https://www.removeddit.com/r/scala/comments/n0d1hw/on_due_process_in_the_scala_community/gw6fug3/
Yesterday something happened on Twitter. Yifan Xing and Vic accused Jon Pretty of manipulation and sexual harassment, and 157 signatories signed an open letter expressing support for the victims and condemnation of Jon Pretty.
I do not know Jon, Yifan, or Vic. Yifan and Vic's accounts make him sound like a pretty shitty person that I would not like to be around. Jon Pretty refuses to comment much on the character of either women, but does dispute their accounts. In this post I document my reaction from the outside looking in and observing what happened.
This is a textbook "he said, she said" scenario and, given that I personally know none of the parties involved, is something I would usually not involve myself in.
I am, however, a Scala developer. I haven't been to a single Scala conference, and you almost certainly don't know my name. I've been coding in Scala for several years at a regular ho-hum desk job. I do, however, recognize many of the names on the open letter because they are generally associated with larger Scala projects, libraries, or in general random Scala things I see on GitHub.
The open letter goes beyond merely expressing support for the victims. Hell, I can get behind that; it is imperative that we act as human beings to one another and express kindness and sympathy for anyone who is having a hard time, let alone someone who has gone through what Yifan and Vic allege. But the open letter includes some additional clauses that I would like to use as a springboard for a larger discussion.
We will not support the efforts of any party in the Scala community that provides a platform to Mr. Pretty. That includes, but is not limited to, boycotting events the party organizes and refusing to buy any product or service the party offers.
Okay, so signatories will boycott conferences that host Jon Pretty as a speaker. Given that Jon Pretty has agreed to withdraw from Scala conferences, this seems to have had it's desired affect. But what constitutes "any party in the Scala community"? Twitter is a party (a rather large one!) that supports the Scala community and provides a platform to Jon Pretty. Do the signatories plan to boycott Twitter until Jon Pretty is banned?
GitHub also provides a platform for Jon Pretty, and is pretty integral to the Scala community. Will the signatories be boycotting GitHub until Jon Pretty's account is suspended? Does he host artifacts on Maven Central?
Do these platforms get a pass because they are not strictly "in" the Scala community? If so, then it's OK if a non-Scala party provides a platform for Jon Pretty, and signatories won't boycott that one, right?
We will not attend any conference or user group meeting organized or attended by Mr. Pretty.
If I was wondering whether the first clause was meant specifically for conferences or, instead, the much broader idea of a party, then the fact that the letter specifically mentions conferences and user groups seems to indicate the latter.
Okay but this clause. Really?? Are all 157 signatories going to be monitoring what conferences this man is attending going forward to make sure they don't attend any of them? Isn't that a bit... ridiculous?! Setting asside for a moment the moral question of whether or not they should do that, but from a instrumental standpoint; if you hate this person fine, but as a signatory why literally give him the power to stop you from attending conferences merely by him deciding to attend it himself. This sounds like a self-defeating footgun to me, and so over-the-top that it makes me question whether the signatories are actually serious here. I mean, how do you even track a person's movements like this in the first place? It sounds like the bulk of 157 signatories just made a promise that they intend to break a priori and that does little for their credibility.
Also, this clause seems so overreaching. The intent here seem's to discourage literally any conference from allowing Jon Pretty to attend. Let's assume in this "he said she said" situation that the accusers are correct in their assessment (this happens to be, by the way, the conclusion that I personally find most probable from my reading of the 30 minutes worth of material available on Twitter). What if Jon Pretty wants to reform and attend a conference designed to improve his social responsibility? I dunno, maybe the bi-annual "Don't Sexually Harrass People" Conference. Are all signatories going to boycott this conference if Jon Pretty is in attendance? What if he is sharing his story there as a speaker in an Alcoholics Anonymous "I'm Jon Pretty and I'm a sexual harasser" style?
Nope. Let's just blanket ban this person from everything, that's Justice.
No! This is not fucking justice, it has none of the trappings of justice, it is a mob! Everyone heard the accounts of the two individuals, got really angry, and said, "I'm not going to let this person do anything ever again! Excommunication!" You know what justice does look like? It looks like calmly and collectedly witholding judgement until all the evidence comes in, then going through the appropriate due process where both sides can advocate for themselves, and an impartial judiciary decides on the appropriate sentence and judgement. That is not what happened yesterday.
That there is what frightens me about what happened yesterday. I have no dog in the particular fight between Yifan, Vic, and Jon, but what I saw was that 2 people accused 1 and nearly the entire upper echelon of the Scala community jumped on the bandwagon to apply mob justice in less than 24 hours. What exactly is the threshold for the Scala community to cancel someone? Is it 2 voices against 1? 1 voice against 1? 1 voice against none? What is the due process when a member of the community commits an infraction?
It is entirely possible to simultaneously express support for the victim while withholding judgement for the accused until the accusation can go through due process. But there is no due process here to follow! Here be dragons.
We will not attend any conference or user group meeting that does not have a code of conduct that is both specific (it must not allow predatory sexual advances in professional spaces) and actionable (it must provide a safe and accessible reporting mechanism for people who have been targeted).
From what I can tell from the accounts, Jon Pretty's sexual advances did not occur within conferences in the first place? By Yifan's own admission, Jon Pretty seemed to keep things pretty platonic during the conference, and it was only in the in between times when they became sexual? What of Jon Pretty's behavior at a conference would this prevent? His walking up to someone, or standing in a doorway?
If I go to a conference do I need to make a conscious effort to make sure I don't stand in doorways so I don't get reported for predatory sexual advances?
Are regular sexual advances OK and only the predatory ones are not? How are conference organizers supposed to tell the difference or evaluate reports?
We will not use or promote any software artifacts that are maintained by Mr. Pretty.
Okay I admit - this was the final straw for me. I probably would have just moved on if this one was not included. I have one question for all 157 signatories: will you stop using Google Search if Jon Pretty is hired by Google?
Did you even consider this possibility as you forked the letter, added your signature, then submitted a PR? What if he is hired by Apple, will you throw your iPhone in the garbage? I really am not sure whether to take all of you seriously here! Again it sounds like the signatories either aren't really being serious, or they planned a priori to make a promise they knew they wouldn't keep.
Or are you saying that, if Google or Apple were to hire Jon Pretty that you would advocate for them to fire him? Based on the blog/Twitter reports of two individuals, you would advocate for another individual to be fired from his employment? What is the man supposed to do, live as a monk in a commune now? Stop working? What if he even acknowledges his mistakes, begins seeing counseling, and working to reform himself? This seems so overreaching that I don't even. I keep wanting to scream, "This is not justice!" Because it's not, it's a mob and it wants it's pound of flesh. And it is a "community" that I want no part of! I haven't ever attended (or applied to speak) at a Scala conference before, but I sure as hell am not going to now because I have lost any assurance that, were similar charges by 1-2 people levied against me, I would be banned from my occupation before anyone takes a moment to even hear my side of the story!