Re: The Imperative of Addressing Behavioral Issues for the Sake of Diversity and Inclusiveness

On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 10:49 AM Sindhu Raju <sindhu2@mac.com> wrote:

> Hello
>
> As a software Architect, I agree with Benjamin,  that a one server test is
> not viable for robust software development.
>

I absolutely agree and did not mean to imply otherwise.  I am speaking of
the very specific current situation of solidcommunity.net - this is a
community maintained identity and pod provider  that is a base for much
development and is overseen by the Solid Team as headed by Sir Tim. It is
critical for the community which uses and maintains it, to have a reliable,
updateable server code base we can work on.  Presumably there will be many
other community run pod and identity providers which will use different
server implementations.  I'm just talking about this one instance of
solidcommunity.net which, as stated in my previous reply, is at a critical
juncture in terms of its future code base.

If Solid is to be a standard across the web it must have robust and diverse
> test environments. While I am not commenting on the current issue(I lack
> significant knowledge about the disagreement to comment).
>
> Perhaps a better strategy is to have a list of test servers and their
> purpose. Perhaps you are already have this, so please disregard this
> comment if it irrelevant.
>
> I am working on a current software project projecting solid as a future
> backend. It would be really helpful to me to test and grab data/api’s with
> different versions of Solid. I also think we want wide scale adaptation
> this might be a service that should be available to the greater web
> community to test there individual software against.
>
> Thanks,
> Sindhu
> '
>
>
>
> On Sep 30, 2023, at 10:01 AM, Benjamin Goering <ben@bengo.co> wrote:
>
> > We also need to figure out an open source community server we can
> collaborate on.
>
> Would you reconsider this opinion? No one codebase will be enough for
> everyone. And no one governance process can be sufficiently diverse and
> inclusive. Instead, imagine and work towards how the community can rally
> around something other than one server.
>
> It seems to me that it could be both higher ROI and less competitive to
> collaborate on a conformance and interoperability evaluation methodology
> that can test many servers, rather than try to figure out governance around
> a single implementation, which inevitably won’t meet the
> technical/aesthetic preferences of everyone.
>
> For example, for Web Accessibility
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/conformance/>, I don’t believe
> those groups set as their goal collaborating on a single open source
> community webpage that everyone could collaborate on to make accessible.
> The whole point of the web is that anyone can make implementations of web
> pages or web servers. Instead W3C CG/WG/ecosystem worked out, “Given any
> possible web page, how would we decide whether it is accessible? And which
> parts of that decision process can/should be automated? For those that
> can’t, how might human operators fill in the gaps?”. And that seems to have
> been useful to a wide range of constituencies e.g. web developers,
> companies, researchers, and a broad base of regional jurisdictions
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/>.
>
> It mitigated the risk of any one person or company, codebase, governance
> process, technical approach from using the w3c to their unfair advantage,
> which Chairs are required to ensure per W3C Process.
>
> I think many CG, e.g. Solid CG and Social CG, can learn from this and it
> may both lower the pressure on any implementation group to include
> everyone, align efforts with W3C Process requirements, and lead to a more
> diverse web of implementations and evaluations.
>
> -bengo
>
> On Sep 30, 2023, at 11:41 AM, Jeff Zucker (he/him) <dubzed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> To clarify - I am not in any way minimizing the need to deal with bullying
> or suggesting that these topics should not have been brought up in the
> first place.  I am rather suggesting that, now that the issue has been
> raised publicly, the problem should be dealt with through mechanisms the
> community has set up to deal with unhealthy work environments - the Code of
> Conduct Committee.  I am also suggesting that the institutional
> relationships between IMEC and the Solid community are at risk and would
> seriously disrupt the progress of Solid if the rift widens.  Yes,
> absolutely, we need to deal with bullying in our community.  We also need
> to figure out an open source community server we can collaborate on.
>
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 3:20 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Jeff,
>>
>> Thank you for your email and for sharing your thoughts on the matter at
>> hand.
>>
>> > "I'd like to ask that discussions about personal interactions be kept
>> between individuals or in front of a Code of Conduct Committee or other
>> mediator as needed."
>>
>> While I understand your point about keeping personal issues separate from
>> the public discourse, I respectfully disagree. I would like to emphasize
>> that the issues being raised here are not merely personal; they speak to an
>> endemic problem that threatens the diversity and inclusiveness of our
>> community. This is, therefore, very much a matter of public interest.
>>
>> > "Personal issues only cloud the issues that Michiel and Emelia address"
>>
>> On the contrary, I believe that failing to address these 'personal
>> issues' in a public forum could have a chilling effect on the community,
>> particularly among those who are already marginalized. Let's recall the
>> testimonies that initiated this discussion:
>>
>> Emelia stated:
>> > "The people in the wrong here have repeatedly acted like this towards
>> many many community members, even driving some away, or at least
>> contributing to an unhealthy environment which drove them away."
>>
>> Michiel mentioned:
>> > "After years in the Solid community I and others have gotten used to
>> the bullying, but that doesn’t make it OK."
>>
>> The offending remarks were:
>> > "You are the stereotype of an attention-addicted narcissist, which is
>> why [we] need to protect [our] employees from wasting our precious time."
>> > "Go steal other people’s time, you will get more applause and
>> spotlights there. But not from us. Jamais."
>>
>> These accounts indicate a pattern of behavior that is hostile and
>> exclusionary. Such actions can dissuade new contributors from joining and
>> prompt existing members to leave, thereby undermining the diversity and
>> inclusiveness that should be the cornerstone of any community-driven
>> project.
>>
>> Ignoring or silencing these discussions could reinforce the status quo
>> and send a dangerous message that the community is willing to tolerate
>> toxicity for the sake of technical or organizational expediency.
>>
>> I hope we can agree that diversity and inclusiveness are not just
>> buzzwords; they are essential to the long-term health and success of our
>> community. Therefore, it is in the public interest to address these issues
>> openly and transparently.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Melvin Carvalho
>>
>>
>
>