"I would rather not have to write this post at all. However I know that people will ask about why my talk isn’t available on the JupyterCon site, so I felt that I should explain exactly what happened. In particular, I was concerned that if only partial information became available, the anti-CoC crowd might jump on this as an example of problems with codes of conduct more generally, or might point at this as part of “cancel culture” (a concept I vehemently disagree with, since what is referred to as “cancellation” is often just “facing consequences”). Finally, I found that being on the “other side” of a code of conduct issue gave me additional insights into the process, and that it’s important that I should share those insights to help the community in the future."
With this quote in mind, I highly recommend that you take a look at the rest of the piece, it may challenge some of your views on the topic :)
Most "people who actually create things" like communities with an explicit, reasonable code of conduct. This is of course not to say that mistakes haven't ever been made in enforcement, or that some COCs are poorly designed.
People under-appreciate the difficulty of building a community that people want to participate in. The problem is a close analogue to maintaining a desired company culture as it scales.
The reason all these communities have "woke" guidelines for behavior is because the ones that didn't have reasonable guidelines no longer exist, or have remained at a size where a COC isn't necessary.
Again, there's a fine line to be walked, so mistakes will sometimes be made, but if you think the "free for all" approach works, then you should try it. It won't scale once your community gets past a certain size. A few bad apples will spoil the barrel.
I don't think many people are against the concept of a code of conduct itself - "hey, be nice to each other" is perfectly uncontroversial. It's when a few enforcers want to embroil themselves in a loud crusade against evil and stretch vague codes of conduct for their own gratification that we start to have controversy.
A case like this one where the rule broken was basically "you were mean" but the "victim" didn't actually care, didn't support the investigation, and wasn't even aware there was an investigation, and a full inquisition complete with intimidation and public punishment was brought out nonetheless is a perfect example of a situation where some spectators can't help but wonder if the committee is truly out to do good, or if some members are acting rather recklessly for their own enjoyment and parading around a false banner of justice to get their next high.
The "the evil mediocrities that enforce COCs" comment that I replied to is low-effort and worse than useless. The "all cops are bastards" phrase has a similar level of subtlety and utility. Describing all conference organisers and community moderators as "evil" is nigh on absurd, and yet that comment has been upvoted, and my reply is on -3. That's evidence enough that my reply was needed - as Jeremy mentioned in his blog post, there's an irrational destroy-all-COCs meme going around lately.
Howard makes the case for why even "real" programmers should give notebook environments a chance. In addition to supporting literate programming ("code as literature") and exploratory programming ("code as scientific notebook") in a live coding environment, Howard explains how notebooks can improve documentation, learning and sharing, testing, and deployment. And add-ins and tools, like Howard's own nbdev, can help address what's missing in Jupyter Notebook. As an example, Howard notes how fastdoc even enabled him to write and publish "Deep Learning for Coders with Fastai and PyTorch: AI Applications Without a PhD using Jupyter Notebooks." Excellent, inspiring talk!
Jeremy Howard - Creating delightful libraries and books with nbdev and fastdoc | JupyterCon 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKt19-GsA1I