Re: [python-committers] Recent buildbot.python.org changes

2018-09-20 Thread Nick Coghlan 
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 at 07:02, Zachary Ware  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Most of my effort this week has gone into improving the state of
> buildbot.python.org, which has largely gone into improving Buildbot
> itself.

[snip]

Very nice!

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   [email protected]   |   Brisbane, Australia
___
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] New core developers: Lisa Roach and Emily Morehouse-Valcarcel

2018-09-20 Thread Nick Coghlan 
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 at 05:28, Raymond Hettinger
 wrote:
>
> At the developer sprints this week, we collectively decided to grant core 
> committer status to Emily and Lisa.

Congratulations, and welcome!

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   [email protected]   |   Brisbane, Australia
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[python-committers] Azure Pipelines Linux failures on PRs

2018-09-20 Thread Steve Dower 

Hi all

Just a heads-up that the Azure Pipelines build failures for Linux 
machines are a known issue that should be fixed by the end of the week.


It seems the service has become so popular since last week's 
announcements that many more builds are being run on machines that have 
been freshly imaged, and so they are racing with a background 'apt 
update' command. This causes an explicit 'apt update' to (correctly) 
fail to acquire its lock. I believe it's also related to the move from 
running builds within Docker containers to actual VMs, which happened 
around the same time.


Until it's fixed, feel free to ignore the Azure Pipelines status for 
Linux builds. Apologies for the inconvenience with backports not 
auto-merging.


Cheers,
Steve
___
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] New core developers: Lisa Roach and Emily Morehouse-Valcarcel

2018-09-20 Thread Tal Einat 
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
> At the developer sprints this week, we collectively decided to grant core 
> committer status to Emily and Lisa.

Welcome aboard! Glad to have you with us :)
___
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] Recent buildbot.python.org changes

2018-09-20 Thread Tal Einat 
Zachary Ware wrote:
>
> Most of my effort this week has gone into improving the state of
> buildbot.python.org, which has largely gone into improving Buildbot
> itself.  Here are the relevant highlights:
>
> [snip]

Those are important improvements! I'm really happy buildbot appears to
be receiving more attention recently.

- Tal Einat
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[python-committers] Fw: CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause)

2018-09-20 Thread Antoine Pitrou 

Hi,

I'm choosing to forward this to python-committers because I don't think
python-ideas is a reasonable place to discuss CoC decisions.

I think the action taken by Brett (apparently decided with Titus and a
mysterious "conduct working group") is not the right one:

- a definitive ban is an extremely strong decision that should only be
taken if nothing else works.  May I remind that Anatoly was able to post
prolifically and unconstructively for several years, being warned
several times, before being finally banned?  Comparatively, this one ban
seems expeditive.

- the reasons given, to me, don't make sense at all.  The word "n-"
is not a forbidden word if you want to describe, precisely, linguistics
and the relativity of meanings (instead of actually *qualifying* someone
or a groupe of people), which is what the OP claimed to do.  The other
reasons look like a similar kind of over-reaction.  Even if something
there looks inappropriate to you, it's still enough of a grey area that
a ban is absolutely the wrong answer.

I deduce that it's ok to say "slave" in a discussion instead of using an
expression such as "the s-word".  Why one term is allowed and the other,
not, may be clear to Americans (or, perhaps, a large fraction thereof),
but hey, it's not clear to other people around the world.  Banning a
(apparently) Dutch person because he doesn't understand American
standards of offense is not only unfair, but it makes our community
*not* inclusive of other cultures.

As a French person myself, I could not, even if I wanted to, turn myself
into an authentic American: what is obvious to you is not obvious to me
and it would be extremely brutal and humiliating to ban me for having
the wrong nationality and the wrong culture.  I will ask: please
consider the work and effort that it *already* takes for other people to
adapt to standards of discussion that are, obviously, those of a
particular culture.  Otherwise you're raising barriers even more, not
lowering them.


At the end of it, it looks like we have a real moderation problem.
python-ideas threads frequently veer out into unconstructive
back-and-forths (and, well, that's not *only* the ethically-sensitive
threads).  The CoC is being applied erratically, sometimes
precipitately, by apparently overworked and emotionally exhausted
moderators, with bad consequences on the quality of the decisions.

Moderators should not become emotionally exhausted (which means we need
a more adequate discussion system *and* a more collegial, spread out,
team of moderators); and, if they become so, I would humbly suggest it's
a better idea - even if not always easy to follow - to step back and
take some rest than make decisions in such a state.  We also need real
guidelines to the moderators as to which decision on the scale of
possible decisions to apply, depending on severity of the offense /
violation and on the "offendor"'s past behaviour.

In the end, I hope we can set ourselves better moderation standards.  As
for me, I find the current situation very worrying, including for my
ability to contribute constructively to Python.  If I have to fear
banning for every word that I say and that might be deemed inappropriate
in the moderators' culture, I might just as well leave instead of
feeling stressed and anguished everytime I post something.  I would not
want to live this in paid work: why would I endure it as a volunteer,
while my main gratification should be the pleasure taken in contributing?

Regards

Antoine.



- Message Transféré -

Date : Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:56:05 -0700
De : Brett Cannon 
À : Jacco van Dorp 
Cc : python-ideas 
Groupe de discussion : gmane.comp.python.ideas
Sujet : CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better
than ugly" Zen clause)


The below email was reported to the PSF board for code of conduct
violations and then passed on to the conduct working group to decide on
an appropriate response.

Based on the WG's recommendation and after discussing it with Titus, the
decision has been made to ban Jacco from python-ideas. Trivializing
assault, using the n-word, and making inappropriate comments about
someone's mental stability are all uncalled for and entirely
unnecessary to carry on a reasonable discourse of conversation that
remains welcoming to others.
___
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] Fw: CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause)

2018-09-20 Thread Alex Gaynor 
Is there a copy of the original email? (I'm not a regular python-ideas
reader)

Based on Brett's description though, the content sounds very far over the
line, and I wouldn't want to interfere with the WG's decision.

Alex

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 4:25 PM Antoine Pitrou  wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I'm choosing to forward this to python-committers because I don't think
> python-ideas is a reasonable place to discuss CoC decisions.
>
> I think the action taken by Brett (apparently decided with Titus and a
> mysterious "conduct working group") is not the right one:
>
> - a definitive ban is an extremely strong decision that should only be
> taken if nothing else works.  May I remind that Anatoly was able to post
> prolifically and unconstructively for several years, being warned
> several times, before being finally banned?  Comparatively, this one ban
> seems expeditive.
>
> - the reasons given, to me, don't make sense at all.  The word "n-"
> is not a forbidden word if you want to describe, precisely, linguistics
> and the relativity of meanings (instead of actually *qualifying* someone
> or a groupe of people), which is what the OP claimed to do.  The other
> reasons look like a similar kind of over-reaction.  Even if something
> there looks inappropriate to you, it's still enough of a grey area that
> a ban is absolutely the wrong answer.
>
> I deduce that it's ok to say "slave" in a discussion instead of using an
> expression such as "the s-word".  Why one term is allowed and the other,
> not, may be clear to Americans (or, perhaps, a large fraction thereof),
> but hey, it's not clear to other people around the world.  Banning a
> (apparently) Dutch person because he doesn't understand American
> standards of offense is not only unfair, but it makes our community
> *not* inclusive of other cultures.
>
> As a French person myself, I could not, even if I wanted to, turn myself
> into an authentic American: what is obvious to you is not obvious to me
> and it would be extremely brutal and humiliating to ban me for having
> the wrong nationality and the wrong culture.  I will ask: please
> consider the work and effort that it *already* takes for other people to
> adapt to standards of discussion that are, obviously, those of a
> particular culture.  Otherwise you're raising barriers even more, not
> lowering them.
>
>
> At the end of it, it looks like we have a real moderation problem.
> python-ideas threads frequently veer out into unconstructive
> back-and-forths (and, well, that's not *only* the ethically-sensitive
> threads).  The CoC is being applied erratically, sometimes
> precipitately, by apparently overworked and emotionally exhausted
> moderators, with bad consequences on the quality of the decisions.
>
> Moderators should not become emotionally exhausted (which means we need
> a more adequate discussion system *and* a more collegial, spread out,
> team of moderators); and, if they become so, I would humbly suggest it's
> a better idea - even if not always easy to follow - to step back and
> take some rest than make decisions in such a state.  We also need real
> guidelines to the moderators as to which decision on the scale of
> possible decisions to apply, depending on severity of the offense /
> violation and on the "offendor"'s past behaviour.
>
> In the end, I hope we can set ourselves better moderation standards.  As
> for me, I find the current situation very worrying, including for my
> ability to contribute constructively to Python.  If I have to fear
> banning for every word that I say and that might be deemed inappropriate
> in the moderators' culture, I might just as well leave instead of
> feeling stressed and anguished everytime I post something.  I would not
> want to live this in paid work: why would I endure it as a volunteer,
> while my main gratification should be the pleasure taken in contributing?
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
>
> - Message Transféré -
>
> Date : Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:56:05 -0700
> De : Brett Cannon 
> À : Jacco van Dorp 
> Cc : python-ideas 
> Groupe de discussion : gmane.comp.python.ideas
> Sujet : CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better
> than ugly" Zen clause)
>
>
> The below email was reported to the PSF board for code of conduct
> violations and then passed on to the conduct working group to decide on
> an appropriate response.
>
> Based on the WG's recommendation and after discussing it with Titus, the
> decision has been made to ban Jacco from python-ideas. Trivializing
> assault, using the n-word, and making inappropriate comments about
> someone's mental stability are all uncalled for and entirely
> unnecessary to carry on a reasonable discourse of conversation that
> remains welcoming to others.
> ___
> 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] Fw: CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause)

2018-09-20 Thread Antoine Pitrou 

Apparently it's this one:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2018-September/053482.html

By the way, regardless of this single case, I would like people to think
of the broader issue we're having.  It's more than a single contentious
decision.

Regards

Antoine.


Le 20/09/2018 à 22:33, Alex Gaynor a écrit :
> Is there a copy of the original email? (I'm not a regular python-ideas
> reader)
> 
> Based on Brett's description though, the content sounds very far over
> the line, and I wouldn't want to interfere with the WG's decision.
> 
> Alex
> 
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 4:25 PM Antoine Pitrou  > wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm choosing to forward this to python-committers because I don't think
> python-ideas is a reasonable place to discuss CoC decisions.
> 
> I think the action taken by Brett (apparently decided with Titus and a
> mysterious "conduct working group") is not the right one:
> 
> - a definitive ban is an extremely strong decision that should only be
> taken if nothing else works.  May I remind that Anatoly was able to post
> prolifically and unconstructively for several years, being warned
> several times, before being finally banned?  Comparatively, this one ban
> seems expeditive.
> 
> - the reasons given, to me, don't make sense at all.  The word "n-"
> is not a forbidden word if you want to describe, precisely, linguistics
> and the relativity of meanings (instead of actually *qualifying* someone
> or a groupe of people), which is what the OP claimed to do.  The other
> reasons look like a similar kind of over-reaction.  Even if something
> there looks inappropriate to you, it's still enough of a grey area that
> a ban is absolutely the wrong answer.
> 
> I deduce that it's ok to say "slave" in a discussion instead of using an
> expression such as "the s-word".  Why one term is allowed and the other,
> not, may be clear to Americans (or, perhaps, a large fraction thereof),
> but hey, it's not clear to other people around the world.  Banning a
> (apparently) Dutch person because he doesn't understand American
> standards of offense is not only unfair, but it makes our community
> *not* inclusive of other cultures.
> 
> As a French person myself, I could not, even if I wanted to, turn myself
> into an authentic American: what is obvious to you is not obvious to me
> and it would be extremely brutal and humiliating to ban me for having
> the wrong nationality and the wrong culture.  I will ask: please
> consider the work and effort that it *already* takes for other people to
> adapt to standards of discussion that are, obviously, those of a
> particular culture.  Otherwise you're raising barriers even more, not
> lowering them.
> 
> 
> At the end of it, it looks like we have a real moderation problem.
> python-ideas threads frequently veer out into unconstructive
> back-and-forths (and, well, that's not *only* the ethically-sensitive
> threads).  The CoC is being applied erratically, sometimes
> precipitately, by apparently overworked and emotionally exhausted
> moderators, with bad consequences on the quality of the decisions.
> 
> Moderators should not become emotionally exhausted (which means we need
> a more adequate discussion system *and* a more collegial, spread out,
> team of moderators); and, if they become so, I would humbly suggest it's
> a better idea - even if not always easy to follow - to step back and
> take some rest than make decisions in such a state.  We also need real
> guidelines to the moderators as to which decision on the scale of
> possible decisions to apply, depending on severity of the offense /
> violation and on the "offendor"'s past behaviour.
> 
> In the end, I hope we can set ourselves better moderation standards.  As
> for me, I find the current situation very worrying, including for my
> ability to contribute constructively to Python.  If I have to fear
> banning for every word that I say and that might be deemed inappropriate
> in the moderators' culture, I might just as well leave instead of
> feeling stressed and anguished everytime I post something.  I would not
> want to live this in paid work: why would I endure it as a volunteer,
> while my main gratification should be the pleasure taken in
> contributing?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Antoine.
> 
> 
> 
> - Message Transféré -
> 
> Date : Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:56:05 -0700
> De : Brett Cannon  >
> À : Jacco van Dorp
>  >
> Cc : python-ideas
>  >
> Groupe de discussion : gmane.comp.python.ideas
> Sujet : CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "B

Re: [python-committers] Fw: CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause)

2018-09-20 Thread Donald Stufft 


> On Sep 20, 2018, at 4:25 PM, Antoine Pitrou  wrote:
> 
> I think the action taken by Brett (apparently decided with Titus and a
> mysterious "conduct working group") is not the right one:


Just FTR, the conduct working group is the PSFs CoC Working Group, which I 
believe had an open call for membership at some point. I think it’s still 
getting setup so it hasn’t been added to the list of WGs yet or anything, but 
it was approved awhile back: 
https://www.python.org/psf/records/board/minutes/2017-08-22/#code-of-conduct-work-group
 


At least, I’m pretty sure that’s what Brett means.

With regards to the action, it seems reasonable to me, particularly since it 
was not a one-off done by one person, but was an action taken after discussion 
amongst the moderators and the CoC WG.

I do agree that our tools are bad, and we need to come up with new ones. With 
limited moderation tooling we have limited ability to head off unproductive 
discussions before they delve too far into the bad end of the world.

I think if there is concern about this, the best forum is probably discussion 
with the CoC WG, and probably not python-committers.


___
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] Fw: CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause)

2018-09-20 Thread Yury Selivanov 
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 4:37 PM Antoine Pitrou  wrote:
>
>
> Apparently it's this one:
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2018-September/053482.html

After reading the original email I, personally, am in support of the
WG & Brett's decision.

I also think that we need a neutral third-party to enforce CoC; it's
unfortunate that Brett is the one who has to be dragged though this.

>
> By the way, regardless of this single case, I would like people to think
> of the broader issue we're having.  It's more than a single contentious
> decision.

This is why we want to try Discourse for the upcoming governance
discussions.  We'll see if its tools to organize and moderate
discussions (and some would agree better UX) make a difference.

Yury

Yury
___
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] Fw: CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause)

2018-09-20 Thread Brett Cannon 
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 13:57 Donald Stufft  wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 20, 2018, at 4:25 PM, Antoine Pitrou  wrote:
>
> I think the action taken by Brett (apparently decided with Titus and a
> mysterious "conduct working group") is not the right one:
>
>
>
> Just FTR, the conduct working group is the PSFs CoC Working Group, which I
> believe had an open call for membership at some point. I think it’s still
> getting setup so it hasn’t been added to the list of WGs yet or anything,
> but it was approved awhile back:
> https://www.python.org/psf/records/board/minutes/2017-08-22/#code-of-conduct-work-group
>
> At least, I’m pretty sure that’s what Brett means.
>

Yep, that's exactly who I meant. Didn't realize the group had not been
added to the WG list online yet.


> With regards to the action, it seems reasonable to me, particularly since
> it was not a one-off done by one person, but was an action taken after
> discussion amongst the moderators and the CoC WG.
>

I will also say I didn't voice an opinion or participate in the discussion
on the conduct WG when deciding how to handle it (beyond outlining our
levels of escalation when handling these situations).

So to Yury's point of neutrality in another email, I stayed out of the
decision and basically just coordinated the handling of it.


>
> I do agree that our tools are bad, and we need to come up with new ones.
> With limited moderation tooling we have limited ability to head off
> unproductive discussions before they delve too far into the bad end of the
> world.
>

My hope is we will end up with something that allows us to centralize
managing things like CoC issues so there is a consistent neutral party to
manage all of this. It's something I'm actively talking to the conduct WG
about in hopes that they can support that somehow and help make it happen.
___
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] Fw: CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause)

2018-09-20 Thread Ethan Furman 

On 09/20/2018 02:17 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:


I will also say I didn't voice an opinion or participate in the discussion on 
the conduct WG when deciding how to handle
it (beyond outlining our levels of escalation when handling these situations).


One thing missing from the ban notification is the length of time?  If this is the first offense it should only be two 
months, right?


And I have to argue against his use of the n-word* as being part of the reason -- he wasn't calling anybody that, he was 
using the word as an example of a taboo in one culture that is not in others.  Using that as part of the reason to ban 
him helps me understand the sentiment voiced at the sprints of the feeling that the CoC is a weapon waiting to shoot us 
down.


I fully appreciate the frustration of trying to moderate these lists with our limited tools, but we still need to be 
careful of the reasons we use for moderation actions.


Does the CoC WG have an email address?  I'm happy to forward my concerns to 
them about their decision.

--
~Ethan~


* Before this I wouldn't have spelled out the n-word anyway, but now I'm afraid 
to.
___
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] sprints summary?

2018-09-20 Thread Antoine Pitrou 

Le 21/09/2018 à 00:35, Ethan Furman a écrit :
> 
> And I have to argue against his use of the n-word* as being part of the 
> reason -- he wasn't calling anybody that, he was 
> using the word as an example of a taboo in one culture that is not in others. 
>  Using that as part of the reason to ban 
> him helps me understand the sentiment voiced at the sprints of the feeling 
> that the CoC is a weapon waiting to shoot us 
> down.

Is there a summary of the sprints somewhere or is it planned to post one
somewhere?  It would be more to read a bit more about the discussions
that took place.

Regards

Antoine.
___
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] ban duration

2018-09-20 Thread Antoine Pitrou 

Le 21/09/2018 à 00:35, Ethan Furman a écrit :
> On 09/20/2018 02:17 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> 
>> I will also say I didn't voice an opinion or participate in the discussion 
>> on the conduct WG when deciding how to handle
>> it (beyond outlining our levels of escalation when handling these 
>> situations).
> 
> One thing missing from the ban notification is the length of time?  If this 
> is the first offense it should only be two 
> months, right?

Note: in the few online discussion forums that I have seen, the ban
duration for a first offense would be more on the order of a couple
days, perhaps a week.  Two months is, arguably, very long already.

Just my 2 cents, though.  There *should* be a ban duration in any case.

Regards

Antoine.
___
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] sprints summary?

2018-09-20 Thread Steve Dower 

On 20Sep2018 1539, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

Is there a summary of the sprints somewhere or is it planned to post one
somewhere?  It would be more to read a bit more about the discussions
that took place.


Currently debating the contents of the high-level blog post among those 
who were there. Once that's settled, it'll go to the PSF to be posted on 
their site. But it's going to be very high level (and is currently 
becoming more high level), so you won't find it very informative I would 
expect.


Mariatta has posted a good summary of her involvement at 
https://mariatta.ca/core-sprint-2018-part-1.html (with more parts to 
come), and I believe one or two other people are also planning to write 
posts.


The most summary we have of the discussions are in the notes I posted 
earlier to -committers. Official results of the discussions will go into 
the PEPs, hopefully this week so that there's some time to review before 
they are locked down for us to choose between.


Cheers,
Steve
___
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] Fw: CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause)

2018-09-20 Thread Chris Jerdonek 
FWIW, as an American I don't think it's appropriate to spell out the
n-word in a mailing list, even if it's not being directed at anybody
or even just being used as an example. There's no need, and it can
only cause discomfort or worse.

--Chris


On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Ethan Furman  wrote:
> On 09/20/2018 02:17 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>> I will also say I didn't voice an opinion or participate in the discussion
>> on the conduct WG when deciding how to handle
>> it (beyond outlining our levels of escalation when handling these
>> situations).
>
>
> One thing missing from the ban notification is the length of time?  If this
> is the first offense it should only be two months, right?
>
> And I have to argue against his use of the n-word* as being part of the
> reason -- he wasn't calling anybody that, he was using the word as an
> example of a taboo in one culture that is not in others.  Using that as part
> of the reason to ban him helps me understand the sentiment voiced at the
> sprints of the feeling that the CoC is a weapon waiting to shoot us down.
>
> I fully appreciate the frustration of trying to moderate these lists with
> our limited tools, but we still need to be careful of the reasons we use for
> moderation actions.
>
> Does the CoC WG have an email address?  I'm happy to forward my concerns to
> them about their decision.
>
> --
> ~Ethan~
>
>
> * Before this I wouldn't have spelled out the n-word anyway, but now I'm
> afraid to.
>
> ___
> python-committers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
___
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] Fw: CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause)

2018-09-20 Thread Nathaniel Smith 
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Ethan Furman  wrote:
> And I have to argue against his use of the n-word* as being part of the
> reason -- he wasn't calling anybody that, he was using the word as an
> example of a taboo in one culture that is not in others.  Using that as part
> of the reason to ban him helps me understand the sentiment voiced at the
> sprints of the feeling that the CoC is a weapon waiting to shoot us down.

But using that word, even with quote marks around it, *is* a serious
taboo in American culture. And partly this is because "white person
who finds convoluted excuse to use the n-word" is such a cliche that
the affected folks have given up with arguing about it and just don't
want to hear it anywhere, in or out of quotes, with or without an
excuse attached. There's no reservoir of good-faith left to fall back
on.

Now sure, that taboo is an American thing, and I wouldn't support
automatically banning someone who used it in genuine ignorance, was
repentant when they realized what they'd done, etc. Context absolutely
matters. But in context here it's clear that Jacco knew perfectly well
that he was violating a taboo, and I can't read his usage as anything
but an intentional provocation. Especially when combined with all the
other things in his email.

-n

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
___
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] Fw: CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause)

2018-09-20 Thread Ethan Furman 

On 09/20/2018 05:06 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:



And I have to argue against his use of the n-word* as being part of the
reason -- he wasn't calling anybody that, he was using the word as an
example of a taboo in one culture that is not in others.  Using that as part
of the reason to ban him helps me understand the sentiment voiced at the
sprints of the feeling that the CoC is a weapon waiting to shoot us down.


But using that word, even with quote marks around it, *is* a serious
taboo in American culture. And partly this is because "white person
who finds convoluted excuse to use the n-word" is such a cliche that
the affected folks have given up with arguing about it and just don't
want to hear it anywhere, in or out of quotes, with or without an
excuse attached. There's no reservoir of good-faith left to fall back
on.

Now sure, that taboo is an American thing, and I wouldn't support
automatically banning someone who used it in genuine ignorance, was
repentant when they realized what they'd done, etc. Context absolutely
matters. But in context here it's clear that Jacco knew perfectly well
that he was violating a taboo, and I can't read his usage as anything
but an intentional provocation. Especially when combined with all the
other things in his email.


You make good points.  -Ideas is not, after all, a sociology course, and he did 
already know that.

I withdraw my objection.

--
~Ethan~

___
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] Fw: CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause)

2018-09-20 Thread Brett Cannon 
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 15:35 Ethan Furman  wrote:

> On 09/20/2018 02:17 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> > I will also say I didn't voice an opinion or participate in the
> discussion on the conduct WG when deciding how to handle
> > it (beyond outlining our levels of escalation when handling these
> situations).
>
> One thing missing from the ban notification is the length of time?  If
> this is the first offense it should only be two
> months, right?
>

The request was for a permanent ban based on the severity and calculated
infraction that it was. (And we have always been clear on the list that we
reserved the right to skip steps based on severity, so this is not a change
in policy.)


>
> And I have to argue against his use of the n-word* as being part of the
> reason -- he wasn't calling anybody that, he was
> using the word as an example of a taboo in one culture that is not in
> others.  Using that as part of the reason to ban
> him helps me understand the sentiment voiced at the sprints of the feeling
> that the CoC is a weapon waiting to shoot us
> down.
>
> I fully appreciate the frustration of trying to moderate these lists with
> our limited tools, but we still need to be
> careful of the reasons we use for moderation actions.
>

Which is why I'm hoping we can eventually get a clear enforcement guide
written for all the mailing lists and then have a specific group of people
manage all of these incident reports and deciding how to handle them for
consistency. Otherwise we have our current situation where every list admin
has to figure this out for themselves and do the best they can on their own.

And it's all stuff I'm bringing up in the WG, but I also have to stop
drowning in conduct issues before I can put in the emotional energy to even
have that conversation.

I already lost sleep last night over having to institute this ban knowing
there was a strong chance of a backlash based on how things have been going
as of late. And I now dread reading my personal email, half-expecting there
to be yet another issue I have to go deal with. At the current rate I'm
going I will have to do my month-long volunteer detox in October which I
really don't want to do as that's probably when we are going to discuss
governance proposals and I want to participate in those discussions, but I
also would rather bow out of those than burn out entirely.

And I quickly want to say thanks to everyone who has checked in with me to
ask how I'm doing and offering to somehow help (which my answer to the
latter is "get the Discourse test instance up"). And thanks to Mariatta,
Zach, and anyone else who have been leading on GitHub and bugs.python.org
where people are still acting out.


> Does the CoC WG have an email address?  I'm happy to forward my concerns
> to them about their decision.
>

conduct-wg at python.org.
___
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] Fw: CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause)

2018-09-20 Thread Ethan Furman 

On 09/20/2018 05:47 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:


Which is why I'm hoping we can eventually get a clear enforcement guide written 
for all the mailing lists and then have
a specific group of people manage all of these incident reports and deciding 
how to handle them for consistency.
Otherwise we have our current situation where every list admin has to figure 
this out for themselves and do the best
they can on their own.



conduct-wg at python.org.


I'll start running issues from -list by them to get advice/counsel.  No reason 
we can't opt-in to consistency.  :)

--
~Ethan~
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/