Re: [Ghm-discuss] The posh talk does not complain with the policy

[Jim Blandy]

Sorry, I should have replied directly in terms of the code you'd written, with the patches each group would want. My reader didn't show the code in-line.

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Jim Blandy <address@hidden> wrote:

I think we disagree on the bug. My sense is:

- Some of us don't believe that GHM is unwelcoming to anyone, and that any reasonable attendee would feel comfortable and welcome here.

- Some of us believe that attendees should ignore being treated unkindly if it occurs, and attend regardless of how they are treated.

- Some of us believe that harassment of women is widespread and common at tech conferences, and especially so at FLOSS events, and find this objectionable.

I wasn't present for the discussion at the GHM, so I can't say who now feels the bug is fixed, and who doesn't.

I think the third group of people was more willing to grant the GHM's policy the benefit of the doubt, seeing as at least some kind of attempt to address a serious problem.

I think the other two either saw it as not our problem, or a non-problem, and hence were more concerned with the GHM policy's vague language.

I tried to phrase the above in uncontroversial terms, but for what it's worth: I'm in the third group. I sympathize with the first group; I remember feeling that way, then being extremely unhappy to learn that my faith had been misplaced (not in the GHM specifically! but in the broader tech and FLOSS scenes), and wanting to do something about it. I think the second group is either ignorant, and if not, unwilling to look honestly at how they themselves react to hostile environments.

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Thien-Thi Nguyen <address@hidden> wrote:

() Jim Blandy <jimb-bqtBzms/kfRWk0Htik3J/address@hidden>
() Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:19:11 -0700

   In that vein, I think the original intent of the policy was to
   prevent ill-behaved people from preventing collaboration across
   gender lines. Both the policy, and the argument I offer here, are
   aimed at increasing collaboration on points of agreement.

Right, in C:

But, this code is buggy.  What is the bug (as discerned from this
discussion)?  What was the fix?  What is the long-term fix if any?

--
Thien-Thi Nguyen
   GPG key: 4C807502
   (if you're human and you know it)
      read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical)
                               (not (via 'mailing-list)))
                     => nil