- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The Python Steering Council has decided to suspend a core Python developer for three months for alleged Code of Conduct violations.
Citing the recommendation of the Code of Conduct Working Group, Python developer Thomas Wouters revealed on behalf of the Steering Council that the unidentified developer was deemed to have repeatedly violated the Python Software Foundation (PSF) Code of Conduct.
The suspended developer is Tim Peters, who told The Register it was fine to name him but declined to comment – beyond observing that one of his objections to the governance process is the secrecy involved.
You must log in or register to comment.
This piqued my curiosity after witnessing recent issues in the Nixpkgs community, so I poked around Discourse for a few minutes.
Wow… Tim seems like one of the nicest folks on the face of the planet. I don’t get it.
Did I miss something? It seems like they’re shooting themselves in the foot here.
Were the mods upset about this community discussion after Karl was banned?
Okay, but: why is the screenshot a KDE code snippet? ;)
Hey kid, I’m a computah.
I’m shocked it isn’t groups.c
Seeing that list of offenses, I’m betting he’s going to take this well and as an opportunity to learn and better himself. /s
half of them just from the description are very obvious “we couldn’t get enough examples of bad behavior on him so we had a brainstorming session of imaginary slights”
You can read one of the responses about this that’s linked in the article: https://discuss.python.org/t/inclusive-communications-expectations-in-python-spaces/57950/11
Other members and users repeatedly complained about Peters’ conduct which resulted in the list. From that particular link:
This is exactly how the rest of us hear about the many people who don’t want to be here because of the behaviors they routinely witness and experience.
Members and would be members are quite literally afraid to bring it up publicly because they get jumped on by people telling them they are wrong. They simply do not want to interact in our spaces at all which means they remain invisible and even when some are brave enough to speak up, as has happened multiple times in these threads, they appear to often be ignored. It is shameful.
The number of people I’ve worked with who would’ve made great open source contributors, here or elsewhere, who’ve effectively turned tail and said “hell no!” to the suggestion because of how they see people get treated by those already in this pool is more than I can count. :frowning:
If you read it carefully, Smith doesn’t make any claim that anyone complained about Peter’s conduct. It’s speaking in general terms about the behavior of unnamed persons.
Tim mentioned several times that his concern was the community, and his comments all appear to foster inclusion. He seems to find a little more good in people than the steering committee allows.
From Peters in the thread:
Nobody talked about demographic markers because they didn’t matter to anyone.
That reads to me that things were better before inclusive language was around.
I think this also is a good response to a different point to made about being rational:
It seems like we’re doing the human thing and interpreting things differently.
I read all of these comments in context on Discourse and came to my previous conclusions. The ban still seems out of place to me.
So the discussion about behaviors that mirror the suspension is not about the guy that was suspended? Come on.
In reference to the sexual harassment item:
If somebody hears “discussed sexual harassment” and immediately says, “You must mean Tim Peters,” I think the context of the whole thread is pretty clear.
It’s clearly referring to people in the plural. If the person on the council most vocally defending the council’s decision to suspend can’t say it in a reasonably straightforward manner, the simpler explanation is that that is not what they are talking about.
In the same comment from Smith:
I want to assure everyone that the points we made in the original post were so pointed exactly because of the complaints we received from community members.
The “points” being three of the items that appeared on the suspension. This is specifically about Tim Peters.
So to sum up: they received complaints specifically about Peters. Then said people (plural) complain and that’s how they hear about it. If that’s not clear, it’s not the author’s fault.
The same comment touches on several topics, replying to 2 different people. These two statements being in the same comment is not evidence of them being about the same thing, and if the author expected readers to get that from it, it is absolutely the author’s fault if their words got misinterpreted.
And in the next paragraph:
We importantly chose not to call anyone out by name in the there because our expectations aren’t about one person. All of us need to be aware of what is and isn’t okay and a lot of people were involved in the problematic threads, even if Tim, as self-identified here, was one big part
Again referring to multiple people.
Having read the comment in context, I think Gregory was reaching. Tim generally communicates in a disarming manner and simply observed that he doesn’t like how “sexual harassment training” sounds and prefers not to use that phrase.
It’s also not clear if posts have been deleted or altered, so I might be missing something.
Complaining about what it’s called isn’t what a person taking it seriously would do. It’s disruptive or subversive at best. With the general picture of his behavior from the suspension and his responses in the thread, I’m disinclined to believe his comments were merely said in a disarming manner.
So either you agree with what it’s called or you’re “disruptive” and should be banned? Hmm.
I read a load of his comments and they seem quite reasonable. A million miles from ban-worthy.
