Rushing to votes

[Erik Bray]

A counter-productive behavior I've seen in this community too
often is a rush to make some discussion / disagreement into a "vote"
before it's even agreed to by the involved parties what is being voted
on.

It's good, obviously to bring an issue to a vote--even an informal
one--in order to help make decisions. But the vote is not fair or
valid if there's no prior agreement even on what's even being voted on.

To take two recent examples (both from the same person, though I don't
mean to pick on them personally--I have seen others do this as
well--maybe I have even done it though I'd be surprised; it's not my
modus operandi):

> [ ] I want to delay all other tickets by 1-2 weeks so that this one Cygwin bug can be fixed.

There are so many problems with this it's hard to know where to begin.
First of all, there's really only one option. It's formatted as a
checkbox, so to vote yes, one might respond with the box converted to
"[x]". However, a no vote is less clear without examining the
context.

If someone responds without putting an [x] in the box, are they voting
no? Making a side-comment? Asking for clarification? At least make
two options that can unambiguously be chosen between.

But okay, let's put e-mail form formatting aside and rewrite it in the
binary format that the question presumes:

> [ ] I want to delay all other tickets by 1-2 weeks so that this one Cygwin bug can be fixed.
> [ ] I do not want to delay all other tickets by 1-2 weeks so that this one Cygwin bug can be fixed.

There's still really only one option to this, because as worded it's a
horribly leading question. It really only presents one side of the
question, and written in a FUD manner as well. This kind of leading
questioning is (partly) why we have Brexit now. The Leave campaign
presented the question as:

[ ] Leave the EU or defund NHS so we can send your tax dollars to
Europe to give to refugees.

To people who were misinformed enough to only get that version of the
question the choice was clear.

I would have been happy to take a vote on my question, but we'd have
to at least agree to some wording that accurately (and tersely) weighs
the pros and cons of each choice, especially for the sake of onlookers
who haven't followed the full discussion.

In the City of Baltimore (and likely elsewhere, but that's what I have
the most direct experience with) we included with every ballot a short
guide to each ballot measure being voted on, because most voters will
never have even heard of them (except for some high profile ones).
These were short blurbs, no more than a few sentences per question,
that explained the issue and pros/cons in wording that is agreed on by
opponents and proponents of the measure. This is not hard; usually
all it takes is each party agreeing that their opinion is accurately
reflected.

That brings me to the second example:

> Since Erik is clamoring for a more calendar-driven release schedule, here is a quick A/B test:
>
> A) Keep the current process of releasing approximately every 3 months, longer if people insist on having their own pet tickets merged at the last minute.
>
> B) Keep a strict time table: Merge window is open for 2 months, after that only fixes for new regressions, release on 1/1, 3/1, 6/1, and 9/1.

This was the response to a rather long (maybe too long), and nuanced
(I think) message [1]. The contents of that message were not replied
to, discussed, or asked for clarification on before calling this vote
(okay, it was presented in this case as a "survey", not a definitive
vote, but the same problem applies). In other words, this "test"
*was* the response to my message, and yet I do not believe it
accurately reflects the choices presented. For example, I would not
have used the wording "strict time table". Perhaps, this
misunderstanding means I did not communicate well enough, but that's
why we should try to seek clarification before rushing to a
misrepresented vote.

As a coda, I'll also mention that this behavior is basically the
reason Sage doesn't have a well-advertised or coherent code of
conduct/diversity statement. Using a one-sided "vote" as a means of
expressing an opinion is just antagonistic and poisons the well.

E

[1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/E3pPKrQbBkE/b00Ham-_AwAJ

[William Stein]

Caveat - this is sage-flame, so I'm using a flame thrower!

On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 6:13:22 AM UTC-4, Erik Bray wrote:

[...]

This was the response to a rather long (maybe too long), and nuanced
(I think) message [1]. 

To be blunt (since this is sage-flame), it can be difficult for some people to really understand what you're saying.  

Volker writes very clear terse and easy to understand things when he writes at all.  You write very

long and ponderous prose that is too much to digest.

My understanding is that you work on Sage fulltime, whereas most people (e.g., Volker) working on Sage do it

when they can sneak in the time, and it's completely a volunteer side project.  This impacts the amount of time

they can spend on things they don't love.

 

As a coda, I'll also mention that this behavior is basically the
reason Sage doesn't have a well-advertised or coherent code of
conduct/diversity statement.  Using a one-sided "vote" as a means of
expressing an opinion is just antagonistic and poisons the well.

We do have a code of conduct, which was adopted via a very nontrivial and intense discussion by many community members:

https://wiki.sagemath.org/Community

Is it too short and clear to be "coherent"?   

This was in 2014, probably before you got involved with Sage...?

William

 

E

[1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/E3pPKrQbBkE/b00Ham-_AwAJ

[Bill Hart]

I think Erik was pretty clear in his message that the Code of Conduct is not well-advertised or coherent, and that the reason for this is the way things are decided with votes.

I'm not taking a side here, as it is not a discussion which I have an interest in or much of a stake in. I'm just pointing out that I think you may have misunderstood his flame..

As for being long-winded, he's simply demonstrating an ability to understand many points of view. Instead of making a simple statement expressing his point of view, he's doing the academic thing of interjecting in his own prose to demonstrate that he's considered many other points of view, and prepared to counter those potential objections, before making his point.

I apologise to the list for this not being much of a flame. I promise to do much better in future. I'm clearly long out of practice.

Bill.

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

[Timo Kaufmann]

On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 6:13:22 AM UTC-4, Erik Bray wrote:

[...]
This was the response to a rather long (maybe too long), and nuanced
(I think) message [1]. 

To be blunt (since this is sage-flame), it can be difficult for some people to really understand what you're saying.  

Volker writes very clear terse and easy to understand things when he writes at all.  You write very

long and ponderous prose that is too much to digest.

I also disagree with this. Lots of information gets lost in text communication and in my opinion its always better to err on the side of verbosity rather than risk being misunderstood. I've never had any issues digesting anything Erik said. He sometimes repeats himself, but that is only because his points previously seemed to be ignored or not seriously considered. Or maybe they were considered and just nobody bothered to write out the counter arguments.

I also agree with Erik's main point here. Sometimes jumping to a vote seems to be (not saying I know anybodies intention) used to avoid having a "tedious" discussion.

 

My understanding is that you work on Sage fulltime, whereas most people (e.g., Volker) working on Sage do it

when they can sneak in the time, and it's completely a volunteer side project.  This impacts the amount of time

they can spend on things they don't love.

If a single person is a significant bottleneck, that is a process problem. Which is actually one of the points Erik made repeatedly and even offered his help with.

 

Is it too short and clear to be "coherent"?   

This was in 2014, probably before you got involved with Sage...?

I'm sure it isn't meant that way, but talking about being misunderstood because of tersity: This sounds like you're devaluating Erik's points ad-hominem, saying he shouldn't disagree with people that were here longer than he was. Again, I'm not saying you meant it that way. Also that is a bit of a loaded question.

 

Timo

[Erik Bray]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:15 AM Timo Kaufmann <eisf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 6:13:22 AM UTC-4, Erik Bray wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> This was the response to a rather long (maybe too long), and nuanced
>>> (I think) message [1].
>>
>>
>> To be blunt (since this is sage-flame), it can be difficult for some people to really understand what you're saying.
>> Volker writes very clear terse and easy to understand things when he writes at all. You write very
>> long and ponderous prose that is too much to digest.
>
>
> I also disagree with this. Lots of information gets lost in text communication and in my opinion its always better to err on the side of verbosity rather than risk being misunderstood. I've never had any issues digesting anything Erik said. He sometimes repeats himself, but that is only because his points previously seemed to be ignored or not seriously considered. Or maybe they were considered and just nobody bothered to write out the counter arguments.

I'll admit, sometimes I will also raise an issue, get frustrated by
the discussion, and drop it without conclusion (only to raise it again
when it becomes a burden again). The discussion surrounding
communication of Sage's development and release schedule is serious
enough, I think, that I hope to see it through to some kind of
improvement. But that's sort of off-topic here...

> I also agree with Erik's main point here. Sometimes jumping to a vote seems to be (not saying I know anybodies intention) used to avoid having a "tedious" discussion.

Exactly. The discussion doesn't have to necessarily be tedious
either. Just say, "I would propose we vote on this. How about
________ ?" where the blank can be filled in with a proposed vote
wording. One or two more rounds of back-and-forth may or may not be
needed to agree on the wording (though often not; sometimes it's a
simple yes-or-no question).

>> My understanding is that you work on Sage fulltime, whereas most people (e.g., Volker) working on Sage do it
>> when they can sneak in the time, and it's completely a volunteer side project. This impacts the amount of time
>> they can spend on things they don't love.
>
>
> If a single person is a significant bottleneck, that is a process problem. Which is actually one of the points Erik made repeatedly and even offered his help with.

Very much this. I think William feels the need to defend Volker due
in part because he's a friend, and also the high value he adds to the
project. This is understandable, but also beside the point. I meant
it entirely when I wrote that the point of this post was not to pick
on Volker. It is, however, to pick on unclear and misrepresentative
communication.

>> Is it too short and clear to be "coherent"?
>>
>> This was in 2014, probably before you got involved with Sage...?
>
>
> I'm sure it isn't meant that way, but talking about being misunderstood because of tersity: This sounds like you're devaluating Erik's points ad-hominem, saying he shouldn't disagree with people that were here longer than he was. Again, I'm not saying you meant it that way. Also that is a bit of a loaded question.

Thank you. In fact it was before I got seriously involved in Sage,
but that wiki page *is* for one difficult to find, and for another
thing a total mess. When I did find it I was curious how it got to be
that way and asked a few colleagues how it came about. They referred
me to the massive drama that occurred over the CoC, which I then read
I think pretty much all the threads on. Although there would have
been challenges to that discussion no matter what, the way it began
(with a vote) was seen by many as an antagonistic act: The CoC was
drafted completely out of view to the community, with no effort made
to ask for community volunteers to contribute to the effort or provide
feedback. For most people the first they ever heard of it was in the
form of a vote--a vote is not an invitation for discussion. It's what
happens at the end of a discussion. It explicitly closes discussion.
That is literally the etymology of "cloture".

Having been involved in drafting of similar statements on other
projects, I think I might have been able to help prevent some of that
disaster if I had been around at the time. Probably not all of it,
and hindsight is 20/20. But I could have definitely told you ahead of
time that dropping a text out of nowhere and asking people to vote on
it was doomed to failure. In fact others pointed that out at the
time, and that vote was dropped in favor of more discussion. But it
immediately made the discussion more hostile and desperate than it
might have been otherwise.

And yes, that wiki page is a complete, incoherent mess. It does not
have the normal weight of a "code of conduct" in most communities.
There are in fact multiple "codes of conduct" (or in one case "coding
guidelines" on that page, with no clarity as to what statement the
community actually stands under. It's almost impossible for a
newcomer to make heads-or-tails of unless they have (as I did) read
the entire collection of mailing list threads--some of them verging on
upsetting--to piece together the history of this page.

It's also riddled with poor English and confusing statements. In fact
it opens with:

The aim of this page is to build a SHORT document that just say
who we are and what we expect?" It is not "short", and ends with a
question as if it's not even sure what its own purpose is.

And then there's this:

If you feel hurted, make the point on the mailing list: you will
get support from the community to find a solution. Do not start Any
exclusions should be collective decisions not by some oligarchy, and
should allow for reinstatement if the perpetrators are contrite.

Not very coherent, I don't think. I do not understand what much any
of the above means.

It doesn't help that it's on a wiki page that anyone in the community
can edit any time. Sure, you can see the edit history, but does that
help someone who just wants to read what Sage's community guidelines
are?

Better to have it actually on the main sagemath.org website (which is
maintained in a pubic repository so anyone can still see its edit
history, but not just anyone can deploy changes....)

Of course, for that there would also have to be a single, succinct
statement that we have agreed upon. I would model it after the PSF's
CoC: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ If some people have a
problem with the title "Code of Conduct"*, a name like "Community
Guidelines" might be more acceptable.

Best,
E

* Which I have no problem with; its meaning is mostly understood in
North America and western Europe. However, I do remember seeing some
interesting points raised in one of the sage-devel or maybe sage-flame
threads on the topic that some eastern Europeans, for example, find it
jarringly authoritarian. I don't agree necessarily that it's a
problem, but it was an interesting perspective I hadn't considered
before.

[William Stein]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Erik Bray <erik....@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If a single person is a significant bottleneck, that is a process problem. Which is actually one of the points Erik made repeatedly and even offered his help with.
>
> Very much this. I think William feels the need to defend Volker due
> in part because he's a friend, and also the high value he adds to the
> project.

I greatly appreciate Volker's concise and clear communication style,
contributions to Sage, and how difficult the work he does is.

>>> Is it too short and clear to be "coherent"?
>>>
>>> This was in 2014, probably before you got involved with Sage...?
>>
>>
>> I'm sure it isn't meant that way, but talking about being misunderstood because of tersity: This sounds like you're devaluating Erik's points ad-hominem, saying he shouldn't disagree with people that were here longer than he was. Again, I'm not saying you meant it that way. Also that is a bit of a loaded question.
>
> Thank you. In fact it was before I got seriously involved in Sage,
> but that wiki page *is* for one difficult to find, and for another

It's not difficult to find:

https://www.google.com/search?q=sagemath+code+of+conduct

> When I did find it I was curious how it got to be
> that way and asked a few colleagues how it came about. They referred
> me to the massive drama that occurred over the CoC, which I then read
> I think pretty much all the threads on.

I'm glad you are familiar with the fact that we have a CoC and that a
lot of effort went into it. I'm sorry that you don't like it. If you
would like to
propose an update to the CoC, go for it!

> Although there would have
> been challenges to that discussion no matter what, the way it began
> (with a vote) was seen by many as an antagonistic act: The CoC was
> drafted completely out of view to the community, with no effort made
> to ask for community volunteers to contribute to the effort or provide

Indeed, you have no idea what was really going on behind the scenes.
Unfortunately,
it involved many sensitive issues with sensitive people who did not
want their names or
details about what was happening revealed.

> Having been involved in drafting of similar statements on other
> projects, I think I might have been able to help prevent some of that
> disaster if I had been around at the time.

[...]

> it was doomed to failure.

The "disaster" had already happened before there was any public mention
of a Code of Conduct. I do not consider the actual code of conduct or its
impacts to be a disaster. Sage has developed in a healthy direction since the
CoC was adopted, and people who blatantly violated it have left.

> Better to have it actually on the main sagemath.org website (which is
> maintained in a pubic repository so anyone can still see its edit
> history, but not just anyone can deploy changes....)

PR's are very welcome: https://github.com/sagemath/website

> Of course, for that there would also have to be
> a single, succinct statement that we have agreed upon.

It turns out that there is a single succinct clear statement that we
voted for, which is
what is under the section "Code of Conduct as voted on ending
November 24, 2014"
of https://wiki.sagemath.org/Community

> I would model it after the PSF's
> CoC: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ If some people have a
> problem with the title "Code of Conduct"*, a name like "Community
> Guidelines" might be more acceptable.

Is was modeled on that, and many others...

William


--
William (http://wstein.org)

[Erik Bray]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:36 PM William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Erik Bray <erik....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If a single person is a significant bottleneck, that is a process problem. Which is actually one of the points Erik made repeatedly and even offered his help with.
> >
> > Very much this. I think William feels the need to defend Volker due
> > in part because he's a friend, and also the high value he adds to the
> > project.
>
> I greatly appreciate Volker's concise and clear communication style,
> contributions to Sage, and how difficult the work he does is.
>
> >>> Is it too short and clear to be "coherent"?
> >>>
> >>> This was in 2014, probably before you got involved with Sage...?
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm sure it isn't meant that way, but talking about being misunderstood because of tersity: This sounds like you're devaluating Erik's points ad-hominem, saying he shouldn't disagree with people that were here longer than he was. Again, I'm not saying you meant it that way. Also that is a bit of a loaded question.
> >
> > Thank you. In fact it was before I got seriously involved in Sage,
> > but that wiki page *is* for one difficult to find, and for another
>
> It's not difficult to find:
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=sagemath+code+of+conduct

It *is* difficult to find. Just because Google brings up a page does
not mean that that page gives a coherent answer.

That's fair, though the way it was introduced was rather problematic
IMO. You have to admit it could have been handled better.

> > Better to have it actually on the main sagemath.org website (which is
> > maintained in a pubic repository so anyone can still see its edit
> > history, but not just anyone can deploy changes....)
>
> PR's are very welcome: https://github.com/sagemath/website
>
> > Of course, for that there would also have to be
> > a single, succinct statement that we have agreed upon.
>
> It turns out that there is a single succinct clear statement that we
> voted for, which is
> what is under the section "Code of Conduct as voted on ending
> November 24, 2014"
> of https://wiki.sagemath.org/Community
>
> > I would model it after the PSF's
> > CoC: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ If some people have a
> > problem with the title "Code of Conduct"*, a name like "Community
> > Guidelines" might be more acceptable.
>
> Is was modeled on that, and many others...

I know; I recall that from the discussion about it. I think it's
mostly fine as-is in fact, assuming that is indeed the "real" code of
conduct.

I'd gladly make a PR to add it to the website, but I'm hesitant about
doing so without reintroducing the issue and maybe soliciting feedback
as to how the current CoC is functioning (it barely needs to because
people behave themselves as-is) and if there is anything we can do to
make it more acceptable to those who detracted from it originally
(depending on their reasons for detraction, etc.)

[William Stein]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Erik Bray <erik....@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd gladly make a PR to add it to the website, but I'm hesitant about
> doing so without reintroducing the issue and maybe soliciting feedback
> as to how the current CoC is functioning (it barely needs to because
> people behave themselves as-is) and if there is anything we can do to
> make it more acceptable to those who detracted from it originally
> (depending on their reasons for detraction, etc.)

It's been four years since the CoC was adopted, which is a long time.
It would be very reasonable
to solicit such feedback. Please do.

[Erik Bray]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 12:24 PM Erik Bray <erik....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Another counter-productive behavior I've seen in this community too

> often is a rush to make some discussion / disagreement into a "vote"
> before it's even agreed to by the involved parties what is being voted
> on.
>
> It's good, obviously to bring an issue to a vote--even an informal
> one--in order to help make decisions. But the vote is not fair or

> valid if there's no prior agreement even on what's being voted on.

>
> To take two recent examples (both from the same person, though I don't

> mean to pick on them personally--I have seen others do this as well):

>
> > [ ] I want to delay all other tickets by 1-2 weeks so that this one Cygwin bug can be fixed.
>
> There are so many problems with this it's hard to know where to begin.
> First of all, there's really only one option. It's formatted as a
> checkbox, so to vote yes, one might respond with the box converted to
> "[x]". However, a no vote is less clear without examining the
> context.
>
> If someone responds without putting an [x] in the box, are they voting
> no? Making a side-comment? Asking for clarification? At least make
> two options that can unambiguously be chosen between.
>
> But okay, let's put e-mail form formatting aside and rewrite it in the
> binary format that the question presumes:
>
> > [ ] I want to delay all other tickets by 1-2 weeks so that this one Cygwin bug can be fixed.
> > [ ] I do not want to delay all other tickets by 1-2 weeks so that this one Cygwin bug can be fixed.
>
> There's still really only one option to this, because as worded it's a
> horribly leading question. It really only presents one side of the
> question, and written in a FUD manner as well. This kind of leading
> questioning is (partly) why we have Brexit now. The Leave campaign
> presented the question as:
>
> [ ] Leave the EU or defund NHS so we can send your tax dollars to
> Europe to give to refugees.
>
> To people who were misinformed enough to only get that version of the
> question the choice was clear.
>
> I would have been happy to take a vote on my question, but we'd have

> to at least agree to some wording that accurately (and tersely) weight

> the pros and cons of each choice, especially for the sake of onlookers
> who haven't followed the full discussion.
>
> In the City of Baltimore (and likely elsewhere, but that's what I have
> the most direct experience with) we included with every ballot a short
> guide to each ballot measure being voted on, because most voters will
> never have even heard of them (except for some high profile ones).
> These were short blurbs, no more than a few sentences per question,
> that explained the issue and pros/cons in wording that is agreed on by
> opponents and proponents of the measure. This is not hard; usually
> all it takes is each party agreeing that their opinion is accurately
> reflected.
>
> That brings me to the second example:
>
> > Since Erik is clamoring for a more calendar-driven release schedule, here is a quick A/B test:
> >
> > A) Keep the current process of releasing approximately every 3 months, longer if people insist on having their own pet tickets merged at the last minute.
> >
> > B) Keep a strict time table: Merge window is open for 2 months, after that only fixes for new regressions, release on 1/1, 3/1, 6/1, and 9/1.
>

> This was the response to a rather long (maybe too long), and nuanced

> (I think) message [1]. The contents of that message were not replied
> to, discussed, or asked for clarification on before calling this vote
> (okay, it was presented in this case as a "survey", not a definitive
> vote, but the same problem applies). In other words, this "test"
> *was* the response to my message, and yet I do not believe it
> accurately reflects the choices presented. For example, I would not
> have used the wording "strict time table". Perhaps, this
> misunderstanding means I did not communicate well enough, but that's
> why we should try to seek clarification before rushing to a
> misrepresented vote.
>

> As a coda, I'll also mention that this behavior is basically the
> reason Sage doesn't have a well-advertised or coherent code of
> conduct/diversity statement. Using a one-sided "vote" as a means of
> expressing an opinion is just antagonistic and poisons the well.
>

> E
>
> [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/E3pPKrQbBkE/b00Ham-_AwAJ

Incidentally, this post was cited (positively) in the context of
discussing updates to Conda-forge's project governance document:
https://github.com/conda-forge/conda-forge.github.io/pull/612#issuecomment-408462746
Thanks Isuru!

It would be pretty rad if Sage had similarly formalized project
governance documentation [1]. It's entirely possible, if not likely,
that I'm missing something. But the best I could find either through
web searches or manual hunt-and-peck was that same, somewhat
unfortunate wiki page.


[1] https://conda-forge.org/docs/governance.html

[William Stein]

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 7:30 AM, Erik Bray <erik....@gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be pretty rad if Sage had similarly formalized project
> governance documentation [1]. It's entirely possible, if not likely,
> that I'm missing something.

Implement it and make a PR to https://github.com/sagemath/website !

-- William

[Erik Bray]

I will, though I suspect it will require discussion.

[Nils]

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:48:26 AM UTC-7, Erik Bray wrote:

I will, though I suspect it will require discussion.

Nah. Just put it to a vote.