5 ms·

The first reason given for the vote of no confidence is the council not releasing the name of the suspended core developer, but Tim Peters said it was him. If P

The first reason given for the vote of no confidence is the council not releasing the name of the suspended core developer, but Tim Peters said it was him. If Peters had not wanted to publicize his suspension, that should have been his choice. The problem is that the reasons I have seen given for the suspension are flimsy.

nullindividual 2y ago
In a transparent system, the governing body would have released the name. A vote of no confidence over not releasing the name is appropriate.
- uberman 2y ago
  I think it might be appropriate to vote if you disagree with the suspension with or without the identity of the offender but not releasing the name seems trivial if not even appropriate to me.
- veltas 2y ago
  Is this really for the benefit of the person suspended? Surely it's better in general to let them choose whether to make this public?
  - nullindividual 2y ago
    That depends on how you value transparency. In the US, for example, transparency is everything -- and it hurts _a lot_ of people.
zahlman 2y ago
>If Peters had not wanted to publicize his suspension, that should have been his choice. You seem to miss the point. Although I suppose Mr. Furman does too. Aside from Tim Peters saying it was him, everyone who was paying attention to the threads that led to the suspension should have known it was him (I can't guess who Antoine Pitrou suspected instead in https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250/6 https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co... - but maybe that was his subtle way of implying that someone else deserved it instead?) and after the Register article (and perhaps Lunduke's coverage, and that of blog posts such as Chris McDonough's and my own, and I also saw others talking about it on social media), everyone else who cared knew too. But the Steering Council nevertheless insisted that they were suppressing the name out of some kind of privacy concern, even though the suspension was accompanied by a suspension from the forum that explicitly cites the Steering Council decision. This is public information on Mr. Peters' profile (https://discuss.python.org/u/tim.one/summary https://discuss.python.org/u/tim.one/summary) - there's no way around that with the Discourse software. Furthermore, there's simply no way to hide the fact that a normally active discussion participant has suddenly gone radio silent. In my view, Mr. Peters absolutely does want to publicize his suspension - which is why Lunduke was able to interview him, for example. I rather doubt that the Register did that kind of investigative work, either (even if it should have been easy). Meanwhile, this supposed concern for privacy was completely ignored when the forum moderators decided to slam the door behind myself and Dr. Mertz on our way out, while repeating the Code of Conduct Work Group's ridiculous claims about us. Mr. Furman is absolutely correct, in any case, about "chilling effect". It's abundantly clear from that post, as well as the one announcing the suspension, and the discussion in the PSF section (https://discuss.python.org/t/pr-disaster-surrounding-recent-bylaws-changes-and-core-developer-suspension/61364 https://discuss.python.org/t/pr-disaster-surrounding-recent-...), that nobody dares whisper the name "Tim Peters" - despite the fact that everyone reasonably ought to know who it is anyway. Presumably they fear being sanctioned themselves. > The problem is that the reasons I have seen given for the suspension are flimsy. Yes, this is also covered, of course. Anyway, the people I see disagreeing with Mr. Furman are very much part of the set of people I'd expect to see there. The ideological clique is so well defined that even likely-neurodivergent people like myself can easily sketch it out. The group I have in mind also includes other Steering Council and CoC WG members (although perhaps they'll decide discretion is the better part of valour, or see their views as redundant at this point) - and, among core devs: Nathaniel J. Smith, Victor Stinner and Ned Batchelder (although he became a core dev quite recently and rarely posts much of anything at all). There are others I could think of but I doubt they'd feel strongly enough about it to post.
- rgallant 2y ago
  It is a shame that this submission has received so little interest. The Steering Council has regularly ignored privacy, either explicitly or implicitly (everyone knew the latest victim of the council anyway). What has come out of the no-confidence vote? I'm reluctant to visit PSF infrastructure, since the admins have been known to track IP addresses. If the core developers do not resist this time, I think the PSF/python-dev are officially lost.
  - zahlman 2y ago
    There has been no vote; as it says in the OP, "For this vote to continue, one more core developer must agree with me that it should happen." (Mr. Furman is citing official policy there - see https://peps.python.org/pep-0013/ https://peps.python.org/pep-0013/ .)
  - zahlman 2y ago
    (As an update: Mr. Furman has formally withdrawn the motion, per https://discuss.python.org/t/calling-for-a-vote-of-no-confidence/61557/14 https://discuss.python.org/t/calling-for-a-vote-of-no-confid... .)
    - prlaksh 2y ago
      [flagged]

nullindividual 2y ago

In a transparent system, the governing body would have released the name. A vote of no confidence over not releasing the name is appropriate.

uberman 2y ago
I think it might be appropriate to vote if you disagree with the suspension with or without the identity of the offender but not releasing the name seems trivial if not even appropriate to me.
veltas 2y ago
Is this really for the benefit of the person suspended? Surely it's better in general to let them choose whether to make this public?
- nullindividual 2y ago
  That depends on how you value transparency. In the US, for example, transparency is everything -- and it hurts _a lot_ of people.

zahlman 2y ago

>If Peters had not wanted to publicize his suspension, that should have been his choice. You seem to miss the point. Although I suppose Mr. Furman does too. Aside from Tim Peters saying it was him, everyone who was paying attention to the threads that led to the suspension should have known it was him (I can't guess who Antoine Pitrou suspected instead in https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250/6 https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co... - but maybe that was his subtle way of implying that someone else deserved it instead?) and after the Register article (and perhaps Lunduke's coverage, and that of blog posts such as Chris McDonough's and my own, and I also saw others talking about it on social media), everyone else who cared knew too. But the Steering Council nevertheless insisted that they were suppressing the name out of some kind of privacy concern, even though the suspension was accompanied by a suspension from the forum that explicitly cites the Steering Council decision. This is public information on Mr. Peters' profile (https://discuss.python.org/u/tim.one/summary https://discuss.python.org/u/tim.one/summary) - there's no way around that with the Discourse software. Furthermore, there's simply no way to hide the fact that a normally active discussion participant has suddenly gone radio silent. In my view, Mr. Peters absolutely does want to publicize his suspension - which is why Lunduke was able to interview him, for example. I rather doubt that the Register did that kind of investigative work, either (even if it should have been easy). Meanwhile, this supposed concern for privacy was completely ignored when the forum moderators decided to slam the door behind myself and Dr. Mertz on our way out, while repeating the Code of Conduct Work Group's ridiculous claims about us. Mr. Furman is absolutely correct, in any case, about "chilling effect". It's abundantly clear from that post, as well as the one announcing the suspension, and the discussion in the PSF section (https://discuss.python.org/t/pr-disaster-surrounding-recent-bylaws-changes-and-core-developer-suspension/61364 https://discuss.python.org/t/pr-disaster-surrounding-recent-...), that nobody dares whisper the name "Tim Peters" - despite the fact that everyone reasonably ought to know who it is anyway. Presumably they fear being sanctioned themselves. > The problem is that the reasons I have seen given for the suspension are flimsy. Yes, this is also covered, of course. Anyway, the people I see disagreeing with Mr. Furman are very much part of the set of people I'd expect to see there. The ideological clique is so well defined that even likely-neurodivergent people like myself can easily sketch it out. The group I have in mind also includes other Steering Council and CoC WG members (although perhaps they'll decide discretion is the better part of valour, or see their views as redundant at this point) - and, among core devs: Nathaniel J. Smith, Victor Stinner and Ned Batchelder (although he became a core dev quite recently and rarely posts much of anything at all). There are others I could think of but I doubt they'd feel strongly enough about it to post.

rgallant 2y ago
It is a shame that this submission has received so little interest. The Steering Council has regularly ignored privacy, either explicitly or implicitly (everyone knew the latest victim of the council anyway). What has come out of the no-confidence vote? I'm reluctant to visit PSF infrastructure, since the admins have been known to track IP addresses. If the core developers do not resist this time, I think the PSF/python-dev are officially lost.
- zahlman 2y ago
  There has been no vote; as it says in the OP, "For this vote to continue, one more core developer must agree with me that it should happen." (Mr. Furman is citing official policy there - see https://peps.python.org/pep-0013/ https://peps.python.org/pep-0013/ .)
- zahlman 2y ago
  (As an update: Mr. Furman has formally withdrawn the motion, per https://discuss.python.org/t/calling-for-a-vote-of-no-confidence/61557/14 https://discuss.python.org/t/calling-for-a-vote-of-no-confid... .)
  - prlaksh 2y ago
    [flagged]