On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 2:55 PM Toshio Kuratomi <a.bad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020, 5:30 AM Christian Heimes <christ...@python.org> > wrote: > >> On 09/10/2020 04.04, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote: >> > I don't see the point of requiring to "write an apology", especially >> > *before a 12-month ban*. If they understand that their behavior is >> > wrong, there's no need for a ban, at least not such a long one; if they >> > don't, they clearly aren't going to write it, at least not now (they >> > might later, after a few weeks or months, having cooled down and thought >> > it over). So all it would achieve is public shaming AFAICS. Same issue >> > with the threat of "zero tolerance policy" -- it's completely >> > unnecessary and only serves to humiliate and alienate the recipient. >> >> >> I have been the victim of Stefan's CoC violations on more than one >> occasion. He added me to nosy list of a ticket just to offend and >> humiliate me. For this reason I personally asked the SC to make a >> sincere apology a mandatory requirement for Stefan's reinstatement as a >> core dev. >> >> I would have been fine with a private apology. However Stefan has also >> verbally attacked non-core contributors. In one case another core dev >> and I contacted the contribute in private to apologize and ensure that >> the contributor was not alienated by Stefan's attitude. Therefore it >> makes sense that the SC has requested a public, general apology. >> >> Why are you more concerned with the reputation of a repeated offender >> and not with the feelings of multiple victims of harassment? As a victim >> of Stefan's behavior I feel that an apology is the first step to >> reconcile and rebuild trust. >> > > At the risk of putting my nose in where it doesn't belong... I think that > Ivan has some good general points. And i think that they could be > distilled as this: if you are looking to correct bad behavior but allow a > contributor to learn about proper behavior and then return to the > community, the steps taken here seen counter-productive (1). I would add a > second piece to that: If, on the other hand, the goal is to remove a toxic > person from the community whoneeds to go through major personality shifting > changes before they can be allowed back, then this may be appropriate (2). > > For (1), what I'm getting from Ivan's post is that these measures are at a > level that few (if any) people would be willing to fulfill them and then > come back to be a non-bitter contributor. When the requirements are too > costly for the violator to pay, they won't be able to learn and then pay > those costs until they can disavow their former selves. "i'm sorry i acted > like that; i was a *different person* back then. I'm sorry that *past me* > felt the need to hurt you." > And Stefan can still do that. As stated in the email we sent him, he can still apply to become a core dev again after one year just like anyone else out there. But I also expect that unless he has demonstrated remorse that other core developers will not vote to bring him back in, nor would the SC allow the reinstatement (which the SC is allowed via PEP 13). But a key thing here is there are human beings who were hurt by what Stefan did as well. It's a balance between treating Stefan justly but also getting closure for the victims. And I think asking those who were on the receiving end of mean behaviour to wait a whole year for a sense of closure is not fair, hence why I supported asking for an apology upfront. > I would think that in general, not necessarily this specific case, the > steering committee would want to try taking steps to get people to learn > proper behavior first and only resort to something which amounts to a de > facto permanent ban when it becomes apparent that the person has to go > through some major personality changes before their behavior will change. > > For (2), the steering committee is charged with protecting the community > at large. A toxic person can cause great havoc by themselves and set the > tone of a community such that other people feel that engaging in bad > behavior is the proper thing to do in this community. With that in mind, > at some point, this kind of action has to be on the table. It is great > that pep-13 lists banning as a possibility so that people know where their > actions can lead. > > One thing i would suggest, though, is documenting and, in general, > following a sequence of progressively more strict interventions by the > steering committee. I think that just as it is harmful to the community to > let bad behavior slide, it is also harmful to the community to not know > that the steering committee's enforcement is in measured steps which will > telegraph the committee's intentions and the member's responsibilities well > in advance. > Documenting exact steps is really hard when it comes to a Code of Conduct. Every case is unique and so rigid rules don't typically work well, e.g. requiring everyone to get a warning first would mean I could do everything Stefan did and way more and still be here without technical ramifications because we said, "you always get a warning first". There's a reason why the PSF CoC is structured as it is: those that are tasked with dealing with these sort of (very stressful) situations need flexibility to address it in an appropriate manner to that specific example. In other words I personally have no plans to introduce explicit guidelines for the SC around conduct. My personal guideline is: don't be mean, and if you are then hopefully you trust me to be fair for your unique situation while I serve on the SC. And what this means is that you should vote for SC members based on how you think they will respond to these sorts of situations as they will be the ones tasked with dealing with conduct issues. For instance, if you don't like how this was handled or trust me in how I will suggest handling future conduct issues then you shouldn't vote for me in the next SC election (and which I won't take personally as I know this is a very subjective thing). > > This specific case may already have been out of hand by the time it came > to the committee, the steering committee is relatively new and problems > could have festered before they formed and started governing, but a new > member of the community should know that if they step out of line, the > committee will make it apparent to them what the expectations are and > whether their ongoing behavior is putting them onto a disciplinary track > well before that discipline gets to the point of a one year ban and a > public apology. > I have been asked personally and privately multiple times over the years to step in and mediate conduct issues with Stefan over the years. Tack on a Conduct WG warning from just earlier this year and the multiple incidents subsequently and that's how I at least reached my decision that this was a reasonable approach to take with Stefan.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/JVNOTZ6WO4VS4QXWPXWQQCZCOGJERMSA/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
