Re: [python-committers] Davin Potts as a new committer
> On Mar 5, 2016, at 10:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > Does your offer to mentor Davin still stand, Yes. Raymond ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > Python-ideas has been under the same CoC for a while now and it has been > nothing but positive. When people know they are expected to behave in a > civil manner and others know they are allowed to call someone out for being > uncivil it typically is enough to make people behave. > > So there is no issue of people "being overburdened by regulations". The CoC > only comes up when someone is being so rude that they need to be talked to > about their attitude problem, so as long as we try and keep people from > being rude it won't come up. Quite frankly, the CoC is really just meant as > a way for people to feel comfortable in knowing they don't have to tolerate > jerks. And I would hope none of us are jerks to people in the community, so > saying as much shouldn't change anything for any of us. This also lets the > community know that we don't view ourselves as some elite group of people > whose attitudes must be tolerated no matter what; we hold ourselves to the > same standards as the rest of the community does and it should be pointed > out as such to make people feel comfortable. > It seems to me that the "controversies" raised in this thread stem from a few underlying problems and points of confusions. The first problem is that it is not entirely clear (at least to me) why we need a CoC and what problem is the CoC trying to solve. The CoC itself simply mentions: "[...] these guidelines [...] help steer our interactions and strive to keep Python a positive, successful, and growing community.". Clearly stating the goal of the CoC will help people understand why it is useful. The second problem is that Code of Conducts usually outline rules[0], and this can be perceived as limiting one's freedom and potentially be abused for censoring users. Our CoC however is quite "mild", so I believe people that expressed concern were mostly against the idea of having a CoC, rather than being against our CoC in particular. However is also not clear what measures -- if any -- will be taken to enforce the CoC[1]. Which bring us to the the third problem: if, how, and by whom these "guidelines" are enforced. Enforcement requires judgment, and judgment requires judges. Who is to judge if e.g. one or more mails in broken English, or with a perceived rude tone, or with unrealistic proposals are detrimental to the conversation and should be "rejected" or if they should be accepted/tolerated/embraced in the spirit of inclusiveness? If they are "rejected", what specific actions are going to be taken? ISTM that our CoC simply puts black on white the general principles that we have already being following, without outlining any hard rules. It should therefore have little to no effects -- both positive and negative -- on existing members. It might however serve as a remainder to people that disregard (intentionally or not) these principles, and help shaping the image of our community for external people -- including potential new members of our community. Best Regards, Ezio Melotti [0]: "A code of conduct is a set of rules outlining the social norms and rules and responsibilities of, or proper practices for, an individual, party or organization." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct [1]: "Studies of codes of conduct in the private sector show that their effective implementation must be part of a learning process that requires training, consistent enforcement, and continuous measurement/improvement." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers
On 06.03.2016 17:52, Ezio Melotti wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> >> Python-ideas has been under the same CoC for a while now and it has been >> nothing but positive. When people know they are expected to behave in a >> civil manner and others know they are allowed to call someone out for being >> uncivil it typically is enough to make people behave. >> >> So there is no issue of people "being overburdened by regulations". The CoC >> only comes up when someone is being so rude that they need to be talked to >> about their attitude problem, so as long as we try and keep people from >> being rude it won't come up. Quite frankly, the CoC is really just meant as >> a way for people to feel comfortable in knowing they don't have to tolerate >> jerks. And I would hope none of us are jerks to people in the community, so >> saying as much shouldn't change anything for any of us. This also lets the >> community know that we don't view ourselves as some elite group of people >> whose attitudes must be tolerated no matter what; we hold ourselves to the >> same standards as the rest of the community does and it should be pointed >> out as such to make people feel comfortable. >> > > It seems to me that the "controversies" raised in this thread stem > from a few underlying problems and points of confusions. > > The first problem is that it is not entirely clear (at least to me) > why we need a CoC and what problem is the CoC trying to solve. The > CoC itself simply mentions: "[...] these guidelines [...] help steer > our interactions and strive to keep Python a positive, successful, and > growing community.". Clearly stating the goal of the CoC will help > people understand why it is useful. > > The second problem is that Code of Conducts usually outline rules[0], > and this can be perceived as limiting one's freedom and potentially be > abused for censoring users. Our CoC however is quite "mild", so I > believe people that expressed concern were mostly against the idea of > having a CoC, rather than being against our CoC in particular. > However is also not clear what measures -- if any -- will be taken to > enforce the CoC[1]. > > Which bring us to the the third problem: if, how, and by whom these > "guidelines" are enforced. Enforcement requires judgment, and > judgment requires judges. Who is to judge if e.g. one or more mails > in broken English, or with a perceived rude tone, or with unrealistic > proposals are detrimental to the conversation and should be "rejected" > or if they should be accepted/tolerated/embraced in the spirit of > inclusiveness? If they are "rejected", what specific actions are > going to be taken? FYI: I only know of a single case where we have triggered the CoC to ban someone from MLs. The decision was taken by the PSF board members who ultimately have to decide these things (or delegate the decision to someone else). The board deliberately put the bar very high for any such sanctions. > ISTM that our CoC simply puts black on white the general principles > that we have already being following, without outlining any hard > rules. It should therefore have little to no effects -- both positive > and negative -- on existing members. It might however serve as a > remainder to people that disregard (intentionally or not) these > principles, and help shaping the image of our community for external > people -- including potential new members of our community. > > Best Regards, > Ezio Melotti > > > [0]: "A code of conduct is a set of rules outlining the social norms > and rules and responsibilities of, or proper practices for, an > individual, party or organization." -- > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct > > [1]: "Studies of codes of conduct in the private sector show that > their effective implementation must be part of a learning process that > requires training, consistent enforcement, and continuous > measurement/improvement." -- > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct > ___ > python-committers mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Mar 06 2016) >>> Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> Python Database Interfaces ... http://products.egenix.com/ >>> Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ... http://zope.egenix.com/ 2016-02-19: Released eGenix PyRun 2.1.2 ... http://egenix.com/go88 ::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs ::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duess
Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers
On 05.03.2016 00:40, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 at 14:04 M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> Brett, >> >> I don't think that spamming all MLs, Github accounts, etc. >> with CoC notices will help anyone. >> > > Which is not what I'm suggesting nor would I want to do unless it's a > stated change in policy so people feel properly notified. I was referring to adding CoC links to all ML footers (causing it to appeary on each and every ML message), all Github repos, etc. I think this is not helpful. It's better to have a single page on the python.org where we state how we use the CoC and perhaps a footer link on python.org pointing to it. Perhaps we don't even need a new page and simply use the existing CoC page for this, by adding some more text to it and perhaps a FAQ section. >> >> You may not be aware, but all PSF infrastructure is covered by >> the PSF CoC already, and has been for quite a while: >> >> """ >> RESOLVED, that the Python Software Foundation shall manage and curate >> the Foundation's public >> and member-accessible web properties to remove spam, serve the membership, >> and conform to the the >> Python Community Code of Conduct. >> >> Approved 9-0-0 by IRC vote, 3 January, 2014. >> """ >> > > That's great, but how are people to know this if they don't read the > minutes of the board? Is it considered too much if I link to the minutes in > the devguide so people know about this ( > https://www.python.org/psf/records/board/minutes/2014-01-06/#management-of-the-psfs-web-properties > )? If needed at all, it's better to link to above yet-to-be-written page. >> All PSF members have acknowledged this and adding yet another >> notice to each and every point of interaction will not make >> things better. >> > > I'm not worried about PSF members, it's all the new folk who are just > "walking off the street" and are looking to contribute. > > >> >> If there are issues, point people to the CoC. Otherwise, let's >> not get all tangled up in CoC links everywhere :-) >> > > Fair enough, but I would like at least one canonical location to link to > that bit of the minutes so that it's somewhere a bit more public. Is a link > in the devguide considered acceptable? > > -Brett > > >> >> We can get the 16 ton weight out when needed... >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U90dnUbZMmM >> >> and optionally even send the tiger. >> >> Cheers, >> -- >> Marc-Andre Lemburg >> >> >> On 04.03.2016 22:31, Brett Cannon wrote: >>> The discussion about the Code of Conduct has sputtered out, so I'm going >> to >>> assume those who care to speak up have at this point. It seems to me that >>> the general agreement is that putting python-dev and bugs.python.org >> under >>> the CoC might not solve any real issues we currently have, but it won't >>> hurt anything either (and both python-committers and python-ideas are >>> already covered). And since the CoC might make some people feel more >>> comfortable in participating, that means going ahead and flipping on the >>> CoC where we reasonably can. >>> >>> So what I will do is try to convince the managers of python-dev to put it >>> under the CoC and get the CoC mentioned in the footer of >> bugs.python.org. >>> I will update the devguide to say that the various mailing lists and >> issue >>> tracker are under the CoC so people are aware, but I won't go as far as I >>> was originally proposing about covering all public, Python-related >>> interactions. Once we move to GitHub we will most likely have a >>> CONTRIBUTING file that links to the devguide and that file will mention >>> that interactions involving the repo are under the CoC (or some other >>> wording that says pull requests fall under the Code of Conduct). >>> >>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 at 11:29 Brett Cannon wrote: >>> I noticed that the devguide didn't explicitly mention that core >> developers were expected to follow the PSF CoC ( https://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html and https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/, respectively). I have opened http://bugs.python.org/issue26446 to make sure it gets documented. Since this is technically a modification of the requirements of getting commit privileges I wanted to mention it here before I (or anyone else) made the change. >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> python-committers mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers >>> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >>> >> >> -- >> Marc-Andre Lemburg >> eGenix.com >> >> Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Mar 04 2016) > Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ... http://www.egenix.com/ > Python Database Interfaces ... http://products.egenix.com/ > Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ... http://zope.egenix.com/ >> ___
Re: [python-committers] Davin Potts as a new committer
On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 at 00:23 Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > > On Mar 5, 2016, at 10:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > Does your offer to mentor Davin still stand, > > Yes. > Great! Then as I said previously, get him to send his SSH keys to [email protected], verify for me that his username is "davin" on bugs.python.org, and have him subscribe to python-committers and friends, and I will handle the rest. ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers
On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 at 10:13 M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > On 05.03.2016 00:40, Brett Cannon wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 at 14:04 M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > > > >> Brett, > >> > >> I don't think that spamming all MLs, Github accounts, etc. > >> with CoC notices will help anyone. > >> > > > > Which is not what I'm suggesting nor would I want to do unless it's a > > stated change in policy so people feel properly notified. > > I was referring to adding CoC links to all ML footers (causing it > to appeary on each and every ML message), all Github repos, etc. > > I think this is not helpful. It's better to have a single page > on the python.org where we state how we use the CoC and perhaps > a footer link on python.org pointing to it. > > Perhaps we don't even need a new page and simply use the > existing CoC page for this, by adding some more text to it > and perhaps a FAQ section. > That works for me as well. Did you want the board to amend the CoC with the relevant details or did you want me to just directly edit the coc repo? > > >> > >> You may not be aware, but all PSF infrastructure is covered by > >> the PSF CoC already, and has been for quite a while: > >> > >> """ > >> RESOLVED, that the Python Software Foundation shall manage and > curate > >> the Foundation's public > >> and member-accessible web properties to remove spam, serve the > membership, > >> and conform to the the > >> Python Community Code of Conduct. > >> > >> Approved 9-0-0 by IRC vote, 3 January, 2014. > >> """ > >> > > > > That's great, but how are people to know this if they don't read the > > minutes of the board? Is it considered too much if I link to the minutes > in > > the devguide so people know about this ( > > > https://www.python.org/psf/records/board/minutes/2014-01-06/#management-of-the-psfs-web-properties > > )? > > If needed at all, it's better to link to above yet-to-be-written page. > WFM. -Brett > > >> All PSF members have acknowledged this and adding yet another > >> notice to each and every point of interaction will not make > >> things better. > >> > > > > I'm not worried about PSF members, it's all the new folk who are just > > "walking off the street" and are looking to contribute. > > > > > >> > >> If there are issues, point people to the CoC. Otherwise, let's > >> not get all tangled up in CoC links everywhere :-) > >> > > > > Fair enough, but I would like at least one canonical location to link to > > that bit of the minutes so that it's somewhere a bit more public. Is a > link > > in the devguide considered acceptable? > > > > -Brett > > > > > >> > >> We can get the 16 ton weight out when needed... > >> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U90dnUbZMmM > >> > >> and optionally even send the tiger. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> -- > >> Marc-Andre Lemburg > >> > >> > >> On 04.03.2016 22:31, Brett Cannon wrote: > >>> The discussion about the Code of Conduct has sputtered out, so I'm > going > >> to > >>> assume those who care to speak up have at this point. It seems to me > that > >>> the general agreement is that putting python-dev and bugs.python.org > >> under > >>> the CoC might not solve any real issues we currently have, but it won't > >>> hurt anything either (and both python-committers and python-ideas are > >>> already covered). And since the CoC might make some people feel more > >>> comfortable in participating, that means going ahead and flipping on > the > >>> CoC where we reasonably can. > >>> > >>> So what I will do is try to convince the managers of python-dev to put > it > >>> under the CoC and get the CoC mentioned in the footer of > >> bugs.python.org. > >>> I will update the devguide to say that the various mailing lists and > >> issue > >>> tracker are under the CoC so people are aware, but I won't go as far > as I > >>> was originally proposing about covering all public, Python-related > >>> interactions. Once we move to GitHub we will most likely have a > >>> CONTRIBUTING file that links to the devguide and that file will mention > >>> that interactions involving the repo are under the CoC (or some other > >>> wording that says pull requests fall under the Code of Conduct). > >>> > >>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 at 11:29 Brett Cannon wrote: > >>> > I noticed that the devguide didn't explicitly mention that core > >> developers > were expected to follow the PSF CoC ( > https://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html and > https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/, respectively). I have > opened > http://bugs.python.org/issue26446 to make sure it gets documented. > > Since this is technically a modification of the requirements of > getting > commit privileges I wanted to mention it here before I (or anyone > else) > made the change. > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ___ > >>> python-committers mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > >>> Code
[python-committers] Welcoming Davin Potts to the Python development team
I just finished doing what was necessary to make Davin a core dev, so let's welcome our first new core dev of 2016! And while I'm thinking about it, Davin, if you will be attending PyCon US this year in Portland, it would be great if you can make the language summit so we can all meet you in person! Details can be found in https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2016-March/003784.html. ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
