Fork me on GitHub

Well, s/best/worst and that'd about right : V


As for tangents


Well, #C0J20813K tries something like that, but I'm not sure I buy it


It didn't feel all that easier to follow conversations ATM


We are experimenting with branching in Braid and will continue until we get it right.


So, yeah, right now it sucks.


It's hard


In principle that seems like a good idea


In practice it's also confusing


The Clojurians admin team have been chatting about some of the conversations that have been going on recently and would like to remind everyone to read the Code of Conduct and to try to be respectful of other voices (and try not to monopolize a conversation):


That applies to all channels here — but this channel has been more affected lately than the more technically-focused channels...


Group Dynamics and Team Building Ann-Marie Nazzaro, Joyce Strazzabosco


Since I was ridiculed (literally called “ridiculous”), let me say: how do we accomplish serious community-building, when people are allowed to attack/disrupt whenever you mention effective tools like intersectional feminism? (I use it professionally even more than Datomic.) Going back to the Middle East, here’s an idea worth considering: > “When the women’s council was first organized, we set up a Male-Female-Equality Committee in the municipal government. Whenever women organize themselves, men obstruct, so this committee is important. The Equality Committee also does educational work for men, to develop men’s consciousness.” (Kindle available) If men educated themselves to do the grunt work of educating other men, and be accountable to women organizers... and same for race... that could have an effect.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I had no problem with the ideas you were introducing. Unfortunately some people are easily triggered. Which was why I suggested we continue this discussion on the #C0JBGNVS5 channel which I created for this purpose and has clear warnings about the content. Thanks.


what are that codes of confuct for. There is one rule in the internet: why the hell should I read all that "we support all races, species, sexes, ages, whatever"


we're talking about code here, it's programming, not psychology


Because that code is written by a community of real human beings.


but it's not important


To me it is. It doesn't have to be important to you.


@tjg Then let me hand that argument back to you: how do we accomplish serious community-building, when people are allowed to attack other people as inherently racist, sexist, mysognistic or whatever is the buzzword of the month to blame on patriarchy? YES, I agree the history of humanity has a certain slant toward power projection that is an inherently male animalistic quality, and YES that introduces certain biases in the social structure, and YES certain kinds of people have it worse off due to that, but NO, that does it not make it right to reverse the direction of the discrimination vector to make amends for all the wrongs in the course of history, and NO, the "-ism = discrimination + power" is not a true statement, discrimination is always discrimination, being a self-righteous knight in the shining armour fighting for the oppresed does not automagically make it "right" to "punch up".


Discrimination is a discrimination is a discrimination and the moral relativism of "there's no reverse-isms" is absolutely unacceptable. I reject the notion that replacing one form of discrimination with another is a virtuous thing to do. This will only breed animosity you will inevitably feel when the pendulum swings back from the left and if in the end it results in a hegelian synthesis, what will be the cost of those two forces coliding? That arbitrary, non sequitur punishment can bring about good is about as absurd as the notion that if you put one hand in boiling water and one in the freezing then statistically your hands are cool and you statistically do not have blisters. But I'm quite sure you won't be as eager to do that as the common sense say you will be horribly burned. The only good change is a rational discussion towards common goal of making things better - decrying and branding your opposition as "racist", "sexists", "mysognistic" or - as I've even seen- "worse than ISIS" due to disagreement of opinions is in no way a rational discussion.


This Slack was professional and peaceful so far and I hope it stays that way, without bringing politics into it. I very much endorse us having a CoC, because I absolutely do not stand for harassment of any kind of any person, be they share my characteristics or differ. I have a fairly conservative viewpoint on thing like family, sexuality, gender, but you will never see me endorse any harassment - a trans person has all the right in the world to live their life as they without being harassed for that. It's just that disagreement on things is not harassment - abusive behaviour is. So I just hope we stay professional here and punish actual harassers as they rightly deserve instead of pushing a political agenda of those that think they are so obviously in the right.


Oh and by the way - no, I have neither ridiculed you nor called you ridiculous. Good job twisting my words to your ends. What I did is I called third-wave feminism position ridiculous. If you cannot disentangle your sociopolitical opinions from the core of your identity as a person, then so be it - I'll let you call yourself ridiculous. After all - Tu dicis, non me.


Which is funny, because I very much don't like a certain famous Coraline. The behaviour she exhibited in the so-called Opalgate was atrocious - she took an offense at an opinion*, not even directed at her and required he be removed from a project she didn't even contribute to. And even then I can recognise when she does something good - I am absolutely against harassment and my only objection to CoCs is that most of the time they are used to push a political agenda, not actually be a guard against harassment. Contributor Covenant 1.3 in my opinion did exactly that. Github's Open CoC does that to an even bigger degree.


But Coraline's Covenant 1.4? I was actually very pleasantly surprised by it as an incredibly fair and even-handed document, considering her previous actions. My point is - I could set aside my bias against her and look at 1.4 good faith and judge it's by it merit as a good document it is. I was so positively surprised by that I even helped out with Polish translation (though that's partly because I'm OCD with regards to language purity). So there.


Can you put aside your biases and collaborate with others without pushing your agenda? Also hah, triggered @meow? Maybe you could call it so, though I find this turn of phrase funny in the context. * - I have read those tweets and IT WAS NOT transphobic; it merely stated that pushing for gender reassignment as the end all be all cure for transpeople problems is not enough nuanced of a viewpoint. If that's transphobic, then I guess everything is offensive to you, even me breathing right now.


Now, if you let me to return to my thesis : |


@rm: maybe diversity is not important (though I for one would always welcome more women in programming, they are underrated in what qualities they bring to the table)


But what is important


Is having a document that can tell you


This is acceptable


This is not acceptable


I feel the Clojurians CoC is pretty okay in that regard.


At least as it is written, can't say anything about the interpretations people in power have of it.


But as something that's there to say


We do not tolerate being assholes to other people


It is good.


> We do not tolerate being assholes to other people This should be the code of conduct!


But it is.


It's just more explicit about it.


I'll read it once


And trust me, I don't like CoCs, mainly because of the culture backing them, of the krainboltgreenes of this world. But I can be unbiased and see their upside as well.


Just like laws are to stoop anarchy, CoCs are to stoop assholery.


It would be great if they weren't needed


Alas it is not so due to that pesky thing called the human condition.


And level-headed CoCs, enforced by level-headed people


Are good tools for having a yardstick to put people to, should they decide to be assholes.


For example Contributor Covenant 1.3 or Open CoC are not level-headed in any way, shape or form


CoC of this Slack or Contributor Covenant I find quite okay


If they are needed due to people being, well, people


So be it.


I thought this community is very nice. Do we have conflicts to solve them by that laws?


It is very nice so far, that's true.


But does that change anything?


I have no idea


I mean, maybe that's the Haskell and Kant speaking through me


why to do something that is not needed and I guess is not for fun


But I believe that the rules should be there to help you


Haskell is not out there to eat your soul when you make a type mistake


It's to help you write correct software


You can write correct software without a type system as well


But there's nothing standing guard for when the first bug creeps in


I see, I'm more dynamic languages person :)


And I guess I just prefer there to be a type system to yell at me when I make a mistake


Not when it breaks something hours or days later


Hah, yeah, I can see how that can be a fundamental disagreement here ; d


btw, if we're talking about haskell there :) did the error messages got better since last ~3 years?


It's no Elm : V


But IMO still better than Clojure's


I'm just a strict rules kind of guy most of the time, I don't like guessing, I like to know.


It's quite ironic I write Clojure, really


you must be using core.typed


Because I curse to the Ninth Circle of hell when I have problems a type system could have saved me.


Actually no


Two reasons


I do quite a bit of ClojureScript and ATM the support for it is broken IIRC


And two - a type system that's bolted on afterwards and not considered from day one


Is always bound to be not ideal


Either it limits idioms


Or can't catch some things


I just try to write this small, in isolation and with lots of schemas


But that doesn't always work out and then I curse the foundations of the Earth : V


Anyway, that's a bit of a digression ; d


ok, thank you for explanations


@seancorfield: One person continues to attack people (not just me) personally. And going way off-topic. And he’s constantly being enabled. Moderators have not addressed this. People have left. This is not a serious #C0CB40N8K forum. I hope the decisionmaking here impacts no real-world organizing. Good bye.


And I'll just remark I never once attacked a person in this thread - though I concede I was a bit too sarcastic at the start - just ideas a person held I found deeply troubling. And I do not think I am at fault if a person can't separate themselves from their ideas. Anyway, I'm also done here.


Woah, I thought this was an interesting, calm conversation, and suddenly it turned into personal attacks and rants. Four people left the channel -- I suspect at least some of them because the tone of the conversation seemed so confrontational. That's a shame.


That braid thing looks interesting, btw. Threaded conversations should not be that confusing, people know it from fora and other social networks.


Just my opinion but I think moving on from that is probably for the best.


The admin team have been discussing the recent escalation in unpleasant conversations in several channels — but especially in this channel — and we have reached out to a couple of people asking them to moderate their behavior or leave the Clojurians community.


We (Admins) have tried to let Clojurians run itself because, in general, the Clojure community has been very supportive and very open and welcoming. The conferences are all run with an eye on diversity and inclusivity and respect — and that’s what we want for this community too.


Given recent developments, the admin team will be watching channels more closely and will try to take more direct action to address problematic conversations and, if necessary, deal with community members who are crossing the line.