hope to find a way to remedy the situation and move forward in a constructive manner. (If you have not heard about the situation, I'd prefer not to be the one to try to summarize.) The action items suggested below have been previewed with both Lars and Tony, who are both open to moving forward as proposed, and I'm hoping they can perhaps pipe in in response.

Before getting into it, I want to express appreciation to both Lars and Tony for all the good work they've done on these projects over the years. I mean this very sincerely, and I don't think it gets said often enough. We are all freely donating our time and energy to these projects and sharing this work with anyone who finds it useful. I still think this is pretty cool!

With regard to the issues, here is my take. Proposed action items follow:

* Tony being rude to people in the #scalaz IRC channel, including the incident that seemed to precipitate this, is something that bothers me. And I personally am supportive of having a more moderated channel that cracks down on this sort of unpleasantness. That said, having a more moderated channel is a change in policy - AFAIK in the past there was no real moderation enforced in #scalaz beyond total spam. A little more care in thinking about how to handle such a transition to a more moderated channel might have gone a long way. It bothers me that there was a sudden change in policy without IMO seeking input from various stakeholders. I'd have expected perhaps an RFC about the newly created Code of Conduct sent to this list at least.

At this point, it seems like it's too late--#scalaz has become the moderated channel, and there is now ##scalaz which is unmoderated. Honestly, I think it's okay to have two channels, one moderated, one not (or one with a different style of moderation), and people can "vote with their feet" about which they prefer.

* The decision to entirely remove Tony from the GitHub project without consulting some key contributors (I know myself and Runar were not consulted) bothered me for a couple reasons:
    - I see this as a fairly drastic decision that merited discussion, and would have appreciated Lars involving us. I have talked with Lars and I understand his reasoning, but I'd still like to have seen a more measured process.
    - I personally think Tony still deserves to be a scalaz committer. Moderating rudeness in IRC is one thing. Removing someone as committer of a project they started IMO goes too far, especially when the decision was made suddenly.

* There were some remarks Lars made in an email to Tony that was leaked that made me uncomfortable, asking Tony to not talk about scalaz in public. From my talking with Lars, it sounds like these remarks were taken somewhat out of context, poorly stated and/or misinterpreted. I'll let Lars clarify for himself. My general thought - Scalaz and the other projects aren't owned by anyone or even affiliated with any one group, they are developed by a distributed and loosely affiliated group of individual contributors. I'm personally uncomfortable with the idea of Tony, Lars, or anyone else speaking with authority on behalf of this entire group, whatever that might mean exactly. If, say, I have a problem with how somebody (call him Bob) talks publicly about the project, then that is something I might choose to talk to Bob about or publish in some forum. Other individuals may pipe in if they agree, disagree, Bob might choose to change his behavior (or not) and that's really as far as it can go. I think we all understand this.

As far as what should happen now, here is what I propose:

- The new, Code of Conduct-moderated #scalaz channel will remain, and ##scalaz will stay largely unmoderated. I'd still like to see a new thread asking for RFC on the CoC and any policies for banning people, etc. After this gets worked out, I'd appreciate if Tony were given an opportunity to return to the #scalaz channel as well, with the understanding that the channel will now be more moderated than it was previously.
- I'd like to see Tony reinstated as a regular committer on the scalaz project. I'd welcome someone writing up some norms for committers and sending it around for comment (stuff like what should go through PR process, etc), just so we have something to point to in the event there is future controversy. Lars, perhaps you can take a cut at this or delegate to someone else?
- This might be somewhat controversial, and I welcome discussion, but Lars, as a good faith gesture, I think you should let others act as owners of the GitHub org (and just downgrade yourself to a regular member/committer), and whoever acts as owner should agree they will not remove anyone from GitHub without discussing with key people first and making any policies or rules exceptionally clear to participants. I see this as more of a nice gesture, the org owners in GitHub is really more of an administrative thing, but it gives both you and Tony assurance that in the future neither one will be booted out as a result of a unilateral decision. Hopefully then you can both can feel better about continuing to contribute in your existing respective roles. It would really be a shame if one or both of you stopped contributing to the project(s) on account of what's happened!
    - At the moment, myself, Lars, and Jason Zaugg are the only scalaz GitHub org owners. If Lars steps down, it would just be me and Jason. Is that okay with everyone? I'd be open to adding more owners if there's a bottleneck.
- I can't recall a time recently that this list has been badly managed, and I also note that Tony has exercised restraint on this list even since these events transpired. So I'm okay with Tony keeping admin rights on this list. Others already have admin on the list (Runar for one). I'd also like to see a thread on this list about a CoC and moderation here, which Lars maybe you can start up (maybe one thread re the CoC and how it applies on IRC and here). Perhaps we'll learn in the process that there is a desire for a scalaz-cafe list or some such which is explicitly unmoderated. Of course this decision can be revisited in the future if there are problems.

I'd like to hear what people think about these suggestions. I'd rather this thread not turn into a "he said, she said" about what went down. At this point, I think that will just stir things up more. My main goals are to acknowledge the issues and agree on a way to move forward with the work.

Lastly, I want to reiterate again that Lars and Tony have both done excellent work on scalaz and the various other typelevel projects, and I'm sorry that this situation got to where it is. However, I remain hopeful that we can find a way to move forward that's agreeable to all parties.

Paul :)

[Lars Hupel]

Hi everyone,

I want to clarify some points.

I still stand behind my original goal: Creating a more welcome community. It's not just about code, but also about creating a diverse environment without the fear of being dismissed. I also stand firmly behind a code of conduct, which I consider to be necessary to achieve these goals.

Having said that, I would like to go forward and instate a CoC for the GitHub project and the mailing list as well. I personally cannot see myself accepting the way discussions being derailed anymore, like it happened numerous times in the past.

I acknowledge that I made mistakes, especially that I didn't gather consensus for my actions beforehand. I apologise for that.

Finally, I would like to emphasise that as it stands now, Tony still has the possibility to send pull requests to the repository, with the guarantee that they'll be judged by code quality and not by personality.

Cheers
Lars

[Miles Sabin]

Thanks, Paul, for giving such a measured summary of the situation, and
for outlining what looks to me to be a very sensible path forward for
Scalaz.

I want to comment here, obviously not as a member of the Scalaz
community, but as a member of the the wider Typelevel community of
which Scalaz is an important part. As you know, Typelevels goal is to
provide an umbrella for projects which favour a typeful, functional
style of programming in Scala, and to promote the evolution of the
Scala programming language in directions which support that. As part
of that goal we view it as extremely important to build an open and
inclusive community of collaborators around those projects.

Against that background, it's important that all the participating
projects pull together in more or less the same direction. Given a
common baseline of civility and cooperation, differences of opinion
are welcome and expected, and each of the projects is able to benefit
from the successes and good feelings towards each of the others. It's
unfortunate that the converse is also true: negative perceptions of
one project could rub off on the others as well.

I believe that a common code of conduct shared by Typelevel projects
is an important part of that "pulling in the same direction". For that
reason I welcomed Lars's initiative and I am encouraged that, despite
mistakes being made, it seems as though things within the Scalaz
community are going to move in a constructive direction ... I urge all
parties to do their utmost to ensure sure such an outcome.

One thing that has emerged clearly for me over the last few days is
that the absence that all our projects have of any form of agreed on
structure has made it difficult to coordinate, build consensus and
make decisions sensibly, other than as ad hoc, borderline-unilateral
initiatives. I think this is something we all need to think very hard
about, both with respect to our individual projects, and also with
respect to Typelevel as an umbrella.

My final comment is on Lars position within the Scalaz community.
Clearly this is an issue for Scalaz, however I think that you should
reflect that he, along with Jason as the de facto Scalaz steward
before him, have made huge strides in reaching out the the wider Scala
community and promoting the programming styles we all care so much
about ... in my view this should be built on, not squandered. Speaking
personally, having Lars as representative of Scalaz in Typelevel has
been an unqualified success and something I would like to see
continue.

Cheers,


Miles

--
Miles Sabin
tel: +44 7813 944 528
skype: milessabin
gtalk: mi...@milessabin.com
g+: http://www.milessabin.com
http://twitter.com/milessabin

[Alois Cochard]

I agree with everything you propose Paul.

Thanks

Paul :)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "scalaz" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scalaz+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sca...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/scalaz.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Λ\ois

http://twitter.com/aloiscochard

http://github.com/aloiscochard

[Paul Chiusano]

Miles - just to clarify, despite my suggestion of the change of having Lars let others act as owner of the administrative GitHub group, I very much feel Lars should continue in his de facto steward role that he's been acting in for scalaz (and other typelevel projects). IMO, he's been doing an awesome job overall!

I also think we should start another thread to talk about the role of typelevel and to what extent it is / should be "a thing" more than just the name of an umbrella for some projects that might have some common goals and generally try to play nice with each other. However, I don't want to hijack this thread for that purpose, so maybe Miles, you and/or Lars could start a thread after the dust has settled.

Paul :)

[Miles Sabin]

Yes, I agree that there's plenty to discuss later.

However, I must stress that Scalaz's participation in Typelevel and
the Scala community at large is relevant to the current conversation.
It's a tribute to Scalaz's success and indicative of its influence
that things that happen here have effects elsewhere. As such, you
should be prepared for people from outside the immediate community to
take an interest, and legitimately so.

Thanks for the clarification on Lars's role :-)

Cheers,


Miles

[James Livingston]

On Saturday, October 11, 2014 8:21:44 PM UTC+10, Paul Chiusano wrote:

A little more care in thinking about how to handle such a transition to a more moderated channel might have gone a long way. It bothers me that there was a sudden change in policy without IMO seeking input from various stakeholders. I'd have expected perhaps an RFC about the newly created Code of Conduct sent to this list at least.

To me, this is one of the more concerning parts of what happened. The announcement of a Code of Conduct to apply to a community without prior open discussion in that community is pretty unacceptable. A very important part of such a code isn't specifically what it calls out as good or bad behaviour, but that there is community buy-in and support for it, so people respect it and lead others to follow it so that most of the time there is "social enforcement" rather than needing technical enforcement measures.

I wasn't online at the time of the incident, so aren't entirely clear on the order of events and timeframes involved. The fact that yours is the first email to the list about a CoC, and I'm not aware of any mention beforehand on IRC, Twitter or elsewhere I see, gives the appearance that the CoC was announced for the purpose of banning Tony. It doesn't matter whether that is actually the case or not, and any good intentions by people, but the appearance of it means that what happened was probably one of the worst ways to get community buy-in into a CoC :(

- The new, Code of Conduct-moderated #scalaz channel will remain, and ##scalaz will stay largely unmoderated. I'd still like to see a new thread asking for RFC on the CoC and any policies for banning people, etc. After this gets worked out, I'd appreciate if Tony were given an opportunity to return to the #scalaz channel as well, with the understanding that the channel will now be more moderated than it was previously.

I'm mostly in favour of having a CoC, possibly the one that was announced (once it's discussed), but it should have been the result of that conversation not the start of it. Given that things have already happened, leaving the announced one as an interim CoC until there is consensus on marking it permanent or using another one is okay. I hope that what occurred doesn't affect things too much, and we can build support for whatever the outcome is :)

I'm not a big contributor, but I think the general plan Paul outlined is a good one.

--
James "Doc" Livingston

[Tony Morris]

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Paul Chiusano <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi folks,

The action items suggested below have been previewed with both Lars and Tony, who are both open to moving forward as proposed, and I'm hoping they can perhaps pipe in in response.

Hi Paul :)
 

Before getting into it, I want to express appreciation to both Lars and Tony for all the good work they've done on these projects over the years. I mean this very sincerely, and I don't think it gets said often enough. We are all freely donating our time and energy to these projects and sharing this work with anyone who finds it useful. I still think this is pretty cool!

Thanks Paul. I too, would like to put aside our differences at the moment, look at what we have and say, "well that is awesome." We all did this, not just Lars or me.
 

With regard to the issues, here is my take. Proposed action items follow:

* Tony being rude to people in the #scalaz IRC channel, including the incident that seemed to precipitate this, is something that bothers me. And I personally am supportive of having a more moderated channel that cracks down on this sort of unpleasantness. That said, having a more moderated channel is a change in policy - AFAIK in the past there was no real moderation enforced in #scalaz beyond total spam. A little more care in thinking about how to handle such a transition to a more moderated channel might have gone a long way. It bothers me that there was a sudden change in policy without IMO seeking input from various stakeholders. I'd have expected perhaps an RFC about the newly created Code of Conduct sent to this list at least.

At this point, it seems like it's too late--#scalaz has become the moderated channel, and there is now ##scalaz which is unmoderated. Honestly, I think it's okay to have two channels, one moderated, one not (or one with a different style of moderation), and people can "vote with their feet" about which they prefer.

Several others have expressed concerns to me about this CoC instituted having been instituted suddenly, retroactively and importantly, for its poor content. Their concerns have been dismissed with name-calling or similar themes. Consequently, others have chosen not to express their opinion at all. All of this concerns me a lot.

I ask from everyone, no matter how enraged, please take a moment to look away from your computer terminal if you feel like calling someone names, tell them that they have no emotions or dehumanise them in some disguised way.

It is an ongoing issue and one that I would like to see addressed appropriately some time. As you all know, I don't think the CoC is an appropriate means to address that, but please put that aside for now. That is not the point.

For the time being, just give this rather urgent issue some thought please. People are being hurt.

 

As far as what should happen now, here is what I propose:

- The new, Code of Conduct-moderated #scalaz channel will remain, and ##scalaz will stay largely unmoderated. I'd still like to see a new thread asking for RFC on the CoC and any policies for banning people, etc. After this gets worked out, I'd appreciate if Tony were given an opportunity to return to the #scalaz channel as well, with the understanding that the channel will now be more moderated than it was previously.

I have some serious problems here, and as I am told, so do many other people. However, I would like to defer those issues for the purpose of making progress. I do hold hope of making long-term progress on this however.

 

- I'd like to see Tony reinstated as a regular committer on the scalaz project. I'd welcome someone writing up some norms for committers and sending it around for comment (stuff like what should go through PR process, etc), just so we have something to point to in the event there is future controversy. Lars, perhaps you can take a cut at this or delegate to someone else?
- This might be somewhat controversial, and I welcome discussion, but Lars, as a good faith gesture, I think you should let others act as owners of the GitHub org (and just downgrade yourself to a regular member/committer), and whoever acts as owner should agree they will not remove anyone from GitHub without discussing with key people first and making any policies or rules exceptionally clear to participants. I see this as more of a nice gesture, the org owners in GitHub is really more of an administrative thing, but it gives both you and Tony assurance that in the future neither one will be booted out as a result of a unilateral decision. Hopefully then you can both can feel better about continuing to contribute in your existing respective roles. It would really be a shame if one or both of you stopped contributing to the project(s) on account of what's happened!
    - At the moment, myself, Lars, and Jason Zaugg are the only scalaz GitHub org owners. If Lars steps down, it would just be me and Jason. Is that okay with everyone? I'd be open to adding more owners if there's a bottleneck.
- I can't recall a time recently that this list has been badly managed, and I also note that Tony has exercised restraint on this list even since these events transpired. So I'm okay with Tony keeping admin rights on this list. Others already have admin on the list (Runar for one). I'd also like to see a thread on this list about a CoC and moderation here, which Lars maybe you can start up (maybe one thread re the CoC and how it applies on IRC and here). Perhaps we'll learn in the process that there is a desire for a scalaz-cafe list or some such which is explicitly unmoderated. Of course this decision can be revisited in the future if there are problems.

I think it is important to recognise our individual strengths and weaknesses and Paul has offered us an excellent means by which to do that and move forward on that basis. Let us do that.

I'd like to hear what people think about these suggestions. I'd rather this thread not turn into a "he said, she said" about what went down. At this point, I think that will just stir things up more. My main goals are to acknowledge the issues and agree on a way to move forward with the work.

Lastly, I want to reiterate again that Lars and Tony have both done excellent work on scalaz and the various other typelevel projects, and I'm sorry that this situation got to where it is. However, I remain hopeful that we can find a way to move forward that's agreeable to all parties.

Paul :)

--

[Tom Adams]

Hi all,

I haven’t been a regular committer to scalaz for several years, but I sat beside Tony when he started the project, used & worked on it in the early days & have supported it quietly from the sidelines since stepping away from Scala a few years back.

I was on holiday when the incidents occurred, and I’m not completely across the events, so I’m only going to make comments on the actions Paul is suggesting, tl;dr, I’m in broad agreement with what he suggests.

* The decision to entirely remove Tony from the GitHub project without consulting some key contributors (I know myself and Runar were not consulted) bothered me for a couple reasons:

I can’t see how this naturally falls out of what happened on IRC. This is a project contributed to by many, a unilateral decision seems unreasonable, unfair & without due process.

- I personally think Tony still deserves to be a scalaz committer. Moderating rudeness in IRC is one thing. Removing someone as committer of a project they started IMO goes too far, especially when the decision was made suddenly.

Given my above comments I see no other course other than reinstating Tony’s access.

 

* There were some remarks Lars made in an email to Tony that was leaked that made me uncomfortable, asking Tony to not talk about scalaz in public. From my talking with Lars, it sounds like these remarks were taken somewhat out of context, poorly stated and/or misinterpreted. I'll let Lars clarify for himself. My general thought - Scalaz and the other projects aren't owned by anyone or even affiliated with any one group, they are developed by a distributed and loosely affiliated group of individual contributors. I'm personally uncomfortable with the idea of Tony, Lars, or anyone else speaking with authority on behalf of this entire group, whatever that might mean exactly. If, say, I have a problem with how somebody (call him Bob) talks publicly about the project, then that is something I might choose to talk to Bob about or publish in some forum. Other individuals may pipe in if they agree, disagree, Bob might choose to change his behavior (or not) and that's really as far as it can go. I think we all understand this.

The project is a loose collection of individuals, each with our own motivations & desires for the project. It is not controlled or under the influence of any group or organisation apart from those who contribute, in fact I remember this being one of the reasons for its initial creation. An agenda other than that decided upon by the contributors is not in keeping with this.

 

As far as what should happen now, here is what I propose:

...

I'd like to hear what people think about these suggestions. I'd rather this thread not turn into a "he said, she said" about what went down. At this point, I think that will just stir things up more. My main goals are to acknowledge the issues and agree on a way to move forward with the work.

FWIW, I’m in broad agreement with this.

 

Lastly, I want to reiterate again that Lars and Tony have both done excellent work on scalaz and the various other typelevel projects, and I'm sorry that this situation got to where it is. However, I remain hopeful that we can find a way to move forward that's agreeable to all parties.

+1.

 

Tom

[Paul Chiusano]

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the replies. Obviously, not everything is settled, but I still propose we move forward with the actions I suggested:

* Lars will step down as a scalaz GitHub org owner, and myself and Jason Zaugg will handle any administrative stuff associated with being org owner. Lars, Tony, and all other contributors will have assurance that they won't now or in the future be booted out of the project as a result of a unilateral decision.

* Tony will be reinstated as a committer on scalaz, if he hasn't been already.

* The moderated #scalaz will remain, but there still needs to be a further discussion about moderation policies, CoC, etc (see below).

I think we need to have some further discussions, but I REALLY suggest we wait on starting these threads up until next week, so people have some time to cool down from the current events and also gather their thoughts and reflect on things. But here is what I think needs discussing:

* What should the formal or informal code of conduct be for the scalaz project and various venues like #scalaz and this list? As someone else mentioned on this thread, with any such policy, which could be good to write up, it is much more effective to have people discuss together and buy into the policies beforehand. Besides the content of the policies themselves, there may be some differences of opinion regarding how any policies are enforced.

* There needs to be a discussion about whether typelevel is/should be more than just the name of an umbrella for a collection of projects, scalaz being one of them. Should it have some sort of central governance, with common policies shared by all projects (like a CoC), or do individual projects choose individually how to run themselves? Obviously, scalaz contributors cannot speak for all the other projects currently under typelevel, but that is okay, as long as we understand which projects people are coming from. I think there are going to be a wide variety of opinions on this so I expect a robust discussion. :)

With both these discussions, everyone's voices should be heard. That includes Tony, Lars, and everyone else. I understand some people are pissed off at each other but I'm hopeful something can be worked out. Even if some people continue being pissed off at each other, I still am hopeful something can be worked out. :)

If anyone has objections to this proposed course of action, please pipe up in the next day or so.

Also, one more thing - I don't really think venting or arguing about this stuff on Twitter is very productive. I don't want to name names, but I've already seen some back and forth. IMO, in part due to the Twitter format, some of these exchanges are making things worse. Personally I'd much rather people collect their thoughts so we can have constructive discussion about stuff next week in chunk sizes > 140 characters. :)

Cheers,

Paul :)

[Raoul Duke]

wow! didn't even know about this. but +1 to what Paul is saying. i say
that only as somebody who does not contribute, but who wants scalaz to
keep going because we need good stuff like it - if only as an
existence proof to others around the world. haskell alone isn't
enough.

[Tony Morris]

FYI, I will be away all of next week, with only satellite access. I am
free the week after, and then the following week I will be in hospital.

[Pascal Voitot Dev]

I'm not as involved as other people in scalaz and I've seen all of this from far away.

So I speak in a quite "objective & external way".

The main & only thing to keep safe is Scalaz as a collegial & community project.

For the rest, I don't really care about problems between individuals and just ask for everyone to act as reasonable & polite adults living among other reasonable & polite adults.
So, after the fight, let's find an acceptable gentlemen agreement and go forward.

Finally, I think Lars has done wonderful job and hope he will go on so I wouln't like to hear that his decisions turn against himself whatever you think about them.

Long life to Scalaz ;)

Pascal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "scalaz" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scalaz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Raoul Duke]

actually, i'd just like to start a flame war about how to correctly
pronounce "controversies".

[Paul Chiusano]

Okay, why don't we push these discussions one week later, so not next week, but the following week? I don't think there's any major rush, and I'd like for Tony to be able to participate.

Paul :)

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com> wrote:

actually, i'd just like to start a flame war about how to correctly
pronounce "controversies".

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "scalaz" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scalaz+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Lars Hupel]

Hi,

> * Lars will step down as a scalaz GitHub org owner, and myself and Jason
> Zaugg will handle any administrative stuff associated with being org owner.
> Lars, Tony, and all other contributors will have assurance that they won't
> now or in the future be booted out of the project as a result of a
> unilateral decision.

I'm okay with that.

> * Tony will be reinstated as a committer on scalaz, if he hasn't been
> already.

I'm not okay with that. As I said, I still stand firmly behind my
original decision.

From what I've heard in the past couple of days, people would still like
me to continue doing the maintenance of scalaz. I can't do that with
Tony as my peer.*

The offer for sending in pull request still stands.


Cheers
Lars


* As further justification, I would've pointed to the 'scalazeta'
repository on GitHub, but that disappeared again (for the second time;
it already existed once way before the current episode as a response to
<https://github.com/scalaz/scalaz/issues/671>)

[Tony Morris]

On 15/10/14 18:52, Lars Hupel wrote:
> (for the second time;
> it already existed once way before the current episode as a response to
> <https://github.com/scalaz/scalaz/issues/671>)

This is false.

[Travis Brown]

I'm a Scalaz outsider, but I use the library regularly and I've done my share of Scalaz advocacy.

I'm fully in support of Lars on this. I'm not sure I agree with every detail of the execution of the ban, but I trust Lars, and the value of what he's doing outweighs any doubts I have about the approach (which are based entirely on private communication that's been quoted at me out of context).

I'm opposed to Morris being reinstated as a committer, and I hope Lars doesn't step down as an organization owner.

Travis

[Matthew Pocock]

This was the kind of discussion that put me off getting properly involved in scalaz. As far as i could tell, one side of the argument was being treated as if it was correct by divine right. I don't mind being told i am wrong but i like to have it explained why. I don't know how much a code of conduct would help this as it is a matter of personality and attitude and some in the conversation may be tone deaf to this even after having it explained.

[Tom Adams]

> * Tony will be reinstated as a committer on scalaz, if he hasn't been
> already.

I'm not okay with that. As I said, I still stand firmly behind my
original decision.

​

I don't see how this can be anything other than a joint, project decision taken in the open. I'm no longer part of that, but from my understanding this hasn't happened, please correct me if I'm mistaken and it has. 

From what I've heard in the past couple of days, people would still like
me to continue doing the maintenance of scalaz. I can't do that with
Tony as my peer.* 

​

You are, of course, within your rights to choose the conditions of your own involvement.

I have also heard a lot of people asking for Tony to stay involved.

This has created real divisions, and I'm yet to see a clear path forward other than that proposed by Paul. 

Tom

[Chris Marshall]

I really hope Lars doesn't step down from his current role as the maintainer of scalaz - he is doing a simply brilliant job, which is, I feel sure, obvious to everyone with any involvement in the project (I speak only as a user of scalaz). 

As Tom says, it's entirely for Lars to decide what the conditions for his involvement are, and whilst it's not entirely obvious (to me) why the given example (of scala-zeta) means he cannot do so, we can only take Lars at his word that Tony's involvement as a committer causes ongoing problems for him. That sounds like something which can only be resolved privately between Tony & Lars, assuming that the will is there on both sides.

Chris

--

[Paul Chiusano]

Lars, I mistakenly thought you were okay adding Tony back as committer. I'm going to ping you off list. I want to understand your position and see if there is a path forward.

Everyone please sit tight.

Paul :)

[Joheinz]

Just to chip in as a minimalist user: I'd also like Lars to stay on board - he had been very welcoming and encouraging with all my requests and I would surely miss him.

For the COC - I am not sure how that is going to help, apart from formalising what should be obvious in an online community - be polite.

Markus

[Tom Adams]

I'm obviously neither of the two aggrieved parties, but I don't think this is a zero sum game. I think there is benefit in having both involved, and it seems most people feel that way as well.

I also don't want this to be construed as people objecting to the CoC, my issue is the events that followed the CoC being instigated on IRC, and also its proposed instigation (though I seen no discussion of this) on the mailing list.

Tom

tom adams
e:tomjadams<at>gmail.com

[Paul Chiusano]

Hi everyone,

Quick update - Lars and I are still trying to find a time we're both free to connect. Will update this list once we have talked.

Paul :)

[Paul Chiusano]

One more thing - 

I've heard now from a few people off list that some felt uncomfortable even raising concerns about the process by which Tony was removed, for fear of being branded a "Tony-supporter" who is okay with rudeness, harassment, and kicking puppies. :) I don't really want to make assumptions based on second hand information, but just to clear the air --

Just because a person is uncomfortable with the process by which Tony was removed does not mean that person is okay with all of Tony's behavior. It's a reasonable thing to want a fair process for making such decisions.

Note that I can also see how some people might think the process doesn't matter so much if they agree with the result.

I guess my point is that reasonable people might disagree about these things, and there is no need to paint the other side with broad strokes or assume the worst. If that is or has been happening, I think a little charity going in all directions would be great.

Paul :)

[Paul Chiusano]

Hi folks, we should have a real update on this sometime tomorrow.

Paul :)

[Pascal Voitot Dev]

You're soon a psychologist ;)

[Lars Hupel]

Indeed. Paul and I had a call today, and I think we found a good compromise. Details tomorrow or on Sunday.

[Tony Morris]

We did. Paul is great.

In 4 hours, I will not be online for quite some time. Stay awesome Scalaz.

[Alois Cochard]

That's very good to hear guys :-)

Thanks for all Paul