- cross-posted to:
- opensource@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- opensource@programming.dev
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.
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:
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:
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:
Again referring to multiple people.
Referring to multiple people, Tim being a big part of those people. So it’s primarily about Peters. You put it right there. Claiming it’s not just about him in pedantics and weak af.
I can’t tell if you picked up on my meaning when I mentioned the author’s fault. If you didn’t, maybe you’re not great at interpretation.
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.
Yes. If you pulled that at your job, you’d be fired. He got suspended because he refused to accept feedback, he kept pushing and showing he had no intention to change his problematic behavior. Some people don’t get it until there are consequences to them.
If you “made light of sexual harassment training” at your job like this you would be fired?
Jesus you should leave now! That’s not ok. (At least in countries with proper labour laws; I guess in America they can fire you for anything.)
I mean I wouldn’t advise writing that on your company Slack, but nowhere I have ever worked would fire you for it.
In any case the Python community isn’t a company & as far as I understand it Peters isn’t getting paid.
Right, it’s not a company, and it relies on the unpaid labor of volunteers, who Peters was driving away. That’s mentioned in the thread. Though they are not a company with employees, they are still a community that needs to attract talent. You seem to be giving a lot more leeway to interpretations of Peters’ words than my comparison. Odd.
So he’s dismissing the training; in doing so he’s also dismissing that it’s worthwhile to try and have an environment free from sexual harassment. That’s not somebody I’d want as a representative of an inclusive community. The steering committee seems to agree.
From the Coc:
It doesn’t require any leeway. It’s a totally mainstream opinion supported by actual research. It’s only in woke CoC teams that comments like that are objectionable.
Complete misunderstanding of his comment. Read it again.
Lol the irony is overpowering.