On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 10:42 AM Jeff Allen <ja...@farowl.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10/10/2020 00:56, Brett Cannon wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 2:55 PM Toshio Kuratomi <a.bad...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> 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 [...] way more > and still be here without technical ramifications because we said, "you > always get a warning first". > > This is so painful I'm reluctant to add to the pile, so I'll be succinct > (at risk of sounding brusque). Personally I find it a weak argument that > the SC should not codify a system of warnings because some cases go bad so > quickly that you have to act immediately. This may be necessary for > drive-by trolls with a point to make. It would be rare in anyone with > significant standing in the PSF. Anyway, you can have both. > > I realise that core developer status is not employment, but I think there > is a model worth considering in this: > https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/dismissals-on-capability-or-conduct-grounds#disciplinary-procedures > . This is guidance, not law over here, but an employment tribunal would > take it as a definition of reasonable, so most decent employers adopt it as > a policy. > > 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. > > Sounds like you were doing roughly as Toshio recommends anyway (the decent > thing as I'd expect), but maybe explicit is better? > > Jeff Allen > Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience. The Python Software Foundation Code of Conduct Working Group Enforcement Procedures, https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/enforcement/ , provides explicit steps that are taken as well as the possibilities for behavior modification and also consequences. This document also outlines the process for proposing changes in the "Changes to Code of Conduct" section. While I am not an expert in UK employee law, the linked document includes the following wording: > You should include examples of what you consider to be misconduct in your disciplinary rules. > Different disciplinary procedures are appropriate for different circumstances. These concepts are reflected in Python's process. Carol
_______________________________________________ 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/FIYLQT7QDTXRCSAOSDW7OW3YCSS3TKQ4/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
