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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good. The dev world is still stained with a lot of libertarian bros who only think of themselves and try to hide behind “just focus on the code!”, thinking it’ll excuse right-wing behavior
That’s not even what happened? Did you read the article?
Did you? Here’s what was mentioned in the suspension and it all sounds right wing to me:
“Defending ‘reverse racism’ and ‘reverse sexism’, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment.” “Using potentially offensive language or slurs, in one case even calling an SNL [Saturday Night Live] skit from the 1970s using the same slur ‘genuinely funny’, which shows a lack of empathy towards other community members.” (More context on that here.) “Making light of sensitive topics like workplace sexual harassment, which could be interpreted as harassment or creating an unwelcoming environment.” “Casually mentioning scenarios involving sexual abuse, which may be inappropriate or triggering for some audiences.” “Discussing bans or removals of community members, which may be seen as publishing private information without permission.” "Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a ‘neurodivergent’ trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment. “Excessive discussion of controversial topics or past conflicts, which could be seen as sustained disruption of community discussions.” “Use of potentially offensive terms, even when self-censored or alluded to indirectly.” “Making assumptions or speculations about other community members’ motivations and/or mental health.”
The problem with this situation is everything that was said was said publicly, and yet, not a single thing said was linked. Some of the claims they made are blatant misrepresentations of what was said, too, which is fun. If they have nothing to hide, quote or link what he said, don’t paraphrase it.
Nah, they don’t have to repeat slurs, discussions of sexual assault, or other things that they don’t want in their community in the first place.
Do you have any examples of his stance on reverse racism, the sexual assault discussions, or his use of slurs that were “misrepresented”?
That’s fair, they needn’t quote it, you’re right, they can just link it, context included.
I do not have examples of those, nor did I claim to.
What was misrepresented was a quote about SNL, where an offensive clip from old SNL was posted, and he said it was from when SNL was still funny. He didn’t even comment on the clip except for the era in which it came out. (I think there was a second one, but I don’t recall the other offhand, so I’m not gonna try to pull it out of my ass here)
What I disliked is that by not linking the originals, we have to trust their judgment entirely and have to infer which incidents they’re referring to and what was said. That’s stupid. Just link the damn discussions, they were public. If it was bad, it will be obvious. I should not have to make my judgment based on their view of what was said, I want to make my judgment based on what was actually said. I don’t agree with what Tim said, but I also feel like they’re not being as transparent as they should be.
Those are accusations and reasons provided by the PSF. Continue reading the article beyond that.
In one titled “Inclusive communications expectations in Python spaces,” Peters pushed back on the notion that “Python old-timers are troglodyte reprobates” and expressed concern about Python’s Code of Conduct enforcement process.
Is “Python old-timers are troglodyte reprobates” not worth pushing back against? What kind of atmosphere is created if ageism is OK?
I’m not going to quote the rest, you can read it.
I’m not sure what your point is. You said to the parent comment in this thread that it wasn’t a right winger. I provided a quote from the article that supported that he was. Now you’re bringing up one thing that he pushed back against? I don’t think that balances out. He had a pattern of going against the code of conduct multiple times with about a third of his comments being called into question. Then you put words in my mouth saying I’m saying ageism is ok because I use the article to show his behavior is crappy. What’s your point? Ageism is bad? I agree. Peters is redeemed by that one push back? I disagree.
So is that how courts work for you? You are guilty because you are accused?
Lawyer: Your honor, the defendant is accused of having said despicable thing and showing repulsive behavior. I quote from a newspaper article that quotes from a group, that doesn’t provide a source: […]
Judge: The accusations are proof of wrong-doing and thus are sufficient to convict this criminal of being a “libertarian bro who only thinks of themself and tries to hide behind ‘just focus on the code!’, thinking it’ll excuse right-wing behavior”.That’s not how it works. I doubt @[email protected] read the article. You just quote accusations and provide it “evidence”, “proof” or as “support of who he was”, and not a single link to any of such action displayed in the accusations.
The article describes exactly this fear of being sanctioned in secrecy without no links to evidence and you’re doing exactly that, just like OP.
This isn’t a court. That is how it worked.
I think making an assumption of hom being “right wing” based on that information is a poor assumption. It’s clear that his behavior has been disruptive, negative, and promoting an unhealthy and unhelpful environment among the community and I think things could have been deescalated. I hope people on the committee aren’t making the bad faith assumption that there’s no way forward other than to excommunicate people who aren’t presently fitting in with the prevalent culture of the community.
Lol, yeah, bitching about reverse racism could come from anywhere on the political spectrum /s
