
Bullshit I had to go through while organizing a software conference - unbalancedparen
https://notamonadtutorial.com/the-bullshit-i-had-to-go-through-while-organizing-a-software-conference-4de1225d0acb
======
gumby
I am glad this was written without naming the people involved. Although I see
nothing wrong with naming names in situations like this (see below) the lack
of specific names meant I could focus on the _experiences_ (as related by the
poster) rather than having the specific people colour my opinion.

The reason I think specifying people by name would have been OK is that 1 -
they were presumably an issue for a number of attendees due to (prior)
publicly stated positions and 2 - they apparently made subsequent statements
via "broadcast" media such as Twitter, for anyone to peruse. This would be
quite different if the people were more private, and if all discussions had
been private and/or via non-broadcast tools like SMS or WhatsApp. Plus naming
names could cause me to read what they had said and even disagree with the OP,
at least on the baseline of non-inviting them. However the anonymity made the
post much more interesting.

~~~
electricslpnsld
> I see nothing wrong with naming names

As he is pursuing legal options, I’m guessing his counsel told him not to.

~~~
baud147258
He named people (and showed pictures of messages) on Twitter in this convo
[1], FWIW.

At this point, I think it's more to avoid further escalation, as said in the
article.

[1][https://twitter.com/unbalancedparen/status/11223070591548702...](https://twitter.com/unbalancedparen/status/1122307059154870273)

~~~
revvx
I watched this unfold on twitter, and in the organizer's defense, he only
addressed the situation and the culprits after those people started a public
discussion regarding the ban. The organizer was defending himself.

It's a difficult situation to be in.

~~~
ambicapter
Moral of the story: Strike first, strike hard, no mercy?

More reasonably but still on the aggressive side, does this mean that now we
have to publicly announce when speaker invitations are rescinded to get ahead
of the story?

~~~
striking
At first glance, it kind of does. Although it makes you wonder what you'd
actually put in this public announcement. Would you simply state the facts
(along the lines of "sorry, but X isn't going to be speaking after all.") or
would there be more detail (read: speculation) included?

I don't really think there's a way to win this. In the event that you're
wrong, it'll blow up. In the event that you're right, it still probably will
blow up, depending on whether that person (or their fans) go on the offensive
or not.

The only actual winning move is not to have played (only inviting people that
you know, doing advanced due diligence on anyone a degree of separation away),
but are you really winning if you do that? It would seem to seriously limit
your horizons.

------
bquinlan
I've been a co-convener for two Python conferences in Vancouver.

The conferences were small (<200 people) but I don't remember the organization
being as stressful as the article describes.

For me, the key sources of stress were:

1\. hoping that tickets and sponsorship would cover our costs (at some point
you have to pay for your venue, flights for your keynotes, etc. and this
happens _before_ ticket sales open). I think that we lost a few hundred
dollars on the first conference and donated a few hundred dollars to the
Python Software Foundation on the second one.

2\. the BBQ. For both years, I arranged a beach BBQ but didn't have enough
budget to deal with contingencies in the event of rain (remember this is
Vancouver so the chance definitely exists). My plan was to refund attendees if
we canceled the BBQ but that would have been thousands of dollars out of my
pocket and lots of disappointed people. Fortunately, it didn't rain in either
years.

I would say that convening a conference in a city where you have lots of
connections really helps. For example, I was able to buy salmon direct from
the docks for the BBQ because I knew someone who was willing to help me. I
also used my family as the chefs
([https://photos.app.goo.gl/C6yNzqMnBG98GxE36](https://photos.app.goo.gl/C6yNzqMnBG98GxE36)).

What I do remember being hard was not the planning but going without sleep
during the conference itself. As a convener, I had to be at the venue before
any attendees arrived, had to leave after the last attendee left and then
still had to deal with issues, etc. for the next day.

Still it was tonnes of fun!

~~~
unbalancedparen
Some simple things (logistics, catering, etc) in countries like Argentina are
more difficult. However, your are right. We had a LOT of fun last year. I
think I am pessimistic because of everything that happened these last few
weeks.

~~~
juliusmusseau
Good luck in the courts. Unfortunately that route is very slow.

(You're probably looking at 1.5 to 3 years before you obtain any final orders
- and then there's the issue of enforcing any orders you might obtain!)

------
headcanon
Sorry to hear about the harassment, thats never fun to deal with. On the plus
side, sounds like OP made the right call to disinvite the person from the
conference. You can tell an awful lot about a person by how they handle
rejection.

~~~
londons_explore
As long as that speaker was one of many, I wouldnt have uninvited them.

If the audience has an issue with one speaker out of 10, they can take a lunch
break then.

If it's one out of 2, I can see why they might not want to attend.

Using inclusion or exclusion to punish someone for past actions I would try to
avoid at all costs. If someone has broken the law, the legal system is there
to do punishment. It isn't your role as conference organiser/colleague/etc. to
punish. You are not qualified to make decisions as to the veracity of the
claim.

Perhaps the furthest I'd go is saying to them "you (rightly or wrongly) have a
reputation for X. Please make sure none of that happens during the
conference."

~~~
village-idiot
I feel that such policies fall apart when faced with truly toxic people. If
the claims of the above article are true, I would consider the people being
mentioned to be truly toxic.

------
myself248
Sounds like the same reason the Derbycon organizers aren't doing it again:
[https://www.derbycon.com/blog/derbycon-9-0-every-
beginning-h...](https://www.derbycon.com/blog/derbycon-9-0-every-beginning-
has-an-end/)

~~~
xvector
> To put it in perspective, we had to deal with an individual that was
> verbally and mentally abusive to a number of our volunteer staff and
> security to the point where they were in tears.

It sounds like the proper response to this is to tell the individual to "fuck
off and _never_ come back", but looks like popularity mattered too much to the
Derbycon organizers:

> Admittedly, we had no idea how to handle this person, and in fear of
> repercussion of removing this person, allowed them to stay at the conference
> in order to “not upset the masses”.

Guys, the response to adults acting like children is to completely ignore them
and kick them out of your discussions. They do not deserve to be a part of
your forum. Perhaps tell them why you're doing so, so they can improve
themselves, but there is no need to deal with their shit.

~~~
nikanj
Alas, it's not that simple. A lot of professional victims out there, ready to
bring out an utter shitstorm if they get slighted. Conference organizers have
their careers to think about, and getting nailed on Twitter as a *ist is a
great way to become unemployable.

------
duxup
>Nevertheless, we didn’t expect a threatening reaction followed by several
emails, Twitter DMs, persistent phone calls and Whatsapp messages. She even
texted my girlfriend, one of the organizers of the conference, whose telephone
number is not public and wasn’t given to her at any moment. At the same time,
she started contacting other speakers of the conference.

At that point you know you made the right choice... the rest is mind boggling.

~~~
bduerst
Right? If you're asked not to speak at a conference, why would you go on to
consistently prove it was the right decision to remove you?

~~~
stlHusker
It is the bullshit asymmetry principle: The amount of energy needed to refute
bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

As another person mentioned, DerbyCon got tired of dealing with it
([https://www.derbycon.com/blog/derbycon-9-0-every-
beginning-h...](https://www.derbycon.com/blog/derbycon-9-0-every-beginning-
has-an-end/)). And then had to respond to a bullshit storm related to their
integrity a month later ([https://www.derbycon.com/blog/derbycon-
clarifications-inclus...](https://www.derbycon.com/blog/derbycon-
clarifications-inclusiveness-and-gender/)).

------
jacquesm
Sounds like he made the right decision not to have her present. Any rejection
that generates such a wave of hatred and downright threatening activity was
certainly on good grounds, regardless of the situation before what happened
afterwards validates it.

------
leereeves
How can we know if your side of the story is the truth?

Either way, this is an excellent example of why the Twitter Justice System is
a bad idea.

~~~
commandlinefan
That was my takeaway - she's doing to him exactly what he allowed other people
to do to her. He's finding that he doesn't like it.

~~~
srpguy
Did we read the same article? He turned her speaker position down because of
her pattern of vengeful, childlike behavior. She acted completely in line with
what her reputation would suggest and pursued a personal harassment campaign.

Maybe I'm missing something. Can you enumerate what he allowed people to do to
her, and what she did to him? That way we can compare directly.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
That isn’t mentioned anywhere in the linked article.

------
mathgenius
I'm very sorry this person is having to suffer all this crap, but

> conferences tend to net to a loss.

If you put out a lot of energy, for "free", then you often get shit in return.
If you don't take responsibility for what you are getting back for all your
hard effort, things can easily go pear-shaped. This seems to be one of those
mystical laws of the universe. I'm not saying you should be selfish, or charge
big bucks for your time. There are plenty of ways for people to give something
back, and you need to make sure that is happening too.

------
MagicPropmaker
I'm a big fan of "unbalancedparen". He's a great guy; smart and considerate.

I think the Industry has invited this sort of bad behavior by rewarding Cry
Bullies at conferences. People act enititled and they're not willing to put up
with speakers who they may have political or philosophical problems with.
Similarly, speakers are expecting privileged treatment too, like the spurned
speaker in this blog posting.

When there is a real problem, we're unsure who or what to believe. People will
complain with the same force whether the problem is big or small. And everyone
tries for a "gotcha" and then to have a Trial by Twitter.

~~~
duxup
In the example ... there appear to be no "Cry Bullies" or similar action.

~~~
0815test
> ..."At that precise moment I saw the former speaker. She was calling the
> security of the event and using her cellphone to record me. She yelling that
> I was at the conference to stalk her, and that I was harassing her and
> following her. I never thought something like this could ever happen. It is
> worth noting that, at this point, I had only talked over the phone with her
> once, met her in person also once and, as I stated before, I had received
> several persistent communications on her."

Sure sounds like a "cry bully" to me. Despicable behavior for sure, and it
does validate his decision to not have her at the conference (after he was
made aware that her participation at the conference would be highly
problematic to others - particularly women, in fact).

Edit: Also a representative example from the twitter threads that were linked
elsewhere in this comment thread: `"uh these people are like that, be careful.
they take it out on someone, they see em as the enemy and they start to fuck
legally, and you also start getting anonymous complaints". I feel like a fool,
many knew and I did not. That's why these things have to be SPOKEN about, they
shouldn't be hidden`

~~~
duxup
I'm not sure what you mean by "cry bully" at this point.

~~~
DuskStar
I'd define 'CryBully" as the general pattern of "you should hurt this person
because I'm sympathetic and I say they hurt me". Literal crying, claiming
harassment and getting someone removed from a conference when no harassment
happened in retaliation for a speaker disinvitation would qualify as
crybullying in my book.

------
markvdb
Organising a conference is hard. Creating value is hard. Farting on social
media is easy.

As a conference organiser, handling social media fires is especially hard,
because you're at peak load already. You're organising a conference!

------
qbaqbaqba
The unnamed person could probably describe her experience in the same words as
the author did here. Author made her uncomfortable, organizers may have
consulted some gender or wherever oriented groups. We don't know the other
side of the story.

------
jawns
> There is no way of making a technical conference if some people feel
> insecure or uncomfortable.

I'm surprised to hear a conference organizer say this, because I think it's an
unrealistic goal.

There's a difference between people feeling as if their safety is being
directly threatened by someone at a conference and someone feeling
uncomfortable with a speaker because of, for instance, some of their personal
views that they strongly disagree with.

(Edit: In the original version of OP's blog post, it did not say why people
were uncomfortable with the speaker. It said, "My team and I were contacted by
different people to warn us that they were uncomfortable with the
participation of a speaker and her partner in our conference. They told the
organization of the conference that we would have problems with the speaker
and his partner. his communication took us by surprise since we had performed
a basic background check on the chosen speakers to avoid these kinds of
issues." The blog post was later updated to clarify, "They told the
organization of the conference that this couple had caused problems to women
in the community," which is still pretty vague.)

Obviously, conference organizers should be taking attendees' safety seriously
and making sure they're not being subjected to harassment or unjust
discrimination.

But if you take a "comfort is priority #1" mindset, it gives a lot of
ammunition to people who dislike a speaker's political views or choices they
might make in their personal life.

HN has had a bunch of previous threads about how welcoming conferences should
be to speakers who hold unorthodox or unpopular opinions -- stuff that
potential attendees might object to.

I think the general consensus has been:

If there is real evidence (e.g. past conduct at similar events) that they are
likely to engage in conduct that directly threatens the safety of other
attendees or otherwise violate the conference's code of conduct, it's a no-
brainer. Disinvite.

If they hold unorthodox, potentially objectionable opinions, but there's no
evidence that they're going to violate the code of conduct, and the issue is
that people merely feel uncomfortable being around someone who holds such
views (or they feel as if the conference is implicitly endorsing such views by
having the person as a speaker) then you take one of several paths:

If the opinion is unquestionably beyond the pale, like something that 9 out of
10 attendees would say, "Yeah, that's truly awful," then it's a pretty easy
decision. Disinvite.

If the opinion is about an issue that is merely controversial -- meaning that
in mainstream society, there is a wide range of opinions (e.g. any strong
opinion about abortion or guns) -- then you have to do some weighing of
principles vs. practical considerations. If maintaining the person as a
speaker is going to tank your conference, then even if you don't support
disinviting them as a matter of principle, you might decide it's necessary on
a practical level. But if it's not going to tank your conference, then you
might be able to lean more heavily on principles.

~~~
gameswithgo
I think the way these people reacted confirms that it would be a very bad idea
to have them at any conference. I wish they were named so I could avoid them
now.

~~~
leereeves
Would you avoid them simply on the basis of a blog post?

OP is saying a false accusation turned into a witch hunt because people
believed an allegation posted on the Internet without question.

What makes you confident you're better at detecting the truth than the people
who believed the woman's story?

~~~
lazyasciiart
What makes you believe the OP’s story?

~~~
kazinator
I don't absolutely believe OP's story, but an important feature of OP's story
is not naming any names.

The story contains various propositions that can basically be divided into:

1\. propositions that can likely be independently corroborated by large
numbers of people:

\--- the conference really happened (we are not told which conference where,
but if we knew that, numerous people could be found to attest to it, if it had
been real).

\--- that the organizer was loudly accosted by the woman, accusing him of
stalking: this is a public incident that supposedly happened, in front of
witnesses.

\--- the _non grata_ couple is real; people don't like them for some reason
and warn conference organizers

\--- the _non grata_ couple are known for harassing behavior

2\. claims made by the organizer, like:

\--- he denied participation in the conference to the couple

\--- he was harassed by the woman with repeated contact attempts

\--- the woman's allegations were false

The claims under (1) are verifiable true or false. If they are true, they lend
overwhelming credibility to (2). Basically if everything under (1) is true,
it's almost inconceivable that the (2) claims aren't.

------
valtism
I can't believe how many people are attacking the author here. He has had to
deal with things that nobody should have to, and the couple he uninvited are
clearly unhinged and he made a good decision uninviting them.

My sympathies go out to him, and I hope he get support in this, and it doesn't
suck up their will to do good things for the community like organise
conferences.

------
opportune
Perhaps I missed it but is it known specifically why that person was uninvited
to begin with?

~~~
gregmac
> My team and I were contacted by different people to warn us that they were
> uncomfortable with the participation of a speaker and her boyfriend in our
> conference. They told the organization of the conference that this couple
> had caused problems to women in the community.

> Several people who knew both of them confirmed that they had had problems
> with them in the past. We also talked with the organizers of other
> conferences and with dev that are part of gender groups focalized in
> technology and all of them recommended us to take distance from them.

~~~
opportune
I was hoping for something more specific i.e. concrete actions

~~~
emilfihlman
Probably controversial views on the internet, ie. nothing actually bad.

~~~
AgentME
I'm going to make a wild guess that it was more than that, given that they
were the type of person to harass the conference organizer after the fact.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
To be fair, most of the harassment allegations were vague and not even alleged
to be perpetrated by the woman who was disinvited (like “a famous hacker knows
her, and my Signal started doing weird things”).

------
ncmncm
I understand why the writer is not warning us who these people are. But if
_you_ know, please spill.

------
draw_down
The conference scene feels like such a hostile environment. I have my own
reasons for not being interested in speaking, but even absent that, my desire
to avoid anything resembling the above is much stronger than whatever desire
to have people listen to me talk about computers. And that's just speaking;
organizing is something I would never do, and really can't imagine how people
put up with it.

There is a conference I've gone to twice now and really enjoyed, so I'm going
again this year. But I expect as this conference grows, eventually this stuff
will come along with it and I'll stop attending.

It's a shame, but I don't really pin this hostility on any particular group
(ie, I'm not mad about "SJWs" or whatever). A lot of people acted in bad faith
for a lot of years for us to reach this point. There is another poster in this
thread talking about how "cry bullies" caused the problem. That kind of shit
is not helping.

~~~
0815test
> The conference scene feels like such a hostile environment.

It's a hostile environment either way - even the male speaker in this whole
drama was widely known as "a male chauvinist who persecutes and intimidates
women at sector conferences" \- which is why he was so unwelcome in the first
place! But sunlight is the best disinfectant - throw out with prejudice ANYONE
who is publicly known to engage in intimidating behavior, whether they're of
the "male chauvinist" or the "SJW" sort. Let the pox fall on both houses.

(edit for the avoidance of doubt: I mean the dude who was disinvited by OP, of
course.)

~~~
lawnchair_larry
It was a woman who was disinvited.

------
Mirioron
I was with the author until the diversity and equity part. Why does everything
have to boil down to skin color and gender? I don't see why you need to offer
this for a tech conference. It should be about ability and topics.

Edit: I already regret making this post.

~~~
wccrawford
Because there's a well-known imbalance, and not everything balances itself.
Sometimes fairness requires stepping in and lending a helping hand to right an
imbalance.

~~~
gameswithgo
should we be aggressively encouraging men to take up nursing?

~~~
acdha
If you searched for this, you would find multiple programs trying to do just
that. The difference is that it doesn't make the news because there isn't a
reactionary movement which sees that as an existential threat.

~~~
weberc2
There isn't a reactionary movement that sees "women in tech" as an existential
threat. The "reactionaries" you're alluding to are properly known as
"liberals" or "egalitarians".

~~~
weberc2
Gah, I realize that I think I was unclear. I didn’t mean “liberals and
egalitarians are reactionaries”, but rather the people who are critical of
tech diversity quotas are often motivated by liberal and egalitarian beliefs.
Hopefully that’s clearer if not more agreeable.

------
hkai
I couldn't understand anything. What sort of woman was disinvited and why
others were uncomfortable with her?

~~~
commandlinefan
He danced around that so much I feel like something is being hidden (besides
somebody’s identity).

~~~
village-idiot
Assuming that the story is true as written, one of the first reactions the
subject had to a negative experience was to have her boyfriend _harass the
conference organizer’s girlfriend_.

I think that would probably make women feel unsafe.

------
wolco
Many thoughts.

Change communication channel immediately.

Don't invite someone and when they arrive tell them they are not welcome to
speak. Post a list of speakers before, get your feedback and live with your
decisions.

This is the best thing that could happen to your event. Use this time wisely
to boost your event.

Is it just me or is there a group of people who seem to go to every
conference?

~~~
revvx
> Don't invite someone and when they arrive tell them they are not welcome to
> speak. Post a list of speakers before, get your feedback and live with your
> decisions.

The speaker was notified in April 25. The conference will happen in mid-June.
She was given fair warning.

------
goodrubyist
I hope the guy who wrote this post didn't choose to disinvite those two just
because they had unfashionable views on social justice. Morality /=/ fashion.

~~~
unethical_ban
Reading the rest of the story, and presuming the statements are true, I doubt
the decision was made based solely on abstract political opinion.

~~~
goodrubyist
I hope that's the case!

------
gwbas1c
I wish I knew why so many conference attendees requested that such a person be
removed from the conference.

Why? Part of diversity means being able to cooperate with people who have
different viewpoints and ideologies.

Further reading about this person's aggressive and retaliatory behavior
implies that this person has issues that should keep her out of conferences.
But, I still think it's important to understand why attendees ask that she be
removed.

~~~
stronglikedan
Sometimes, people who have different viewpoints and ideologies are,
themselves, not able to cooperate with a diverse group. This seems like one of
those times, and I wouldn't be surprised if her reputation preceded her within
the community.

------
alexanderlabrie
Small potatoes. I can't imagine legal action helping much. Move on from the
unpleasant experience and help others who face greater injustices.

~~~
ativzzz
You underestimate how far some people are willing to go to harass someone, and
in his case it has financial consequences, hence the lawyers.

~~~
alexanderlabrie
False: OP has not mentioned any financial consequences, only that he had to
"give explanations to sponsors."

~~~
bduerst
Probably because OP is not seeking legal action in _Hacker News Court_ , but
in a real court where broadcasting details of such information is not a good
idea.

------
lawnchair_larry
_“We also talked with the organizers of other conferences and with dev that
are part of gender groups focalized in technology and all of them recommended
us to take distance from them.”_

Experience tells me author is probably in the wrong here based on this
sentence alone. This screams of those extreme lefties that want to police
everybody else with their safe spaces and trigger warnings, then deplatform
and unperson anyone who doesn’t agree with their agenda or worldview. Author
should have disinvited those people instead.

 _”It was a difficult decision in which we prioritized the participation of
the public that had reached out to us while also knowing that many people,
especially women, wouldn’t come to the conference if we did nothing about this
situation.”_

This reeks of BS to me. We are supposed to believe that the presence of this
particular woman at a conference will discourage women from attending? What
the hell?

The reason for the extreme reaction was likely because it pissed them off that
these extremists got their way, and successfully censored and unpersoned
another victim. Admit it, you’d be pissed too.

If you don’t like one of the speakers, and you’re an adult, you skip that
talk. Stop creating drama and find a real purpose in life other than being a
professional victim.

~~~
BonesJustice
One can be justifiably angry without becoming completely unhinged. I have no
idea who was actually in the wrong here, but I would tend to side with the
person making the calm, measured response. All things being equal, if someone
acts nuts, they probably are.

------
enriquto
The reaction of the organizer is very sad. Civilization is based on the
peaceful collaboration of people who may hate each other. Disallowing such
collaboration is, by definition, uncivilized.

Being able to deal with people that make you very uncomfortable without
creating a fuss is a fundamental requirement of adulthood. Regardless of the
callous reaction of the un-invited person, it was not OK to un-invite them, at
least for the reasons exposed in this article.

The organizer says:

> Being accused like that caused me harm.

of course it did. Just like the harm you did by cancelling invitations on
behalf of a hypothetical discomfort of other people. It is exactly the same
behavior.

~~~
revvx
I watched this unfold on Twitter, and you're misrepresenting the situation.

The people removed from the conference have a history of disruption and
harassment in the community. They were removed because of previous behavior
that the organizer was not aware beforehand. He relied on the testimony of
people he trust.

\--

> Being able to deal with people that make you very uncomfortable without
> creating a fuss is a fundamental requirement of adulthood

The only people who engaged in "creating a fuss" were the speaker and a third-
party related to her. They decided to come forward and "out" themselves. Up to
that point, everything had been handled in private. There was no need to
involve other people such as the organizer's girlfriend or other speakers.

\--

> It is exactly the same behavior.

The organizer denied a speaking position and did so in private, without
incurring any shame or denying participation in general.

The speaker and a third party started a campaign of doxxing, harassment and,
as other commented put it: "public shaming using false allegations of stalking
and harassment".

There's a world of difference between those two behaviors.

