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

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks 2 points 3 months ago (19 children)

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:

[–] sus 14 points 3 months ago (18 children)

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.

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks 4 points 3 months ago (14 children)

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.

[–] sus 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

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

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.

[–] sus 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 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.

load more comments (12 replies)

load more comments (15 replies)