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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] onlinepersona 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's not even what happened? Did you read the article?

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks 1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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."

[–] moomoomoo309 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[+] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks -11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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"?

[–] moomoomoo309 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[–] onlinepersona 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] sus 1 points 3 months ago

"Troglodyte reprobates" was a term that Tim seemed to bring up himself from what seems to be pretty much out of the blue, so it's a bit questionable

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] onlinepersona 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks 0 points 3 months ago

This isn't a court. That is how it worked.

[–] ericjmorey 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks -2 points 3 months ago

Lol, yeah, bitching about reverse racism could come from anywhere on the political spectrum /s