On Dec 28, 2012 4:38 PM, "Chris Jerdonek" <chris.jerdo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Chris Jerdonek < chris.jerdo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 5:28 AM, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com > > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On 12/25/2012 5:56 PM, Łukasz Langa wrote: > >> >> > I'm seriously considering writing all this as a PEP (most likely > >> >> > without any personal details). I hope this won't be useful in the > >> >> > future but it might help having this gathered as written policy, if > >> >> > only for transparency reasons. > >> >> > >> >> This strike me as over-reaction. > >> > > >> > I'm not at all sure that it is, but that "most likely" had better be > >> > replaced by "most certainly". Such a policy needs to rest on > >> > fundamental > >> > principles. "Bad cases make bad law", so one must be careful not to > >> > craft a policy to deal only with a specific egregious thing, but rather > >> > craft something that will serve well in the general cases. > >> > Specifically, > >> > any such policy, and any statement made if we take action on Anatoly, > >> > will > >> > have to address the inevitable calls that we are engaging in censorship. > >> > There are principled answers to that charge, but we must decide which > >> > of them we are following and why, and articulate that clearly and > >> > consistently. > >> > >> +1. It might seem bureaucratic to some, but I think grounding actions > >> in due process and documented policy is important. The Diversity > >> Statement is a good example of this. (That statement has a different > >> purpose though. It's more about something we want rather than how to > >> handle something we don't want.): > >> > >> http://www.python.org/community/diversity/ > >> > >> What is CoC by the way? > > > > > > Code of Conduct. > > > > -Brett > > > >> > >> > >> > As an aside, it has occurred to me that the fundamental problem here is > >> > that we do not feel that Anatoly respects *us*. So it is no wonder that > >> > we are offended and do not respect him. > >> > >> FWIW, I've found him to be more what I'd call spammy/annoying and > >> lacking in some areas rather than disrespectful (opening many issues > >> with vague descriptions, starting more than his share of threads on > >> python-ideas, etc). So I've never felt offended. Granted, I'm > >> relatively new to being involved and don't follow him closely. I > >> quickly learned to pass over most of what he writes for lack of time. > >> It's a source of amazement to me that what he writes sometimes leads > >> to something productive. > > > > > > This is where I disagree with everyone who is defending Anatoly as someone > > who can be redeemed and given yet another chance to allow him to continue to > > poison the community where he participates because he is just "annoying". On > > python-dev I checked my email on Xmas morning to an email from Anatoly where > > he said "What should I do in case Eric lost interest after his GSoC project > > for PSF appeared as useless for python-dev community". That is not > > "spammy/annoying" but flat-out disrespectful and rude. > > > > I think I was the first person to publicly state I put Anatoly's email into > > the trash after he publicly said the PSF board should be completely > > disbanded and we should restructure the PSF because he viewed it as > > worthless. That was not annoying but disrespectful. > > > > We have spent **years** trying to get him to be more productive and yet he > > manages to not to. He flat-out refuses to sign any contributor agreement and > > expects us to do all the work and gets mad when we don't spend our free time > > fixing what he wants us to. He won't even search the internet for prior > > discussions as David has pointed out. That's not annoying but disrespectful. > > > > I fully understand that we are all nice people and don't want to do anything > > drastic, but simply ignoring him doesn't solve the issue for new people to > > the community who come to python-ideas, python-dev, or even the tracker on > > occasion and actually take the time to read his emails, reply, etc. and > > don't realize that a decent chunk of core developers never even see their > > responses as the entire thread has already been deleted/muted in the core > > dev's inbox. If I was new and spent some time replying to a thread only to > > find out that the person was being ignored and thus my hard work as well I > > would be frustrated. > > > > In order to deal with this, here is my proposal that should placate those of > > us calling for a ban now and those that feel like there has not been enough > > of a warning ((I can't communicate with him because I want him banned and I > > personally don't get along with him even in person, so any place where > > someone should talk to him it can't be me in the name of fairness to the > > process): > > > > 1. Someone emails Anatoly to tell him he is on indefinite probation for his > > behaviour where it is pointed out he can no longer insult anyone (including > > the PSF), he can't re-open issues without an explicit solution to the > > problem for why it closed, and in general has to just behave and not be rude > > > > 2. We agree to point out to him nicely and calmly when he has screwed up and > > overstepped his bounds while on this probation and to record when that > > happened (an email here about any incident should be enough) so that he can > > learn from his mistakes > > > > 3. If we do not see a pattern of improvement (this can be noticed by anyone > > and I'm sure we can get a consensus on it; unanimity is not required because > > that is impossible for anything with a group of our size), he gets cut off > > from the resource he is abusing the most and those cut-offs will continue on > > other locations if he does not improve there as well > > > > 4. If it goes as far as he is cut off and he manages to get the point and > > behaves elsewhere he can be allowed back on to where he has been banned > > after a year has passed (IOW he has to show actual improvement) > > > > Three key points in this proposal. One is that he gets an official warning; > > no more side discussions with core devs, no more "does he know people want > > to ban him" questions as it will be clear and explicit. He will be flat-out > > told his attitude and actions are not acceptable as they stand and they need > > to change. > > > > Two is that there is no time limit so that he doesn't just hide away for > > e.g. six months, comes back, and then starts stirring up trouble while > > saying he behaved within the allotted time that he had to. Any change needs > > to be permanent and perpetuate forever. > > > > Three, the cut-offs are gradual per resource so that it isn't an > > over-arching nuclear option. > > > > I say Ezio lets him know that this is the plan since he talked to him > > recently and is in the no-ban-yet camp. But even if people don't like the > > explicit steps as I have outlined them as a general rule, someone who > > doesn't want him banned should tell him flat-out that he is on thin ice as I > > am an admin for python-ideas and this plan is what I will institute starting > > January 1 for that list and he is on the top of the list of people who will > > be in trouble if their attitude does not change (I am about to email Titus > > about drafting up a CoC for python-ideas so that this applies to everyone, > > not just Anatoly). > > Thanks, Brett. These steps sound great to me. It would be good if > the e-mail for (1) is posted here (either before or after sending but > preferably before). Is Ezio being asked to let him know about (1) > through (4) or to actually do (1)? To make the e-mail official, it > should say it is being sent on behalf of this group or be signed by > more than one person and CC more than one core dev. >
It doesn't matter to me who writes the email. I was not thinking so formally, bit it wouldn't hurt. -brett > Also, for the record I never meant to defend Anatoly and don't > personally believe he can be redeemed. I just felt he should be > officially warned as a matter of process. Also, I admit that I was > wrong in implying that he didn't disrespect the group or community. > His recent e-mail about Eric's project was terrible. It was more how > I felt personally because there is a point at which you start > disregarding and not taking seriously anything a person says (he is > past that point). The point about new people who don't have that > understanding yet is a very good one. > > --Chris
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
