A message from the CoC committee

[can...@google.com]

Over the last few days, multiple reports were received at con...@golang.org regarding public conduct on golang-nuts, as well as conduct in private channels.  After review, permanent bans were given to multiple individuals, with no possibility for appeal.  Further corrective actions like temporary bans and final warnings are being deliberated, pending further investigation. 

As stated in our Code of Conduct, we believe that healthy debate and disagreement are essential to a healthy project and community. However, it is never ok to be disrespectful. 

When evaluating a response to a report and making decisions on a corrective action, the Go CoC committee takes into account the

* severity of the conduct violation
* impact of conduct on individuals who report to con...@golang.org
* impact of conduct on the community (bystanders, those not directly involved in CoC reports) 
* conduct history in all Go project spaces, assessing patterns of behavior across multiple sites versus one-off or "most recent only" conduct incidents. 
* impact to people of marginalized groups

The last two factors also necessitate a public response, to assure those who witness unacceptable behavior, particularly in public places, that appropriate and fair corrective action was taken.  
 
We pledge to make participation in the Go project* and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone. 

Thank You,
Carmen Andoh
on behalf of the Go CoC committee

*Go project spaces include all golang-* googlegroups, github/golang/go issue repo, and other online forums where the Go CoC is in effect. 

[Axel Wagner]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 3:02 PM 'can...@google.com' via golang-nuts <golan...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

The last two factors also necessitate a public response, to assure those who witness unacceptable behavior, particularly in public places, that appropriate and fair corrective action was taken.  
 
We pledge to make participation in the Go project* and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone.

Thank you :)

[Anthony Martin]

can...@google.com once said:
> After review, permanent bans were given to multiple individuals, with no
> possibility for appeal. Further corrective actions like temporary bans and
> final warnings are being deliberated, pending further investigation.

Where is the moderation log?

Anthony

[ben...@gmail.com]

> permanent bans were given to multiple individuals, with no possibility for appeal

I don't disagree with the bans, but this part -- the "no possibility for appeal" seems very ... totalitarian. What if a mistake was made? (Again, not saying it was here, but in general, to err is human.) I'm comparing to various legal systems, in which there is almost always the possibility of appeal, even for heinous crimes. Another aspect is that sometimes people change and realize their mistake later, sometimes even because of an excommunication like this. What's the rationale for "no possibility of appeal"?

-Ben

[Ian Lance Taylor]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:19 PM ben...@gmail.com <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > permanent bans were given to multiple individuals, with no possibility for appeal
>
> I don't disagree with the bans, but this part -- the "no possibility for appeal" seems very ... totalitarian. What if a mistake was made? (Again, not saying it was here, but in general, to err is human.) I'm comparing to various legal systems, in which there is almost always the possibility of appeal, even for heinous crimes. Another aspect is that sometimes people change and realize their mistake later, sometimes even because of an excommunication like this. What's the rationale for "no possibility of appeal"?

My take on this is that if someone has chosen for whatever reason to
attack a project, an appeals process just provides another mechanism
for them to consume project resources.

Also, in practice, we are all pseudonyms here anyhow. If people
change their ways, they will likely benefit from adopting a new
pseudonym that is free of any toxicity attached to the old one.

Finally, this is a process run by human beings, not computer code or
even a legal system. There can always be adjustments and exceptions
over time if there are good reasons for them.

Ian

[Ben Hoyt]

Fair response - pragmatic and helpful. Thanks, Ian. -Ben

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 3:18 PM ben...@gmail.com <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm comparing to various legal systems, in which there is almost always the possibility of appeal, even for heinous crimes. 

Not forever; and especially not in cases of abuse of process. For example, the United States Supreme Court has an "in forma pauperis" procedure, where you don't have to pay normal filing fees and the clerks will be very lenient in whether a petition is in proper form etc. This provides access to people with worthy cases and no representation. (If the case might be accepted, the court makes sure to appoint representation, of course.) But some people will abuse this, and after there have been too many groundless petitions, the court will order that no further petitions are to be accepted from that party (in civil cases) without being in correct form with the filing fee paid. This basically puts a stop to it, because people repeatedly filing groundless petitions generally don't care to pay $300 for each one, together with the expense of duplicating forty bound copies of the petition in the exacting format required.

Thomas

[Tyler Compton]

Thanks Carmen, and others on the CoC committee. I don't think anyone would say the work you do is fun, but whenever we get these rashes of toxic behavior on the mailing list or on GitHub, it makes me glad the CoC exists.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/593d282d-5c55-482e-acda-1181850090d4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Jesper Louis Andersen]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 8:18 PM ben...@gmail.com <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm comparing to various legal systems, in which there is almost always the possibility of appeal, even for heinous crimes.

It's somewhat the other way around. The worse the crime, the more argument for an appeal process because you can mess up far more by a mistake. Most appeal processes have a stop-gap measure built in too, because otherwise it becomes an infinite ladder of appeals. 

However, most legal systems also value transparency in that the "moderation log" is public. This is important for forward handling: people might vote differently if they disagree with the law, or they might point out possible problems with the current state of law. Also, it provides a dampening effect because people know where the "line in the sand" is drawn. I do note that the discussions stemming from this usually ain't the prettiest and most comprehensible :)

[Axel Wagner]

Comparisons to legal systems are misguided. Legal systems are a) almost impossible to escape (barring an international move), b) regulate all aspects of your lives and c) wield the almost unlimited monopoly of violence by the state against its citizens. Thus, they have an easily justified very high moral responsibility in terms of fairness, balance and transparency.

The Go community is not a legal system. Participation in it is entirely voluntary and it does not regulate anything but this participation. The CoC is also not a legal document. It is a declaration of intent given by the Go community, as a self-enforced standard of conduct. Requiring the same level of stringency from a PL communities self-regulation as from a legal system is both unreasonable and IMO undesirable.

And to be blunt, the only reason you'd need to know where the line is drawn, is if you intend to straddle it. Wanting to straddle the line of acceptable conduct is, in and off itself, not okay. The lines as drawn in the CoC itself are broad enough to help you stay clear of them, if that's what you want (which you should, if you want to participate here).

I've read what I assume are the messages that lead to the actions of the CoC committee and I simply don't believe that there can be a good-faithed argument that they were even *close* to within the lines. As such, I don't think there is a need to debate any of this. Especially as it already has been debated in the past, quite heatedly.