Code of Conduct violations include allegations that posts created 'atmosphere of FUD'

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.

  • @[email protected]
    0•3 months ago

    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: Tim, obviously.

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      0•3 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        0•3 months ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          0•3 months ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            0•3 months ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              0•3 months ago

              If you “made light of sexual harassment training” at your job like this you would be fired?

              And I lost count of how many times an executive at a startup I’ve worked for was charged with sexual harassment. The outcome was always the same: nothing actually happened to them, but the entire company was sentenced to days of “sexual harassment prevention” training, as part of the deal the bigwig cut to get off easy. By now I must be one of the most highly trained people on Earth in that specialty :wink:.

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                0•3 months ago

                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:

                • Showing empathy towards other community members. We’re attentive in our communications, whether in person or online, and we’re tactful when approaching differing views.
                • Being considerate. Members of the community are considerate of their peers – other Python users.
                • Being respectful. We’re respectful of others, their positions, their skills, their commitments, and their efforts.
                • Gracefully accepting constructive criticism. When we disagree, we are courteous in raising our issues.
                • Using welcoming and inclusive language. We’re accepting of all who wish to take part in our activities, fostering an environment where anyone can participate and everyone can make a difference.
                • @[email protected]
                  0•3 months ago

                  You seem to be giving a lot more leeway to interpretations of Peters’ words than my comparison. Odd.

                  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.

                  he’s also dismissing that it’s worthwhile to try and have an environment free from sexual harassment.

                  Complete misunderstanding of his comment. Read it again.

                  Gracefully accepting constructive criticism.

                  Lol the irony is overpowering.

                  • @[email protected]
                    0•3 months ago

                    woke

                    There it is. Thanks for finally being explicit about the kind of person you are. People like you are the reason cocs have to be made in the first place. Don’t bother responding, I’ll be blocking you.

    • @[email protected]
      0•3 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        0•3 months ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          0•3 months ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            0•3 months ago

            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.