by mont_tag on 8/8/24, 2:10 AM with 82 comments
by WCSTombs on 8/8/24, 8:29 AM
> Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment.
So simply having an opinion and expressing it counts as "intimidation" now? I have to point out that one aspect of an organization's culture that actually creates hostility and exclusion is punishing people for engaging in good-faith discussion. (And if the dialogue in question was not in good faith, why not put that at the top?) It's not enough for someone to engage in the process and help the team reach the best outcome. Their opinion must also be the correct one, or else.
Look, I'm an outsider here, so there are obviously a lot of details I'm missing, but this doesn't look good to someone reading it without context, and I don't think it makes the PSF look good. How it reads is "hey, we're writing to let you know we're banning someone. We won't say who it is, and we won't say exactly what they did, but the two top things came down to differences of opinion."
I would love to be wrong about all of this, because I especially don't like seeing it in an open-source organization that's so integral to my own work.
by rowanG077 on 8/8/24, 10:23 AM
by coldtea on 8/14/24, 1:59 PM
Contributing to any such project is not worth it anymore. Someone like Tim has devoted decades of his life working for Python.
What modern FOSS projects need is a reverse Code of Conduct, explicitly telling the kind of people who hijack the project discussion and try to play these games to fuck off and that they're not welcome, and that the focus is the tech.
by mhh__ on 8/8/24, 11:11 AM
I also don't like the "the battle ground for the ideology of tomorrow is this programing forum!" mindset but that's slightly deeper.
by subjectsigma on 8/8/24, 11:28 AM
by huhkerrf on 8/8/24, 6:35 AM
> Overloading the discussion of the bylaws change (47 out of 177 posts in topic at the time the moderators closed the topic)... The later result of the vote showed 81% support for the most controversial of the bylaws changes, which demonstrates the controversy was blown out of proportion.
These two are insane. I'm almost speechless.
The rest don't sound good, and would be enough for a suspension on their own if presented truthfully. So why put those first two? Why put them first?
EDIT: Since no one has linked to it yet, this seems to be the discussion referenced. I haven't gotten to the end of it yet, I admit, but what I read so far looks like one person in particular disagreeing with the prevailing opinion in a fairy respectful way: https://discuss.python.org/t/for-your-consideration-proposed...
by Tade0 on 8/13/24, 12:01 PM
I dug into that link where SNL is mentioned and honestly the connection made there to me seems a bit of a stretch.
I'm not in the Python ecosystem but I've seen this sort of drama in the Node.js community and, aside from resulting in a fork, it spurred a debate about governance of the project and an eventual change.
by znpy on 8/8/24, 12:03 PM
But I think most people don't see the main issue: ideological takeovers can happen both for the side you're rooting for and for the opposite sides.
Both ideological far-right and ideological far-left people can attempt a takeover.
It's in the best interest of everybody to try and prevent any ideological takeover.
by BigParm on 8/8/24, 1:39 PM
The software herein can be used, without restriction, by all parties who believe only whites can be racist.
by ksjhtga on 8/8/24, 12:10 PM
So they never set foot on GitHub or even the discussion platforms. They have no clue what is going on and still think everything is like in the good old times.
Couple this with the fact that only ragingly power hungry people apply for the council. There is a severe shortage of candidates.
So, in the elections the nasty people get something like 30 out of 90 votes. Since hardly anyone of the electorate has the faintest idea of what is actually going on (see above) and relies on official spin stories of the council members, who block opposing opinions, they can do what they like.
All people who oppose the inner circle are removed, defamed and silenced.
This is like (hypothetically) Trump first banning a Democrat from voting and then removing him from the U.S. entirely.
by JonChesterfield on 8/8/24, 10:44 AM
There are competing political systems to that one. The CoC enthusiasts are (likely to be) based in democratic systems so ignorance is not their reason for choosing this structure.
A couple of groups I'm involved with have gone down the mandatory code of conduct route. I do not feel safer with a mechanism for summary execution in place.
Specifically if I disagree with one of the chosen, they can solve that disagreement by excommunication. Thus when one of them spews insane nonsense the project tends to take damage instead of discussing saner alternatives. Worse, the connections of friendship / nepotism can be hard to detect from outside the inner circle, so disagreeing with anyone might be game over. Thus the system rots. But at least it gave power to the few for a period of time.
My primary takeaway from this particular case is that Tim seems more reasonable than the governing board so I'm less likely to use Python in future - both because squashing discussion usually leads to technical decay and because the project as a whole looks more likely to implode over time.
by mhh__ on 8/8/24, 11:29 AM
by saulpw on 8/8/24, 6:53 AM
https://discuss.python.org/t/for-your-consideration-proposed...
I know this type, they definitely know how to belabor a point, and their language can be "colorful". I read through a bunch of comments, and on a scale from 0 to Terry Davis, Tim seems like a 1 or 2, annoying and crotchety but well-meaning and mild-mannered (Linus would be an 8 on this scale). Suspension is a drastic move, and it's hard both to suspend[0] and to be suspended, so I hope the PSF engaged with him offline first.
[0] https://fosstodon.org/@Yhg1s@social.coop/112922140875432669
by unethical_ban on 8/8/24, 6:52 AM
by SuaveSteve on 8/9/24, 9:38 PM
by pf_moore on 8/8/24, 10:12 AM
For anyone on the outside, this appears to be an intensely rash decision. I can rest assured that Tim Peters found trauma in the experience of being suspended as the level of appropriate communication is never met, neither in this announcement, nor in Lukaz Langa's persistent references [1] [2] to rapists when discussing conduct on an internet forum.
I'm sure there are reasons to become a python core developer, but open hostility and defaulting to homogeneity have rarely been experienced as acceptance by me; they simply scale in ways easily implemented across a wide audience.
De-escalation and finding middle ground without validating harmful behavior do not scale well but then again, there has never been a capitalist movement behind finding a solution which works
1: https://discuss.python.org/t/how-can-we-better-support-neuro...
2: https://discuss.python.org/t/discussion-about-recent-coc-eve...
by ponderings on 8/9/24, 6:12 AM
by hungie on 8/8/24, 6:31 AM
It doesn't seem like there's a "this one post was sus", but rather, "we've exhausted other options after repeated violations of our rules across many, many threads."
This seems like basic moderation of a community, and good on the mods for applying their rules even to a core developer?
by andrew-ei-grad on 8/9/24, 5:07 PM
Seriously? Who on earth could possibly say that Tim Peters isn't the embodiment of this? It’s utterly ridiculous to even question whether he’s a role model. This kind of talk is completely out of touch with reality.
by chmod775 on 8/8/24, 6:36 AM
This may be anything between shutting down someone derailing the discussion by spouting genuine nonsense, to being overreaching and paternalistic, punishing for not conforming to the preordained outcome of a farcical "discussion".
There's enough of either going around nowadays.
by ank on 8/13/24, 9:16 PM
Fight fire with fire.
by andrew-ei-grad on 8/9/24, 6:09 PM
When we start dividing ourselves and others into categories based on race, gender, origin, or other characteristics, we lose sight of our shared humanity. Instead of recognizing each individual as a person with unique thoughts and feelings, we resort to generalizations and stereotypes, leading to further division and alienation.
As a society, we need to remember that, above all, we are all human beings. We must listen to each other, understand, and accept our differences, while also recognizing that we have much more in common than what separates us. Sincerity, respect, and empathy are the qualities that help us stay connected as humans, despite our differences.
Additionally, it's crucial that we approach the communication styles of elderly individuals with greater attention and tolerance. Their way of expressing themselves might differ from what we’re used to, shaped by different experiences and cultural contexts, but this doesn’t make their perspectives any less valuable. We should strive to be more understanding and patient, recognizing that everyone has something important to contribute, regardless of how they communicate.
Let's reflect on how our words and actions impact others, and make an effort to be more mindful of those around us. Being human means understanding and feeling, not just following social norms or external pressures.
by linotype on 8/8/24, 6:34 AM
Why shouldn’t neurodivergent people get special treatment if they have a disorder/issue? Seems like accommodations should be made to promote inclusion.
by nusl on 8/8/24, 8:00 AM