
PyCon Code of Conduct changed to avoid public shaming - Argorak
https://github.com/python/pycon-code-of-conduct/commit/500a3d25c27065598002f7c999de3fdfb7ab18b1
======
OoTheNigerian
After reading all sides of the story, I see why there is so much anger towards
Adria. However, it is unacceptable for her or SendGrid to be attacked
digitally.

Adria did an arguably right thing in a wrong way at the wrong time.

1\. Assuming the way she said it happened is correct, the guys behind her made
a _sexual_ (forking/fucking; Dongle/Penis) not sexist joke. If it were even to
be seen as sexist, it was towards men.

2\. I find it hard to see how taking their pictures and "shaming" them would
have made anything thing better. It only set them up to be lynched verbally or
otherwise.

3\. It was a PRIVATE conversation in a public setting that was overheard. It
happens to the best of us. There are 100s of bloopers on YouTube of
broadcasters saying embarrassing things when the mic was supposed to be off.

4\. She appears hypocritical because at the same PYCON she sexual jokes on
Twitter (far much more public) while representing her company (having your
company on your profile is almost same as wearing a badge at a conference. Not
to include the use of the PYCON hashtag)

5\. As a DEVELOPER evangelist for her company, she should be more patient with
developers by a massive factor compared to people in other roles. It makes no
sense evangelizing for/to people that would be uncomfortable dealing with you.
Appeal to understanding, not fear.

6\. It is good to know she can stand for herself. Unfortunately, I have to say
she got the incident and methodology wrong.

All this will pass, and hopefully serve as a lesson for participants and us
observers.

 _Edited: Spelling of Adria_

~~~
imsofuture
1) You don't get to tell someone what is offensive to them. 2) Totally agree,
it was not a wise choice. 3) You don't get to tell someone what is offensive
to them. 4) You don't get to tell someone what is offensive to them. 5) You
don't get to tell someone what is offensive to them. 6) It's true, not all the
best choices were made.

~~~
drharris
You seem to believe that offense is subjective to the individual. Should we
then be responsible for everything we do that offends others? What level of
recourse should they have for being offended? If we think that punitive action
is appropriate given an offense, how do we determine what a legitimate offense
is, versus a non-legitimate offense?

~~~
Cushman
> Should we then be responsible for everything we do that offends others?

Yes.

> What level of recourse should they have for being offended? If we think that
> punitive action is appropriate given an offense, how do we determine what a
> legitimate offense is, versus a non-legitimate offense?

If people finding out publicly that you did it would cause you to lose your
job, that might be a good indicator.

~~~
drharris
Well, let's say I'm offended by your username. I'm so offended that I feel the
proper punishment should be paying reparations of no less than $1M to the
charity of my choice. Is it my offense taken by your username a fair offense?
What standard is used to determine what offenses are legitimate, and what
determines a proper punishment for that offense. Furthermore, how are you to
know in advance that your username is offensive to me?

~~~
Cushman
Sure, and let's say that I'm offended by your face, and I want a million
dollars for _that_. How _do_ we resolve this?

It seems to me that we exist in a community that has a pretty well-evolved
process for determining what is reasonable.

~~~
drharris
We take it to court, and if it doesn't fit within the boundaries of law, a
judge has two options: toss out the case, or attempt to expand the boundaries
of law by interpreting existing law in a new way. If the former, we are at an
impasse, so how can we determine if our offenses are legitimate or not? If the
latter, then now it is up to a judge and/or jury to use their subjective
reasoning to pass judgment on whether the offense is legitimate.

The point I'm getting around to is that everyone tosses about objective
judgments for people who cause subjective offenses. To me, this is pretty
illogical. Most times, what we perceive as legitimate offenses are those by
people who are the loudest, most influential, or greatest in number. It has
very little to do with what the truth is, rather an opinion of the masses that
has been manipulated that way.

~~~
danielweber
For a functioning society, there must be some kind of barrier between "legally
acceptable" and "socially acceptable."

"If it's not illegal, then it's okay" will not lead you anywhere you like.

------
RyanMcGreal
Instead of a learning opportunity, this has turned into an enormous
fustercluck.

It would have been better for Adria Richards to address the matter directly
rather than post a photo on twitter, but it was not wrong for her to address
the matter.

Similarly, nearly everyone can agree - including Richards - that the employer
who allegedly fired one of the people involved in the incident clearly
overreacted.

There are learning opportunities in these incidents - opportunities to learn
the best way to address a real issue when it comes up. The goal should be
growing awareness and respect, apology and forgiveness, and reconciliation.

But the extreme outburst of misogyny - the insults, abuse, and physical
threats including threats of rape - is perhaps the biggest learning
opportunity of all: the opportunity for an entire community to recognize that
it is still dysfunctional in terms of gender equality.

 _Edit_ \- SendGrid just announced that they have fired Richards. Yet another
instance in this cluster of reactive ugliness and missed opportunities.

~~~
Zikes
> It would have been better for Adria Richards to address the matter directly
> rather than post a photo on twitter

This isn't a case of "it would have been better", it was a case of "what she
did was clearly wrong". She overreacted as did the man's employer, and she has
not shown any remorse.

> But the extreme outburst of misogyny - the insults, abuse, and physical
> threats including threats of rape - is perhaps the biggest learning
> opportunity of all: the opportunity for an entire community to recognize
> that it is still dysfunctional in terms of gender equality.

I haven't seen here on HN any of the insults, abuse, or threats you mentioned,
nor have I made any myself. Do not blame all of us just because a vocal
minority have gotten out of hand, and certainly do not use it as a tool to
shame us into silence and shut down what is so far a reasoned discussion on
the matter.

~~~
niggler
"She overreacted as did the man's employer, and she has not shown any
remorse."

The problem is that people are attributing to her certain actions that she was
not involved in. She didn't fire the guy; the employer did, based on his
interpretation of the actions.

If calling attention to potential misogyny results in a witch-hunt or in
victim-blaming, the underlying problems won't be addressed.

lizzard (<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5411276>) wrote this earlier:

"We need to be able to call out bad practices. People deny doing this stuff,
they say we should report it, they say we should report it non-anonymously.
Sadly every time we do... the same thing happens as a result."

~~~
freehunter
>If calling attention to potential misogyny results in a witch-hunt or in
victim-blaming, the underlying problems won't be addressed.

What misogyny? From what I understand, they made a joke about the word dongle
in a gender-specific way. Does a play on words about your gender's anatomy
really equal misogyny? Maybe some people need to learn what misogyny actually
means.

~~~
niggler
I wrote _potential_ because, although I see it as a joke between two people, I
can see how others could be offended.

~~~
freehunter
Offensive or even offensive to women doesn't mean misogyny. Misogyny is a
hatred of women. Nothing in his comments comes close to demonstrating a hatred
of women, or even intent to offend women.

------
rburhum
Having experienced PyCon for the first time this year, I am extremely saddened
by how these events have unfolded. Ironically, I think this particular issue
is eclipsing how female and kid friendly this conference is.

I have attended and spoken and several conferences (probably reaching the
upper 80s) and this year's PyCon was more female-supportive than any other
conference I have ever attended (Google IO, OSCON, WWDC, Where, BarCamps, etc
etc).

Honestly, I was (happily) surprised about how many women attended and spoke.
20%! Of course, this number may seem low if you just blur it out, but in our
industry, if you have ever attended any other tech conference, you will
realize why 20% is such a high number.

The amount of attention and support PyLadies got from the PyCon/Python
community was nothing short of _outstanding_. I sat during the PyCon PyLadies
Fundraiser auction. I saw how crappy card games and posters signed by Guido
and PyCon organizers sold for $300. I saw how the community managed to get "A
30-min Walk from Jack Dorsey" as one of the things to be auctioned. You don't
just get that an item like that by sitting idle. Somebody from the PyCon
community had to pull some strings and go through some efforts to get that for
PyLadies. Heck, some guy, 1hr before the auction just gave __his personal
Chromebook __for auction because he wanted to help the PyLadies cause.
PyLadies raised 10K in less than 2hrs. All community-driven. I have never seen
- in any conference - a community putting so much effort to push the goal of
increasing women in tech. Never.

And yet all this drama is painting such a different picture of what I would
consider the best conference I have ever attended. The biggest effort I have
seen for women in tech, out-shadowed by a silly penis joke and all the drama
that ensued after that.

To the PyCon organizers and PyLadies community as a whole: Don't let this get
to you. You did an amazing job. To me, it was such an inspiring conference,
that it will always be in my schedule. The large amount of kids coding in
python and playing with their Raspberry Pis, the ad-hoc tech donations that
were being done teachers, the support to PyLadies, all that stuff that really
matters, did not go unnoticed. It is just that we are not as loud as the rest.
But we care. Thank you!!!

~~~
AnIrishDuck
> Ironically, I think this particular issue is eclipsing how female and kid
> friendly this conference is.

This is the biggest thing that bugs me. PyCon this year was awesome, and
instead of talking about record attendance and all the other positive things
we're talking about a stupid dick joke.

------
nonrecursive
I applaud the PyCon organizers for clearly delineating what is acceptable
behavior and what is not. I especially applaud them for including public
shaming in the "unacceptable" category.

The rest of their code is there to protect conference goers. The sections
discussing harassment are there for a reason - harassment is a real problem at
these events.

Similarly, conference goers should be protected from the threat of being
publicized as a less-than-human creature on the Internet. There's been some
discussion of the reaction to Adria and Jesse. There could just as likely have
been a strong, dangerous reaction to the men who made the comments. Saying
"these guys are a threat to women" on the Internet could actually put them in
danger, and no one should expect to be put in that situation by attending
PyCon.

~~~
alxp
> There could just as likely have been a strong, dangerous reaction to the men
> who made the comments.

'dangerous'? Really? Are people who fight against sexism really 'just as
likely', is in, have displayed a pattern of the same behaviour in the past? Or
is this a false equivalency?

~~~
nonrecursive
Let me put it another way. Do you think that every conference goer should
behave the way Adria did? Whenever a conference goer feels offended, he or she
should immediately take photos, publish them on Twitter and on a blog post
along with insults like "asshat" and otherwise humiliate the individuals as
publicly as possible?

The reason I ask is so I can figure out whether you're debating whether it's
OK to publicly shame people in this manner, or whether you're quibbling over
the degree of risk you're exposing someone to when you publicly shame them the
way Adria did.

------
shadowmint
I think it's interesting that public shaming isn't the answer to problems, but
that a lot of people don't seem to appreciate that.

It's not just Adria. Remember John Scalsi and "When Gut-Boys Attack"?
<http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/11/14/when-gut-boys-attack/>

Same thing. Take a person, smash them publicly, and hope that the everyone
watching will get the idea and stop doing that thing, _because of fear of
similar punishment_.

...but, I was under the impression there was a pretty well defined protocol
for handling public sorts of hate-speech like antisemitism, and trolling, and
that had been shown in all kinds of circumstances _not_ to work.

You get all the same reactions we've seen here; a social reaction against the
'shaming' group to socially prevent similar shaming from happening in the
future.

 _Which totally mitigates the potential benefit of the original action._

The correct responses have always been:

1) Don't engage with obvious trolls. These are a lost cause. You're wasting
everyone's time.

2) Speak positively about the topic instead of negatively about the other
person

3) Engage with the people who are doing the wrong thing and try to correct
their behavior so they become mini-champions of 'the right way' in their own
community, thus spreading correct behavioral policy organically.

I thought that this was well known stuff; we certainly covered it in college.
I'm boggled by this whole bizaar extravaganza. It's such a cliche.

~~~
tomjen3
3) is horrible. It only works if you assume that you are so much smarter and
have more knowledge than the people who are involved in the issue, and that
you can therefore come up with an argument that they haven't heard before that
is still so utterly convincing that they turn 100% around.

------
d4vlx
I think the key here is to treat everyone like people. By publicly shaming two
individuals and associating them with sexism they are being turned into
figureheads for sexism. Real people make mistakes, say stupid things, are
affected by their environments and upbringing, have prejudices and biases that
they acquired from a life-time of interacting with other people. Everyone is
like this, many people do not even realize what some of their biases or
prejudices are. Turning them into into figureheads strips away the complexity
and says "these guys are what is wrong". Which is complete and utter bullshit.
They were just two guys having a private conversation.

If someone says something in private that you disagree with then you should
bring it up with them in private or get and intermediary, like the conference
organizers to. They may have been very sensitive to gender issues and
sympathetic to her agenda but she will never know because she never put the
effort into discussing it with them.

------
shocks
The problem is not PyCon. This is not an issue that should be solved by
changing a code of conduct.

This is a problem with a person and her over zealous and ridiculous actions.

Let's be clear here, there should be nothing wrong with making dick jokes to
your friend. Did he say "Haha, look at these dongles. They look like dicks.
But we don't need them because have dicks! Maybe they should give these to the
women so they can be better programmers with big dicks like us."? No.

We are living in a world where people increasingly feel the need to be
"personally offended" by things that don't even involve them.

What if the male in question made an Englishman, Irishman, and Scotishman
joke? Hell, they're pretty fucking funny! And you know what? They involve the
Englishman doing something desperately stupid. Being an Englishman, am I
offended? Fuck no.

This entire situation is beyond ridiculous.

~~~
tomjen3
It seems that of late sex (or talk about sex) = sexism.

Well no wonder then, that we can't have decent penis joke no more.

~~~
pekk
Let it not be forgotten that talking about sex in the wrong way in the wrong
context actually is abusive.

If they were talking about Adria's body parts, or what they would like to do
to Adria. Or propositioning her for sex. Or saying "hey baby" to her. Or
trying to start a creepy conversation with her about her sex habits. These are
among astronomically many possible examples of how you can talk
inappropriately about sex to someone.

As a general rule, don't talk about sex to strangers, if you can't pick up any
pattern of what is abusive or not.

~~~
tomjen3
Ah, but then they would be talking about _her_ , not about sex.

------
sp332
Props to PyCon (and jnoller especially) for taking the issue seriously _and_
not over-reacting or playing CYA.

------
jagermo
I'm a little confused, what about privacy laws? Yes, you are at a conference,
but that doesn't give anybody the right to take your picture and post it on
twitter, without asking your permission, right? (Sorry, German here, so if the
laws in the US are completly different, please ignore).

~~~
potatolicious
> _"Yes, you are at a conference, but that doesn't give anybody the right to
> take your picture and post it on twitter, without asking your permission,
> right?"_

Even in Germany this is legal. The right to photograph someone is usually
delineated by the principle of "reasonable expectation of privacy". Note that
this is a legal term that has been defined both through legislation and via
decades of case law in many countries - so personal definitions of it don't
apply here.

Common places where courts have upheld the reasonable expectation of privacy
include restrooms (including public ones), a home, a hotel room, etc. A
conference talk is _not_ one of these places. Which is to say, people are free
to photograph at will.

Note that should the property be private, the owners (or agents thereof) are
entitled to disallow photography. Note _also_ , importantly, that the right to
disallow photography _does not include_ the right to confiscate any
photographs already taken. The most the property owner can do is remove the
individual from their premises or have them arrested for trespassing.

Note also that while photographing someone in a public place is not a
violation of any criminal law in most Western countries, it does not shield
you from civil liabilities - you can still be pursued for damages, libel, or
defamation (which seem like it may be relevant in this situation).

There are some countries and territories with substantially stricter laws
regarding the likeness of people. Japan and Quebec for example are places
where the right to photograph someone in public is not protected by default.

~~~
arrrg
You are wrong about the law in Germany.

As you correctly stated, _taking_ photographs is very unregulated (and wasn’t
regulated at all until a few years ago) in Germany. It’s only illegal to
_take_ photos in the places you listed. (Actually it’s not so much about
specific places. The photos have to invade a private area of life, though that
usually means places like the home, hotel rooms or restrooms are off limits.)
This barrier is actually relatively high, not everything is immediately an
invasion of a private area of life, even if it might seem so. A normal shot of
you hanging out in a conference room with hundreds other people? Not an
invasion of a private area of life.

This also means that privately owned but public spaces are not included there,
like, say, conference halls or train stations or shopping malls and similar
such places. As you also correctly stated, the owner can disallow photographs,
though by default (i.e. if the owner doesn’t have any rules) _taking_
photographs is perfectly ok.

The issue is _publishing_ photographs. There the barriers are much, much
higher in Germany. If there are people in it, the default is that you are not
allowed to publish them unless every person in the photograph agrees. Now, as
always with the law, there are (of course) exceptions (e.g. if people are only
incidental to the photograph and not the main subject, say if you take a photo
of a building and there happen to be a few people in front of it), though none
of them apply in this case. _Publishing_ this photo wouldn’t be legal in
Germany ( _taking_ it would), though it is important to note that in Germany
those depicted in the photo would have to come forward and press charges.
Otherwise the police is not allowed to investigate or charge people. (You
could say that the default assumption of the law is that everyone in published
photographs agreed to it and if you don’t it’s on you to come forward.)

However, that is not the case in the US where both taking and publishing this
photo is perfectly legal. So I do not really see the relevance of this
discussion.

~~~
potatolicious
You're right - I looked into this and it looks like Germany actually has very
strict laws regarding this - as strict as Japan's, on cursory examination.

It's a shame, IMO - Europe is the birthplace of photography, and of street
photography in particular, and we are still reaping the benefits of the
historical record provided by decades of laissez-faire attitudes re:
photographing strangers.

~~~
arrrg
As I said, there are exceptions. As there always are with the law. Here they
are (in German): <http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kunsturhg/__23.html>

You don’t need permission to publish photos of historical significance. That’s
pretty much why newspaper photographers can exist in Germany. All those kinds
of photos – if they do not invade some private area of life of the depicted
persons – are totally fine.

As I already mentioned, the same is true for photos in which the people are
not the main subject – though if some person is easily identifiable you likely
do need their permission, even if they are not the center of the attention.
This exception is mostly so that someone ten pixels in size or so cannot rain
into the photographer’s parade.

Or – and this can apply to street photography – if it serves a higher interest
of the arts. I think the general recommendation for street photographers is to
make eye contact with who they photograph and check that way whether it’s ok.
Also, walking up and talking to who you photographed isn’t super hard. As I
already said, photographing without publishing is nearly always ok, so you can
shoot first and get permission later. Also, since those depicted actually have
to press charges it’s not like the police will bust your exhibition and
confiscate your photos. Someone who is on some published photo has to
complain. And even then there still is legal wriggle room. The right to
privacy is one of the rights defined in the German constitution – but so is
the freedom of the arts. If those two collide judges have to weigh them
against each other and decide which wins. I guess shots of someone picking
their nose in public might might make privacy win, shots of someone drinking
coffee in a cafe might make freedom of the arts win. (Also, it’s not like this
is a felony. It’s a private law issue.)

Photos of assemblies or demonstrations or similar such events are also ok.
Huh, now I’m questioning my statement that the published photo is not covered
by one of the exceptions. My interpretation of this was always that this
covers all kinds of political events. Being able to publish photos of
political events or demonstrations is important for a democracy, that’s the
light in which I always saw that exception. However, the actual text of the
law is very generic and probably makes reference to all kinds of events, not
just political ones. I wonder how the courts interpreted this in the past.

So I guess I can’t say after all whether publishing the photo is ok – not the
least of which because the paragraph ends with a sentence that screws up all
clearly delineated lines: All those exceptions are null and void if those
depicted have a justifiable interest in preventing that. So an exception of an
exception.

Now I’m frustrated. And actually want to study law.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"You don’t need permission to publish photos of historical significance."_

That's insufficient for the sort of photography I mean. There is a tremendous
amount of historical value provided in even shots of the mundane. Look up the
works of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Garry Winogrand, Treng Parke, among many
others - these are photographers who captured regular people, in regular
situations, in daily life, and in doing so provide a valuable historical
record decades later.

The historical record of a people is, IMO, not embodied in photographs of
famous politicians and actors, but rather in regular people - and to disallow
their photographing by default inhibits this. The concern isn't just
historical, it's also artistic - if we disallowed photography of people
without explicit model releases almost all of the photography in art museums
today would not exist.

> _"Or – and this can apply to street photography – if it serves a higher
> interest of the arts."_

That's an incredibly vague - and conservative - angle on it. Street
photography has traditionally pushed the boundaries of what society finds
acceptable, and for the most part it is always vindicated over time. Most of
the challenging, worthwhile street photography would _not_ hit the "higher
interest of the arts" bar at the time they are taken.

Your standard basically means that whatever is being done has been accepted by
mainstream society already as a valuable art form. Now tell me, how much of
new art is already accepted by society at large at the time of creation?

Take a look at, for example, the work of Bruce Gilden, whose working method is
still controversial today, but I for one am glad he has the freedom to do it.

> _"I think the general recommendation for street photographers is to make eye
> contact with who they photograph and check that way whether it’s ok. Also,
> walking up and talking to who you photographed isn’t super hard."_

I do street photography almost every day. I know this - it's _easy_ to get
_permission_ , it's hard to shove a piece of paper in someone's face and have
them sign their legal rights away. The bar isn't "subjects should be
consenting", it's "subjects should have signed a legally binding agreement".
That is the part that is unreasonable.

> _"As I already said, photographing without publishing is nearly always ok,
> so you can shoot first and get permission later."_

You want to track a stranger on a street down later, put a legal agreement in
front of them, and get them to sign it?

> _"The right to privacy is one of the rights defined in the German
> constitution – but so is the freedom of the arts."_

All around the world, almost universally, the protect of the "arts" extends
only to what has already been deemed acceptable. Street photography still
isn't recognized consistently as an art form, much less a protected one. Like
I said before, to define acceptability as "worthwhile arts" merely protects
what doesn't need protecting: art forms that mainstream society already finds
palatable and desirable.

------
coldtea
That's nice.

Especially when the harassment is "two friends taking to each other in some
row".

------
afreak
Since when does everyone have the right to being offended?

To put this into context, Adria is most certainly allowed to be bothered the
comments made during this conversation. However, there has to be a distinction
between whether or not this is private or public.

If this fellow went on stage and then started to make these jokes, it could be
considered inappropriate and as a result she would in my mind have a valid
complaint. It is similar to how Michael Richards made some rather off-colour
remarks about a certain ethnicity on stage, which as a result ruined his
career. If he had made these comments in private, I'd imagine that he'd still
be making terrible attempts at sitcom pilots.

However, when it is a conversation between two parties where she wasn't
included but just ended up overhearing it, then she has no right to complain.
These guys may be obnoxious to you, but you can remove yourself from the
situation quite easily. Tweeting a photo of them was uncalled for however, but
she could have still made a photo-less quip about them which would have been
appropriate.

Public shaming people for their private conversations is uncalled for when it
is specifically targeted. Adria doesn't need to apologise for being bothered
over it, but she certainly should for going about it the way she did.

[edit]

Sendgrid responded:

Effective immediately, SendGrid has terminated the employment of Adria
Richards. While we generally are sensitive and confidential with respect to
employee matters, the situation has taken on a public nature. We have taken
action that we believe is in the overall best interests of SendGrid, its
employees, and our customers. As we continue to process the vast amount of
information, we will post something more comprehensive.

------
kjackson2012
They forgot to add that all childish jokes should not be shared amongst each
other, ever.

~~~
pcote
Childishness, silliness, and lewdness is a core part of what Monty Python was
about. Monty Python's style of humor was encouraged in the Python programmer
culture from the beginning. It's ironic that Pycon's policy would prevent me
from publicly reciting some of my favorite Flying Circus skit lines.

~~~
feralmoan
She could have just slapped him with a fish like any grown adult would do and
found a more deserving target of righteous indignation.

------
SagelyGuru
There is a certain category of an especially nasty person who loves taking up
'high moral ground', as it is generally promulgated by powers that be of their
time, and using it to mercilessly destroy their fellow human beings. They are
drunk with evil power and the sheer simplicity of it: just apply a glib label
to your victim.

Pagan, heretic, catholic, protestant, blasphemer, republican, communist, anti-
communist, racist, sexist....

Nothing new under the Sun. I wonder what will be the next 'in-vogue' label.
The labels change but the type of person who is fond of using them is always
the same, always nasty.

------
fibbery
Seriously? Dick jokes aren't misogynist,and the joke the guy made wouldn't
even earn a PG rating. Plus, it's a private conversation. If they had said
something truly sexist (eg commenting about the body parts of a female
presenter) I would at least understand being offended, but public shaming
would still not be justified for an eavesdropped conversation.

It sucks, but it's really apparent that this woman used the hot button issue
of sexism at tech conferences (which is a legitimate problem in professional
presentations) to get attention for herself and her personal "brand" of anti
sexism crusader... meanwhile, crying wolf like this potentially reduces the
chance that later complaints will be taken seriously, and that actual sexism
will be written off as a similar case of 'help help I'm being oppressed'!

~~~
alxp
Dick jokes may or may not be misogynistic depending on the intent and the
context. The default assumption that a woman's actions are to attract
attention? That's misogynistic. Stop doing that.

~~~
fibbery
OK, so I should have clarified the type of dick joke.. if the joke was "I'd
like to put my dongle in her input jack" it'd be at the very least sexist.
This one was not.

"The default assumption that a woman's actions are to attract attention" That
is not at all my default assumption. In fact, I'm very much on the side of the
women who do experience sexual harassment at conferences and are brave enough
to speak up about it.

But as for the circumstances here (joke that was pretty benign and didn't
concern her, public shaming) and the person involved, yes, I do believe it was
for attention.

------
throwawayabc
This is tricky.

"Dear Attendees,

If you feel you're being harassed, please don't tell anyone but us. Thanks."

As a general rule I think we should be working to empower people to handle
situations on their own (part of that handling will likely include notifying
organizers). Not disenfranchising them so they've got no recourse but to
report something to a group of people selected for their ability to run a
conference, not necessarily mediate disputes.

Do I happen to think that "public shaming" was appropriate here? Probably not.
Do I think it's been effectively used by many groups in the past to effect
change, yes. The fact that PyCon and many other conferences have adopted a
code of conduct is evidence of this.

When a group asks me to constrain how I behave outside the confines of their
event (on twitter for example) I tend to apply it universally. If I can't talk
about the bad I most definitely will not talk about the good. I'll not have a
third party filtering my communication that way.

~~~
Nursie
That's not really what it says though - "Report the harassment incident
(preferably in writing) to a conference staff member - all reports are
confidential, please do not disclose public information about the incident
until the staff have had sufficient time in which to address the situation. "

It's saying 'please tell us first and give us a chance to sort it out to
everyone's satisfaction'.

That's really not tricky at all.

------
danso
> _Note: Public shaming can be counter-productive to building a strong
> community. PyCon does not condone nor participate in such actions out of
> respect_

I think the "out of respect" is unnecessary and somewhat nonsensical. Out of
respect for whom? I think it's fine to just say that PyCon, like any
reasonable organization, doesn't participate or condone in such public
shaming, period...because the reasons to not engage in it are myriad.

~~~
milkshakes
It's on Github... Fork it and make a pull request?

~~~
freehunter
Easy with that word...

------
adekok
The comments here are curious. The bulk of them are arguing the finer points
of rampant speculation. Why did the guy get fired? What were her motives? Was
their conversation intended to be private?

This is all beside the point. Engaging in such conversations is feeding a
witch-hunt (on either side).

The facts as I've seen them are simple. He made a penis joke which could be
overheard. She took offense. He admitted it was an offensive penis joke. He
got fired.

The telling point for me is her other behavior. She made a penis joke on
Twitter. Unless she admits that that joke was offensive, she's a hypocrite.

I find that more offensive than the original joke. Being offended at behavior
you do yourself is at best naive. At worst deliberately hypocritical and
amoral.

------
ricleal
Less than 30 mins ago: "Effective immediately, SendGrid has terminated the
employment of Adria Richards"

<https://www.facebook.com/SendGrid/posts/10151502570463967>

------
scott_meade
Passive public shaming could be the future with Google Glass and like tech.
Your behavior won't need to be actively "reported". If it happens within range
of someone wearing Glass, what you say and do could simply be recorded,
indexed, and searchable by anyone.

------
njharman
I don't see how penis jokes, fucking jokes, etc. are in anyway sexism,
misogyny or otherwise against women. They're against prudes and the sexually
repressed. They're inappropriate in some contexts.

If you feel they are sexist, etc. It is you who are being sexist and demeaning
cause you've accepted the stereotype that women should be virginal, sexually
repressed, are frail and weak needing protected from thoughts of sex, sexual
innuendo, etc.

------
gcb0
Nothing to see here. She manipulated a bunch of guys (dressed up as woman,
smiled while taking their pictures, giving a very false and manipulative
premise) and publicly difamed them over something he/she overheard. Which
could be totally taken out of context...

To be honest, anon taking an interest on her is a fitting end for someone who
values the privacy of others so low like she proven to.

------
chernevik
They can amend the rules all they like but they'll never arrive at a set that
properly covers all the various behaviors that people rightly find
objectionable.

In the process of trying they'll very likely end up with a set of
contradictory and/or impossibly ambiguous rules. They'll also encourage people
to think that by compliance with the rules they've done all they need to.
They'll encourage still others to abuse the rules in ways detrimental to other
people. And they'll discourage a lot of harmless and possibly useful /
interesting / fun discussion out of fear that it will be interpreted as a
violation.

Gender bias and stereotyping are problems of culture. The various violations
are all questions of judgment. Those judgments will always depend on questions
of context. That doesn't mean the problems are unimportant or that there can't
be consensus judgments of a full set of facts. But it does mean you cannot
solve questions of integrity and intent and interpretation with external
rules.

------
Zikes
Should this open the door to a discussion about the ethics of public shaming?

~~~
pyre
Public shaming is a tool in the kit, but in this case it was the first one
that she reached for. From her blog post, it sounded like it was out of
frustration over other incidences (maybe even worse cases of offence /
harassment) that she had also ignored. It was the 'straw that broke the
camel's back' so to speak, and unleashed her pent up anger/frustration.

Personally, I think that there were other avenues to pursue this, without
resorting to public shaming. It adds nothing to the generic goal of 'improving
the community for women (present and future)' which seemed to have been on her
mind (at least from her blog post). Talking about it in public promotes that
goal, but naming names does not.

~~~
tomjen3
Public shaming is a tri-edged blade with no handle, made of fire. Yes you can
wield it, but you are going to get hurt, possibly badly, likely you are going
to take somebody who just stood next to you down with you too. If you hurt
your intended target, you can't control the degree and it is going to have
unintended consequences that you can't stop, let alone control.

Do you really think it should be in the toolkit?

~~~
pyre
As a weapon of last resort. Even then, only when retreat / choosing your
battles doesn't make sense.

For example, if something progressed to getting the police or lawyers
involved, at least some amount of it is going to be public record. Even though
it might not (initially) be broadcast widely, it would eventually hit the tech
press if it stemmed from events at a tech conference.

------
blhack
I just want to remind everybody in this thread that the "offending, sexual
comments" were two adult men joking that "dongle" and "dong" sound the same.

------
rdl
I'm incredibly impressed by how PyCon has handled this whole thing (both their
CoC and how they arbitrated it, and their success in attracting 20% women to a
programming conference.) Compare it to e.g. the BSidesSF fiasco.

One of the awesome things about Python is that two of the best Python
developers I know are female, along with maybe 20-30% of "good" programmers
who program primarily in Python being female as well. It really seems like one
of the more inclusive technical communities.

I wonder how much of that is due to the language itself, how much is how it's
been used in academic programs, and how much is due to the people who were
originally involved in the language, the conferences, etc.

------
nkuttler
It appears that Adria Richards herself was just fired.
<https://www.facebook.com/SendGrid/posts/10151502570463967>

------
kstrauser
I just issued a pull request that would add test cases to the Code of Conduct.
It's at [https://github.com/kstrauser/pycon-code-of-
conduct/commit/14...](https://github.com/kstrauser/pycon-code-of-
conduct/commit/1448bf5f9a40ef2ab29b2869329a96f4de01c371) .

The idea is that:

1\. It's good to define exactly what we want to happen in various test cases.
Either we can get consensus ("yeah, that's how it should turn out!") or decide
that there's no clear answer. Both results add valuable information to the
process. 2\. We have examples to compare the actual Code of Conduct against to
decide whether it achieves the results we want.

I'm not directly related to PyCon in any way other than as a happy attendee.
As of this moment, I have no support (official or otherwise) for this project.
I just think it could be a useful tool and an interesting exercise. Please
jump in if you agree!

PS: The syntax is awful. I'm keenly aware of that, but I'm not aware of other
testing frameworks for English documents and I'm making it up as I go along.

------
abalone
This doesn't seem very well thought out outside of the present scenario.

If someone is raped at a conference and blogs about it, naming their attacker,
are they in violation of conference policy for engaging in "public shaming"?

In a non-sexual context, if someone is caught trying to hack into attendees'
computers (another code of conduct violation), is tweeting a photo of them
saying "look out for this guy" a violation of conference policy?

Remember this: The best solution to offensive speech is more speech, not less.

------
ivanhoe
Everything else on the side, but taking pictures of unknown people and
publishing them along with the names and full info constitutes a serious
invasion of privacy. Not sure about US laws, but almost everywhere in Europe
this is totally illegal to do. Model or owner release is absolutely required
to be able to publish any pictures of regular people or private properties.
For exactly this kind of reasons.

------
cafard
When the history of our times is written, I trust that someone will note the
enormous addition of rules to cover situations that should be managed by
common sense and good will, the subsequent discovery that the rules do not
prevent all bad behavior, and the addition of still more rules.

Does anyone really believe that the Code of Conduct will effect a real change?

------
KVFinn
Both Adria and the guy who made the joke lose their jobs? What a disaster.

NOBODY should have been fired over this an any side. WTF.

------
kailuowang
IMHO, this is another perfect example of conflict caused by communication
failure. If Adria communicated her feeling when she heard the joke to the
joker he would've apologized immediately and nothing would've happened
afterwards. Many more people would've remained a calmer and more pleasant
mood.

------
malachismith
The comment thread here is incredibly sad and depressing and perfectly
illustrates how deeply misogyny is threaded through this community and
industry.

You might want to go and find a female friend and have them read what you
wrote. I think their responses might be enlightening.

~~~
jeltz
Please do not attack entire communities. Especially like now when there have
been very few misogynist comments in this discussion.

------
squozzer
Huh. And here I thought the reason people organized socially was to exclude
the unlikable.

------
asciimo
Here is the tweet that seems to have motivated the patch to the PyCon Code of
Conduct: <https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/313417655879102464>

------
pbreit
Why does a conference about a programming language need a code of conduct?
Does anyone even read it before conducting? I know it gets a lot of attention
after conducting.

------
tekromancr
Why does everyone care? There has to be some point where people realize how
insignificant the issue that they are freaking out over is, on all sides.

------
jackowayed
There are some things people in these threads are chronically getting wrong.

First, lots of people are making the claim that this was a "private" joke. It
was not. If it was a private joke and they shouldn't be punished for that
reason, then they should have been able to say _anything_ , and as long as
everyone who was meant to be in the private conversation appreciated it, it
would be wrong to punish them because it was private.

So here's an example: What if they made a joke wherein they said, "Let's lynch
a <n word>"? They likely would have been kicked out, could easily have been
fired, and no one would have much sympathy for them. Why? Because _it's not in
private_. They were at a conference, which is a community gathering with
community standards to make sure that everyone feels welcome, and they were
talking when literally surrounded by attendees they don't know. What they say
absolutely has an effect on how welcome others feel. We've decided that it's
important enough that all feel welcome that we've made codes of conduct.

So once we've established that there are things they could have said that
would make their behavior unacceptable, you're now saying "that comment didn't
warrant this response", not "this was a private conversation! how could they
ever kick them out or fire them for that?"

And at that point, we get to all the arguments that this joke "wasn't sexist".
It is true, that the joke itself was not sexist; it did not objectify women,
suggest that they are less than men, etc.

But it was contributing to aspects of the tech industry's culture that make it
less welcoming to women, and for that reason, it is unacceptable at a
professional conference. (It's also just crude and might make some men
uncomfortable, and so is unacceptable for that reason too.) In nearly every
context that a woman in tech finds herself, she is surrounded by men. This can
often make them feel somewhat unwelcome or uncomfortable. Even little things,
like a few people who make comments suggesting that they're nontechnical, or a
few people asking them out at every single meetup they go to, can make them
feel less comfortable and less valued for what they came to the conference to
do--be technical.

Anything that contributes to the feeling of the conference being a boy's club,
or sexualizes the environment, can make this worse.

Finally, many people ask, "Why didn't she just say something to them?" While I
don't think going straight to twitter was the best she could have done, I also
don't think people understand how difficult it can be to approach someone and
call them out on behavior that makes one feel uncomfortable, especially in a
space where one already does not feel especially welcome or taken seriously.
If everyone yells, "you should have just talked to them!" every time a woman
immediately complains to organizers about inappropriate behavior, you're just
encouraging more women to silently feel unwelcome, and likely drop out of the
community, rather than speaking up and helping make the community better. I
agree that, when comfortable, directly speaking with the offending party is
best way to deal with these problems, but those who have been made
uncomfortable have absolutely no responsibility to do so, and shouldn't be
pushed to do it even if they are not comfortable with it.

~~~
hackinthebochs
> "Let's lynch a <n word>"? They likely would have been kicked out and no one
> would have much sympathy for them. Why? Because it's not in private.

Your point about the n-word is wrong. Being private has nothing to do with it.
It is using the word at all, and the type of person that using such a word
implies, that would cause the huge backlash. It wouldn't matter if someone
were secretly recorded in their own house making that joke and then publicly
outed on youtube--they would still be fired/shunned etc. Public vs private has
nothing to do with it.

------
masterponomo
I flirted with Python for a while, but couldn't stop obsessing over the built-
in recursion limit. Now, seeing what goes on at PyCon, I'm SO glad I switched
to brainfuck. There's not only no brittle speech police there, there's NOBODY
there.

------
gosukiwi
Feminists so fun

------
dos1
One of the reasons I've taken an interest in this whole fiasco is that I
occasionally make "colorful" jokes. Not dissimilar from the two guys at PyCon.
I make every attempt to keep these jokes private between my friends and I, but
I'm sure others have heard me make them. Some people might find them funny,
others may be offended. It scares me to think that making an offhand penis
joke could result in being publicly outed on Twitter with no opportunity to
defend myself.

I believe that Adria Richards did not handle the situation appropriately. I
believe she's being a hypocrite by taking offense one day, and making her own
penis joke on Twitter the next. I believe that she's further stoking the
internet's rage by refusing to admit any fault. I think the other women that
are jumping to her defense are doing themselves, and women in technology a
disservice. They are not thinking critically or putting themselves in the
conference attendee's shoes. I'm quite sure they would not like to be publicly
outed for a private conversation.

Public shaming was not the right way to handle the situation. An apology from
Adria would have gone a long way in defusing the situation. She chose not to
go this route. I'm sad that a silly penis joke turned in to this.

Preemptive Edit: I do NOT believe that ANYONE should suffer the wrath of the
Internet. I do NOT believe that ANY conference attendees should have to sit
idly by and listen to penis jokes. I'm only saying that publicly shaming these
guys was a mistake, and that an apology for the mistake could have basically
fixed the problem before it got this far.

~~~
imsofuture
What's amazing to me is the cognitive dissonance required to make the leap
from Adria publicly outing someone (questionable, but not egregious given you
know, the public venue) making an off-color joke to 'she got these people
fired'.

Their boss finding out what they said got them fired. Because what they said
wasn't appropriate in the opinion of their employer. Period. Full stop.

~~~
Sumaso
It was her public outing that caused this situation in the first place!

Also, do you think if there wasn't as much drama going around that these men
still would have been fired?

There is much more to this situation then an employer finding out that one of
their employees make a dongle joke at a conference, and decided that was
grounds for them to be fired. It is much more likely that the employer doesn't
want to be associated with the debate taking place online, rather than being
appealed by their employees actions.

~~~
imsofuture
If a man had posted that tweet, their firing would not have been notable and
the internet would not be calling for boycotts, 'justice', apologies nor
issuing death threats.

~~~
jordan0day
That's an unsupportable assertion.

~~~
SallySinep
But shucks, it "feels" like it's true. Therefore, in the poster's mind, it is.

------
largesse
Nice start, but it needs to come down directly on use of social media to
harass a conference participant. It's not strong enough for what she did.

------
fyi80
Eventually, egalitarians will noticed that they are being played the fool by
self-serving hate-mongers who care nothing about building a better world, and
care everything about picking fights and dragging people down.

------
stefantalpalaru
Too little, too late.

------
spotchecker
Good. I think Adria might even agree in retrospect given the way she responded
to the man who joked about saved pubic hair. Or should a picture have been
taken and posted of him too? Curious what she thinks.

------
JulianMorrison
I disagree. Public shaming is the right way to make harassers actually fear
the consequences (to their career, for example).

~~~
MattBearman
That may or may not be true, but it's not really relevant to this. Adria
wasn't harassed, she over heard something, and took offence to it. That's her
problem.

When ever someone claims to be offended, I'm always reminded of Stephen Fry's
excellent response - <http://imgur.com/EX5v4>

~~~
poutine
Exactly. Penn and Teller did a bit on it too:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bwGsOBTlhE>

So fucking what, indeed.

