I mean, did you see what happened last year? By the end of it, the LambaConf organizers had gone beyond incoherent blog posts and had graduated to defending their actions with diagrams that could've come straight from the Time Cube website. An equally incoherent CoC from them this time around isn't surprising.
What's most interesting is that the folks running LC were told by at least a few parties they needed to tighten up their CoC so as to protect people from abuse, if they wanted to avoid further issues.
Their response was to codify the unrelated "I'm protecting religious interests" response from last year and offer it directly in the CoC (note: there was never a complaint about religious interests or even conservatism levied to LC, it was protesting a speaker notorious for promoting racist ideologies).
What's most stunning is the gag clause you agree to. What conference in the history of open tech conferences has decided to ban all conversation or reporting a about the goings on internally?
It's not just a CoC in defense of abuse and invites dangerous situations, but it then goes on to stifle free speech about the proceedings on the grounds that it is protecting free speech!
This post just got nuked, it was at #4 or so and now is not findable in any of the first six pages of results.
Was also killed for a bit -- no longer, but doesn't seem to appear at all in the browsable results?
Anyways, pretty typical for HN.
It is the usual tug of war between upvotes and flags.
I mean, did you see what happened last year? By the end of it, the LambaConf organizers had gone beyond incoherent blog posts and had graduated to defending their actions with diagrams that could've come straight from the Time Cube website. An equally incoherent CoC from them this time around isn't surprising.
What's most interesting is that the folks running LC were told by at least a few parties they needed to tighten up their CoC so as to protect people from abuse, if they wanted to avoid further issues.
Their response was to codify the unrelated "I'm protecting religious interests" response from last year and offer it directly in the CoC (note: there was never a complaint about religious interests or even conservatism levied to LC, it was protesting a speaker notorious for promoting racist ideologies).
What's most stunning is the gag clause you agree to. What conference in the history of open tech conferences has decided to ban all conversation or reporting a about the goings on internally?
It's not just a CoC in defense of abuse and invites dangerous situations, but it then goes on to stifle free speech about the proceedings on the grounds that it is protecting free speech!