Well, whoop-de-fucking doo. Do you feel better now?
That's not sexism, it's GENDER DISCRIMINATION. And it's intended to counterbalance the years of bullshit that women have gone through because of the knuckle-draggers and others who aren't really concerned about such issues in charge. People who get a limited grasp on an idea and then try to twist the evidence to incorporate their world view, rather than doing joined-up thinking based on, you know, actual evidence.
I have spent years addressing the lack of all types of diversity in the open source world generally (and the Python community specifically) and I applaud efforts to increase female participation in information technology and open source. It is unconscionable that the gender balance in the open source software world is EVEN WORSE than in IT and the hi-tech world generally. But all you can do is bleat on about your nephew being discriminated against. Can't you see the larger good that this discrimination offers?
Did you also think the reverse discrimination applied to allow more black people to partake of opportunities which they had formerly been unconstitutionally denied was racist? I am aware there are some people who do, and they are peddling exactly the same type of bullshit as this.
I should apologize for the ad hominem use of "like you" and "idiot" in the original of the above description. I have apparently successfully edited the post, but intend to leave this apology here in case the original may be archived somewhere.
The truth is I don't know you, and I don't know anything about you, so it was unfair and unnecessary of me to characterize you in that way with a knee-jerk reaction. Sorry. You have stimulated a debate, and I do not wish to belittle your point of view, mistaken though I believe it to be.
You appear to misunderstand the principle. Behavior is acceptable or not in the context in which it occurs. Trying to make hard rules that specific actions are harassing is a no-hoper from the beginning. Behavior that might be perfectly acceptable with someone I know well could be completely harassing to someone I don't know.
The key issue is that if someone tells you that they consider your behavior offensive or unacceptable then you are expected to back off. To persist is one way of harassing people. Nobody's asking you to be a mind reader, but it does help if you have some empathy towards your fellow humans.
You appear to misunderstand the principle. Behavior is acceptable or not in the context in which it occurs.
Let me try to help tomjen3 out. What holdenweb is saying is that it is your responsibility to be psychic. You are required to know, a priori, the current emotional state, the degree of emotional fragility, and the receptiveness to new ideas that your chosen conversational partner possesses.
Most of the "context" of these types of occurrences are judged by the geekfeminist zeitgeist to be centered around the fear experienced by, and emotional state of, the other party -- which you are expected to know through various psychic processes.
I know common sense can't be easily codified – wait, no, actually it can, it's called etiquette and it's all the rage in certain other social circles – but "having common sense" does not require you to be psychic.
For instance, if I am at a party, and people are drinking beer, and there is music playing, common sense tells me that it's okay to ask somebody I don't know to dance with me. If I meet a girl who's a friend of my friend in a casual social circumstance, and we get along, common sense says that maybe I could ask her if she wants to get a drink sometime. If I'm at an atheist conference and it's four in the morning, and a woman gets on an elevator, common sense says, "There is no reason this woman is looking to have a conversation, let alone go out for drinks. Probably she is looking to go to sleep, as that is why many people board elevators in hotels at four in the morning. Likely she is tired, and not super in the mood for conversation."
Perhaps in that situation, if I'm feeling soooo social that I just can't pass up on a chance to make a human connection, I say a small talk thing, like, "I'm really liking this conference!" But just blatantly asking a girl out to drinks? That's aggressive, and unexpected, and quite possibly comes across as annoying or creepy.
Common sense tells us all of this. It is logical. We're all nerds here, right? We love logic? This is basic logic that is easy that you can follow. You can defy these conventions, ask a woman out to drinks anyway, and not be a horrible human being, but it's stupid to say that Watson's reaction to the dude on the elevator wasn't completely justified.
Oh bullshit. Quit whining about the ghosts in the closet like a child. It's really quite simple. Do you have a rapport with the person in question? If so, you know what they are OK with. If not, perhaps asking them to have sex in the first 5 minutes is a bit forward.
If you don't know how to have a conversation with a person and gague their comfort level, there are in fact courses on this. Take one. Some basics tho: start with a simple, neutral topic. "like the conference?" "great talk! I liked the..." "hi, I'm ... , what is your interest in conference?". If conversation from that point forward is comfortable and easy, feel free to gently escalate. If body language suggests wariness or discomfort or even disinterest, just move on, or suggest talking about it later. You are 50% of that interaction. An interaction needs a 51% or greater consensus to continue. If you take it easy, there would never be problems.
I've been in conversations with women who were obviously uncomfortable with it. Once I spotted it, I politely disengaged and moved on. I have never been accused of harassment. I may have been declared creepy, but whatever the general consensus of my peers is that I am not, so I assume I am not (generally). If some of those discussions I mentioned may have left the woman feeling that way so what? I am not entitled to have anyone think anything else of me but what they do think. Could be I was actually being inappropriate and not realizing it, could just be that the other person was having a bad day, it doesn't matter.
Point being, it isn't that hard to have completely acceptable conversations without any worry about consequence, even if the other person is uncomfortable, so long as you respect that discomfort. Hell, it's even pretty easy to get laid at conferences. In fact, at least in academia, conference sex is a common thing that is openly discussed and joked about in mixed gender company (without resulting in harassment or whatever charges).
No what holdenweb is saying is that you use your common sense, and when someone tells you to back off, you back off. Being a bit creepy isn't harassment, being a bit creepy when you've been told to stop is.
Thank you. There's a difference between being psychic and being sensitive to the needs of others. We all make mistakes, but if we apologize if it's required and most of all if we don't continue along an unwelcome vector there should be no need for any invocation of a code of conduct.
As someone else has pointed out, its primary purpose is to reassure those who (reasonably or unreasonably) fear harassment that the issue will be taken seriously if it occurs.
I hope you realize that this is just the fancy version of the argument that runs, "Women! They're unfathomable, and probably made crazy by their lady parts!"
Understanding the mental state of the people around you is called "society". It's not particularly easy, which is why it takes us years to learn it.
But if you need a simple heuristic to not get in trouble at a conference, here it is: do not make sexual advances to people unless you are 100% sure they are welcome. Or, if that's too hard, use this one: do not make sexual advances at conferences. Seriously, it's not hard. You can hop on OK Cupid when you get home.
If "cronyism" wants to come out of the closet and admit who he or she is then we might know how much weight to give these unsubstantiated accusations. I have received similar representations privately as PSF chairman, have asked for evidence, and have not received any.
For the record, I have the utmost faith in Jesse's integrity as PyCon chair. I have not bothered to canvass my fellow directors, but I doubt any of them feel any different. The Foundation owes him a huge debt of gratitude for the immense amount of work he continues to put into this role while holding down a full-time job and being an active parent. It is obnoxious in the extreme to slur him in this way.
So let's see "the money trail," and let's have these accusations in the open so we can see that they are, in fact, simply unsubstantiated waffle.
In fact it's not a bad thing that 2.7 is so awesome - that makes it possible for people with large codebases to essentially put off the port to Python 3 for ever. Or maybe to skip Python 3 and port to Python 4 in another twenty years. Both are perfectly acceptable engineering decisions, and we are (or should be) talking engineering here, not religion.
As Jesse Noller has pointed out elsewhere, the transition was never intended to be instantaneous. The Wall of Shame might publicize those packages that are causing pain points, but it offers no prescriptions.
For some value of "supports" that apparently doesn't leave Jacob comfortable that it gets equal developer attention at Heroku. Of course the other language support could be perfect ... I'll prefer to trust the opinions of people I know with no apparent axe to grind.
That's not sexism, it's GENDER DISCRIMINATION. And it's intended to counterbalance the years of bullshit that women have gone through because of the knuckle-draggers and others who aren't really concerned about such issues in charge. People who get a limited grasp on an idea and then try to twist the evidence to incorporate their world view, rather than doing joined-up thinking based on, you know, actual evidence.
I have spent years addressing the lack of all types of diversity in the open source world generally (and the Python community specifically) and I applaud efforts to increase female participation in information technology and open source. It is unconscionable that the gender balance in the open source software world is EVEN WORSE than in IT and the hi-tech world generally. But all you can do is bleat on about your nephew being discriminated against. Can't you see the larger good that this discrimination offers?
Did you also think the reverse discrimination applied to allow more black people to partake of opportunities which they had formerly been unconstitutionally denied was racist? I am aware there are some people who do, and they are peddling exactly the same type of bullshit as this.