Protect it from what? From what I can tell, this person is making a big stink because a speaker has a criminal history. Presumably, they served their punishment, and are a better member of society for it. Should the world treat them as a pariah forever?

This person is literally a registered sex offender. The court and society has decided that they are a risk that people should be aware of.

I’m not sure if that’s a perfect thing (and the registry does appear increasingly over broad due to the US using elected prosecutors), but that seems to be what people have decided.

I think it’s reasonable to assume that given the severity of rape my hat the presence and/or promotion of a rapist would impact the participation or involvement people at an event, especially prior victims of rape, or frequently targeted groups.

I found the person pretty easily and it looks like their original sentence was a few months in a local jail and a few years of probation, and the only record that still exists is the sex offender registry in a different state.

This is a country where people are sentenced to 1,200+ years in prison for downloading illegal pictures - I am skeptical this person did anything particularly reprehensible given the light sentence.

To quote a more sane registry: "the majority of RSOs do not present a high risk of serious sexual harm and their sexual re-offending rate is extremely low – significantly lower in comparison to other types of offenders."

disclaimer: I don't know or care about anybody involved

All parties are wrong and this whole thing is stupid.

My biggest concern comes from the timeline in #include's memo- apparently, Herb Sutter shared the contact information of some members of #include with Mr. X without their consent. At best, that's a gross violation of privacy. At worst, it hints at nepotism within the board.

Almost as stupid is that #include declined every opportunity to communicate with Mr. X. Diplomacy only works when two sides communicate with each other. It doesn't matter if the two sides still disagree at the end of the day. It also doesn't matter if it means talking to sex offenders. If #include had shown an ounce of diplomacy, they might have gotten something done.

I wouldn't be mad at the CppCon organizers for banning Mr. X. Having him there is a PR risk at best, and a risk to attendees at worst. I can't imagine a world where Mr. X would be substantially harmed by being banned from CppCon. It's a C++ convention, not a food bank.

I also wouldn't be mad at the CppCon organizers for allowing Mr. X to attend CppCon, provided Mr. X shows clear signs of rehabilitation and follows restrictions placed upon him by the law. #include could have developed their own firsthand opinion of Mr. X's condition, but they refused to communicate. I can see why #include didn't do anything to publicize this- they refused to communicate, so their entire argument against Mr. X's attendance is hypothetical.

You really think it's appropriate for a victim of sexual abuse to communicate with Mr X? What could you possibly expect a victim to hear from a rapist who drugged their victim that would change their mind that Mr. X should be allowed to organize social events and dinners where people can and do get intoxicated?

After sleeping on it, I'm not really happy with how my comment reads. Editing with an addition that clarifies my position.

... or wait, I forgot you can't do that after a certain time period. Let me be clear:

1. Given what information we currently have, I feel that CppCon organizers shouldn't allow Mr. X to present at/attend the event.

2. It's the organizers' right to decide who can attend their event, and it's my right to not associate myself with them/their events.

3. #include made multiple mistakes while trying to get to the bottom of this issue.

> You really think it's appropriate for a victim of sexual abuse to communicate with Mr X?

Obviously not, but you cannot tell me that there are zero members of #include leadership who aren't rape victims. I highly doubt that Mr. X has any argument that would be worth considering. I'm not saying Mr. X's words would have any impact on #include's position (or my position) whatsoever. I'm saying it's counterproductive to not at least feign diplomacy.

Are CppCon attendees more vulnerable than other parts of society, that are still open to this person? If not, then is it really CppCon's place to "protect" anyone? "Protection" is something I expect from schools or youth sporting organizations, not professional conferences.

In other words, why not just call this the prison system's failure to protect the community by releasing this person, and that they should have kept them jailed for life?

These sorts of discussions keep rising. I don't think we have decided how to deal with it.

In law, armed robbery is a much more severe crime than an antisemitic tirade. Yet the court of public opinion is more willing to forgive George Floyd than Mel Gibson.

What purpose does a ban serve? Are we doing it to protect other memebers? Or is it because their presence makes other not want to join? Is it permanent or temporary?

I don't think we have really decided the rules around re-joining society, resulting in contradictions and inconsistencies.

I don't think there's a way to make the court of law and the court of public opinion align perfectly on every decision. The dichotomy between the court of law and the court of public opinion is inherent to American society- that's how it's supposed to work.

Amendments 4-8 more or less codify the notion that one can only be punished for measurable harms, of which one is clearly the culprit (or at least that's how it's supposed to work). "Innocent until proven guilty" and all that stuff.

In contrast, the court of public opinion works off of a free-flowing, sometimes contradictory set of widely-held virtues. That means that the court of public opinion can hold people accountable based on virtues that aren't codified into law. That's not always a bad thing; in fact, it's the entire engine of social progress.

As a society there are sets of established but unwritten rules and norms.

I think we are living in a era of re-writing those rules, and until a new equilibrium is reached there will be uncertainty and ambiguity.

Way to equate too things that aren’t remotely the same.

One person was murdered because someone thought they passed a fake $20 bill, vs people asking that another should not be allowed to be at a conference.

No, what I am comparing (not equating) is armed robbery, rape, and a drunk tirade. Whether you allow perpetrators of each to rejoin regular society says more about oneself than the crime. It's about the narrative we tell. Are you branded for life, or someone who made a mistake?

And this forgiveness is largely divorced from the severity of the crime.

If you want, reread my comment and notice that not only am I not equating George Floyd's death to anything i did not even mention it.

No, you used George Floyd as an example. George Floyd was limited in how he was able to operate in society after his release, as people are asking this person be restricted.

You chose George Floyd because he is a name that has been made significant, not because he was allowed at a conference but because he was murdered.

You are therefore comparing to case:

* a person who is well known because they were murdered

* a person we don’t even know the identity of, because people don’t want to be present at a conference

So you are equating them, you could have used any name, or said a general ex-con, but you specifically chose Floyd.

Yes, that's all correct. I chose Floyd (and Gibson) because they are famous. I am also comparing Floyds crime to the unnamed person's crime and to Gibson's famous tirade.

But I am not comparing Floyd's murder to anything. His murder is not related.

Yes, you can replace them with hypothetical people if you want.

Mel Gibson got sent up the river for more than four years? How quickly one forgets.

CppCon is run by the "Standard C++ Foundation" which as of their latest tax filings (state and federal) has only 4-5 voting members. New members are only corporations and are not granted voting rights.

There's probably no real opportunity here for individuals to steer the organization from within using existing bylaws/etc, because there is no "within". If the board chooses to do the right thing, they will. If not, they won't.