September 2019 - Pharo-users

Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

I agreed that the last decision should be on the ones who made the bulk of the work. But I don't see relationship between a code of conduct and not being able to talk about code or contributions quality. Just looking at the FAQ of the original CoC that originated the whole think, I see a lot of answers about the stuff being said on this thread (minorities, left wing progressive agenda, diminish of code quality because of it, mixing tech with non-tech stuff), so I will refer to it, because as I said, I think that the PR should be the place for the bulk of the discussion: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq The FAQ name goes pretty well, considering the amount of repeated arguments they deal with. I think that many of the FAQ apply for other CoCs, despite of the possible different nature of CoC for the online community and the CoC for other face to face events. BTW, Thanks for the links, both provide a better context for the emergence of the CoC in the Erlang community. As said, I will try to see for specific contributions in the correspondent PR in the repo, and made some if I have a one. For the moment I'm trying to make my contributions on this thread, but is taking a lot. Cheers, Offray On 22/09/19 7:40 p.Â m., Richard O'Keefe wrote: > This is not a question of left vs right. It's a question of > authoritarian vs libertarian. > And this is very relevant to the community. > It's also not a question of democracy vs central authority. > It's a question of vs ÏÎ±ÏÏÎ·ÏÎ¯Î± vs goodspeak. > And this is very relevant to the community also. > > Pharo is "owned" by the people who do the bulk of the work on it, > and they are kind enough to share it with us. That there is such a > thing as a *Pharo* community is the result of their work. > > That there is such a thing as a Pharo *community* depends on the ability of > that community to communicate freely. This cuts BOTH ways. If people are > scared off by incivility, that's bad. If people are driven away by incivility, > that's bad. But when you stop seeing rudeness as rudeness, which may be > amended, and start seeing it as crimethink, you drive people away, and that > is bad too. > > Let's consider a recent thread. I took the position that << and putOn: were > confusing, unreliable, and unnecessary. The unreliability issue has been > addressed in Pharo 8; had I not been able to speak I would never have learned > that. Some people apparently think that it improves readability, where I find > that << impairs my ability to understand. The fact that BOTH sides were able > to speak freely means that we now know (a) that there is no consensus for > removing them from the system and (b) if you want other people to read your > code you might want to think twice before using them, and we are all better off. > But if criticising someone's opinion were construed as harassment, the thread > would have been shut down before I displayed my code with a generalisation > that is worth having if << is worth having at all. > > I probably should have mentioned the Erlang code of conduct > http://erlang.org/download/erlang_org_code_of_conduct.txt > It is pretty a-political, has graduated response, and potential for forgiveness. > > A code of conduct for *events* is another matter, which is why I bring > Erlang up. > http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2015-March/083849.html > is eye-opening. (It's mainly about Ruby community issues.) > > On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 11:51, Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas > <offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: >> My point was that this community, as a the big majority of FLOSS ones, is not a democracy and *not* having a democracy has shown its benefits in human endeavors like science, technology, hackerspaces and so on. >> >> I'll keep the rest of the conversation with you on the source code repository and the PR. See you there. >> >> >> On 22/09/19 6:40 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote: >> >> This isn't science, this is a community. We don't need a CoC, there haven't been any problems on this list regarding nazis or whatever. This is just a group of people trying to enforce their political ideologies on everyone else. Let's just remove the CoC altogether and just replace it with one line: "this maillist is about Pharo, anything else is offtopic". >> >> If you want to debate on the merits of Islam vs Christianity/ right vs left / thugs vs racists , you are free to hold your opinion on some other sub, but it's offtopic here. >> >> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas <offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: >>> There is no data to support such supposed majority. But even so, free, libre, open source communities are not democracies. Imagine the quality of code or argumentation based on perceived majorities? If science would be a democracy, the earth would be "still" flat. >>> >>> On 22/09/19 6:04 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote: >>> >>> I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This should be a democracy. >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas <offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote: >>>>>> The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many >>>>> Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to many". >>>> Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others >>>> don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on >>>> that and invest time and effort accordingly. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Offray >>>> >>>> >>>> >

Sept. 23, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] FFI beginner question

by Brainstorms

I'm also interested in this... Any plans to draft a Pharo booklet on this subject? -Ted -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Sept. 23, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct

by Richard O'Keefe

This is not a question of left vs right. It's a question of authoritarian vs libertarian. And this is very relevant to the community. It's also not a question of democracy vs central authority. It's a question of vs ÏÎ±ÏÏÎ·ÏÎ¯Î± vs goodspeak. And this is very relevant to the community also. Pharo is "owned" by the people who do the bulk of the work on it, and they are kind enough to share it with us. That there is such a thing as a *Pharo* community is the result of their work. That there is such a thing as a Pharo *community* depends on the ability of that community to communicate freely. This cuts BOTH ways. If people are scared off by incivility, that's bad. If people are driven away by incivility, that's bad. But when you stop seeing rudeness as rudeness, which may be amended, and start seeing it as crimethink, you drive people away, and that is bad too. Let's consider a recent thread. I took the position that << and putOn: were confusing, unreliable, and unnecessary. The unreliability issue has been addressed in Pharo 8; had I not been able to speak I would never have learned that. Some people apparently think that it improves readability, where I find that << impairs my ability to understand. The fact that BOTH sides were able to speak freely means that we now know (a) that there is no consensus for removing them from the system and (b) if you want other people to read your code you might want to think twice before using them, and we are all better off. But if criticising someone's opinion were construed as harassment, the thread would have been shut down before I displayed my code with a generalisation that is worth having if << is worth having at all. I probably should have mentioned the Erlang code of conduct http://erlang.org/download/erlang_org_code_of_conduct.txt It is pretty a-political, has graduated response, and potential for forgiveness. A code of conduct for *events* is another matter, which is why I bring Erlang up. http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2015-March/083849.html is eye-opening. (It's mainly about Ruby community issues.) On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 11:51, Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas <offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: > > My point was that this community, as a the big majority of FLOSS ones, is not a democracy and *not* having a democracy has shown its benefits in human endeavors like science, technology, hackerspaces and so on. > > I'll keep the rest of the conversation with you on the source code repository and the PR. See you there. > > > On 22/09/19 6:40 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote: > > This isn't science, this is a community. We don't need a CoC, there haven't been any problems on this list regarding nazis or whatever. This is just a group of people trying to enforce their political ideologies on everyone else. Let's just remove the CoC altogether and just replace it with one line: "this maillist is about Pharo, anything else is offtopic". > > If you want to debate on the merits of Islam vs Christianity/ right vs left / thugs vs racists , you are free to hold your opinion on some other sub, but it's offtopic here. > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas <offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: >> >> There is no data to support such supposed majority. But even so, free, libre, open source communities are not democracies. Imagine the quality of code or argumentation based on perceived majorities? If science would be a democracy, the earth would be "still" flat. >> >> On 22/09/19 6:04 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote: >> >> I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This should be a democracy. >> >> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas <offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote: >>> > > The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many >>> > >>> > Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to many". >>> >>> Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others >>> don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on >>> that and invest time and effort accordingly. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Offray >>> >>> >>>

Sept. 23, 2019

FFI beginner question

by Richard O'Keefe

I am developing a Smalltalk interface to an existing C library which I intend to make generally available. Naturally I am doing this in my own Smalltalk system first, where it's unsurprisingly easy for me. But when I have it working, I'd like to make a Pharo port available. I have never used the Foreign Function Interface in Pharo before and don't even know where to start. What should I read first? Is there a model project to imitate?

Sept. 22, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

My point was that this community, as a the big majority of FLOSS ones, is not a democracy and *not* having a democracy has shown its benefits in human endeavors like science, technology, hackerspaces and so on. I'll keep the rest of the conversation with you on the source code repository and the PR. See you there. On 22/09/19 6:40 p.Â m., Steve Quezadas wrote: > This isn't science, this is a community. We don't need a CoC, there > haven't been any problems on this list regarding nazis or whatever. > This is just a group of people trying to enforce their political > ideologies on everyone else. Let's just remove the CoC altogether and > just replace it with one line: "this maillist is about Pharo, anything > else is offtopic". > > If you want to debate on the merits of Islam vs Christianity/ right vs > left / thugs vs racists , you are free to hold your opinion on some > other sub, but it's offtopic here. > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas > <offray.luna(a)mutabit.com <mailto:offray.luna@mutabit.com>> wrote: > > There is no data to support such supposed majority. But even so, > free, libre, open source communities are not democracies. Imagine > the quality of code or argumentation based on perceived > majorities? If science would be a democracy, the earth would be > "still" flat. > > On 22/09/19 6:04 p.Â m., Steve Quezadas wrote: >> I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. >> This should be a democracy. >> >> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas >> <offray.luna(a)mutabit.com <mailto:offray.luna@mutabit.com>> wrote: >> >> >> On 22/09/19 3:38 p.Â m., Steve Quezadas wrote: >> > > The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction >> to manyÂ >> > >> > Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a >> distraction to many". >> >> Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, >> others >> don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own >> opinion on >> that and invest time and effort accordingly. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Offray >> >> >>

Sept. 22, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct

by Steve Quezadas

This isn't science, this is a community. We don't need a CoC, there haven't been any problems on this list regarding nazis or whatever. This is just a group of people trying to enforce their political ideologies on everyone else. Let's just remove the CoC altogether and just replace it with one line: "this maillist is about Pharo, anything else is offtopic". If you want to debate on the merits of Islam vs Christianity/ right vs left / thugs vs racists , you are free to hold your opinion on some other sub, but it's offtopic here. On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas < offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: > There is no data to support such supposed majority. But even so, free, > libre, open source communities are not democracies. Imagine the quality of > code or argumentation based on perceived majorities? If science would be a > democracy, the earth would be "still" flat. > On 22/09/19 6:04 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote: > > I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This should > be a democracy. > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas < > offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: > >> >> On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote: >> > > The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many >> > >> > Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to many". >> >> Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others >> don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on >> that and invest time and effort accordingly. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Offray >> >> >> >>

Sept. 22, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

There is no data to support such supposed majority. But even so, free, libre, open source communities are not democracies. Imagine the quality of code or argumentation based on perceived majorities? If science would be a democracy, the earth would be "still" flat. On 22/09/19 6:04 p.Â m., Steve Quezadas wrote: > I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This > should be a democracy. > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas > <offray.luna(a)mutabit.com <mailto:offray.luna@mutabit.com>> wrote: > > > On 22/09/19 3:38 p.Â m., Steve Quezadas wrote: > > > The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to manyÂ > > > > Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to > many". > > Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others > don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on > that and invest time and effort accordingly. > > Cheers, > > Offray > > >

Sept. 22, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct

by Steve Quezadas

I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This should be a democracy. On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas < offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: > > On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote: > > > The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many > > > > Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to many". > > Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others > don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on > that and invest time and effort accordingly. > > Cheers, > > Offray > > > >

Sept. 22, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

On 22/09/19 3:38 p.Â m., Steve Quezadas wrote: > > The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to manyÂ > > Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to many". Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on that and invest time and effort accordingly. Cheers, Offray

Sept. 22, 2019

Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct

by Steve Quezadas

> The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to many". On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 10:12 AM Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas < offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 21/09/19 11:38 p. m., Jerry Kott wrote: > > The point here is: as a community, Pharo (and other Smalltalk groups) > > has a lot of work to do. Code of Conduct is an unnecessary and > > wasteful distraction. In the meantime, I see no discussions here about > > how are we going to address the world-wide crisis of Privacy Erosion, > > or how to establish ethical coding best practices. How can we ensure > > that information collected as a result of our work remains > > confidential and secure where needed, and is used ethically for the > > betterment of the planet and the human race? > > > > [...] > > > > Happy Autumnal Equinox, everyone! > > > The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many and > the ones who think so, should be leading by not being distracted with > long threads and emails, and also showing how to start and continue the > discussions and projects on the topics they care about here and in the > repositories. I, for example, have a concern about data and privacy and > the way it influences our vision and shape of the world. Maybe we can > share some interest and projects on that front. > > Here, we don't have proper seasons, but I wish everyone interesting and > insightful times where ever you are. > > Cheers, > > Offray > > >

Sept. 22, 2019