Which part?

The part where people are saying they've become aware of several independent, substantiated accusations against Pretty?

The part where they state that sexual assault is unacceptable?

The part where they demand that Pretty stop this behavior, and that communities put stronger code of conducts in place to specifically call out preying on/sexually assaulting members of that community as unacceptable?

Refusing to associate with Pretty, who they believe is an sexual abuser?

Which part of that is 'a bit like a public lynching'? I want you to be specific, because waving your hand loosely at a document and being like, "Well I dunno, but this seems like an execution designed to drive fear into a community" is not only wildly inappropriate but also rhetorically hollow.

"We will not use or promote any software artifacts that are maintained by Mr. Pretty"

This part seems over the top. You go down this road and you end up in some foss hell. Later you find out someone who abused someone checked in code in linux. You can't use windows or a mac because of jobs and gates and you are back on a c64 until you realize what a bad person Jack was and you end up on OS/2.

I guess those who signed want to use an unmaintained version?

I get that people want to do something. Maybe conferences are not the best avenue for the community to meet safely. Providing gender safe housing would go a long way to having a more successful conference if successful means less rapes.

Edit: Would you characterize that part as "a bit like a public lynching"? Because I definitely wouldn't, even if I disagreed with it or felt it was too much.

---

I think you are very uncharitably reading that comment. There's a difference between, "This person checked some code into a repo" and "this person is the maintainer of a project".

And I think that it's reasonable for people to hold the stance of, "I don't want to run this person's code because I believe they are a serial abuser" and to clearly state why. If other repos see that, maybe they decide to take on that stance, maybe they don't.

They encourage others to consider doing the same, but the don't demand them.

If you are not going to fork and maintain the repos yourself encoraging others not to use open source is a weird group control method that doesn't feel right. Remember the code is open and apolitical.

Even thought I disagree with the group who signed the document I will still use whatever they maintain if it makes sense for my project.

Sure, we all make choices and have our own values. We all prioritize differently. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to ask you not to use a library, and it's not unreasonable for you to politely decline their request.

>Which part of that is 'a bit like a public lynching'?

We further resolve that:

    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.
    We will not attend any conference or user group meeting organized or attended by Mr. Pretty.
    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).
    We will not use or promote any software artifacts that are maintained by Mr. Pretty.

I'd rather avoid believing anything within Scala community until its proven.

no, a lynching is a murder by a racist mob

this is a community realizing that John Pretty is a predator and deciding that they don't want a predator in a position of power

frankly, it's weird as hell for you to be confusing those two things

The similarity is that both are mob actions, done without legal charges or rules of evidence.

I'm not defending the guy specifically; I have no idea whether he's a guilty scumbag or a persecuted innocent. But even jerks deserve a certain amount of due process before punishment. Maybe she's the scumbag? I don't know, and neither do you.

A lynching is done by a literal mob. This is being done by a metaphorical mob.

That’s not what lynching is. Lynching is mob justice without a trial. The name came from Charles Lynch, who punished Loyalists during the American Revolution.

Not necessarily by a racist mob, just an angry mob[1].

[1]https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lynch#English

>no, a lynching is a murder by a racist mob

no, a lynching is an extra-legal murder by a mob.

In the US, lynching has extremely strong implications of racist violence. It's not strictly the definition of the word, but most folks in the states will understand a lynching to imply race related murders.

> In the US, lynching has extremely strong implications of racist violence.

Please don’t assume everyone is a US citizen.

I'm not. In fact, I'm the opposite. That's literally why I wrote that comment. It was for the benefit of people who were not US citizens who may not understand that a US reader will likely interpret the phrase that way.

>this is a community realizing that John Pretty is a predator and deciding that they don't want a predator in a position of power

Not really, it seems like cancel culture, did you even read this letter?

not me or you are to judge this, we don't know the details, it may as well be that he is completely shit partner and not much more than that, which is not unlawful.

do you think after those posts his scala/programming/whatever he's doing career won't suffer? he's dead in many professional circles regardless if he's jail material or not.

He wasn't her "partner", he was her mentor; he abused his position, tricked her into staying in an apartment alone with him, got her drunk and forced himself on her against her wishes.

No, I don't think open letters are anything like public lynching.

It starts looking to me like a bit of explaining what happened repeatedly

Make no mistake. This is a public lynching.