The context for those out of the loop:
What is a little more troubling is that he (A) describes codes of conduct in detail and repeatedly affirms his allegiance to the general idea behind CoCs, including describing "previous sexual assault allegations" as "behaviors" he "strongly agrees" should be stopped. (B) He goes some way towards portraying himself as a victim, describing in graphic detail his lack of "emotional resilience". I wonder if he realized what a thin line he was walking with (A), because he now has a "previous CoC violation allegation" on his permanent record, regardless of his acquittal.
In other words, he very strongly backs the spirit, letter, and zeitgeist of CoCs before describing why he thinks he did not violate them in this specific case. I think these were very wise tactical moves, although they leave a bad taste in my mouth, and I can't help but wonder if this approach affected the outcome. I don't recall seeing an apology ever given, let alone changes instituted, for CoC violation allegations.
I wonder how much this has affected his lifetime earning potential?
Couple that with the "public apology" seems like an open and shut lawsuit that many lawyers would be happy to take on contingency.
The thing that seemed to me oddest about all this is that Jeremy says the committee spoke to two reporters before hearing his side of the story, and before issuing a judgment. It is not totally clear if they were speaking to those two reporters about his case.
I would imagine that an obvious way for CoC committees to minimize their own liability would be to at least avoid talking to reporters before they have issued a judgment. Really, the process should be totally private until a guilty judgment has been made, and if the person is declared innocent, then the whole thing should disappear without ever having been made public.
To use an extreme comparison: I suspect that most of the people who are falsely accused of murder still believe that murder should be illegal.
He goes a very, very different route. I think that different route gave him a better outcome. I think it is worth thinking about why that is. We are not talking about an accusation of sexual harassment or assault here, we are talking about an almost textbook case of how CoC accusations can be overextended to absurdity. Yet he chooses to defend CoCs.
One possible explanation of this is that he is trying to draw a distinction between things that should be "legitimate" CoC violations, and his case. Another possible explanation is that he is trying to say that "Look, I strongly believe that <murder should be illegal>, really strongly. That makes me one of the good guys. Would a good guy commit murder?" The latter take is more cynical, but I think it would be more effective than my gut reaction.
Wow.
So I don't know how to feel about anything anymore.
> Joel (who I greatly respect, and consider an asset to the data science community) was not involved in NumFOCUS’s action, was not told about it, and did not support it.
According to him, now, he disagrees with that assertion in their apology. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24946688.
The apology states that this was a "crucial miscommunication that we take responsibility for"
OTOH, from Jeremy Howard's account it really does sound like the committee doubled down on that miscommunication so often that it seems hard to believe that's all it was.
Here is why.
His stated recollection is that they said, “that is what the reporters stated, and what we found” and to his asking why his statement was not requested, “we all watched the video, so we could see for ourselves the violation”.
What they said in his version is very clear. That is not a miscommunication. Calling it a "miscommunication" sounds like nothing more than the best excuse that they came up with for themselves.
Therefore this reduces down to a simple "he said, she said" type of conflict. What I have to judge on is what is publicly known of his character, their incentives, and indications about their character. He has a solid public reputation as an upstanding person. Their incentives are to minimize perception of wrongdoing in their actions. Both the fact that they got into this mess, and their non-apology in attempting to get out of it, suggests that they lack even a shred of integrity.
Therefore it is his word against theirs. He is believable. They are not. And so I conclude that they are lying on this point.
And it doesn't even need to be seen by the involved people as mean, if they have such a "toxic" type relationship. But a Code of Conduct is also a bit about the perception of others, and how it sells a project.
In his statement there are hints indicating in this direction. He mentions his talk was made as a parody. Parodies by nature are on a thin line between being funny englightment, and being mean bullying. So it can be the case that his see himself as funny, while other might see it as a mean insult.
And he mentions some unwritten rules which were applied to him specifically because his talk was somewhat special because it was an opener(?) or something. Which means he got more attention than your regular talk.