3 ms·

So if I infer correctly, the SC wants to remove Tim's fellow status due to historical behavior that people have complained about, but haven't really clarified w

by dekhn 2y ago

So if I infer correctly, the SC wants to remove Tim's fellow status due to historical behavior that people have complained about, but haven't really clarified with enough detail for the larger public to see the details to judge on their own, and in the meantime, Tim got involved in the rules change discussion and acted in a way that the SC didn't like, so they banned him (this is partly guesswork, as the SC didn't name Peters, nor give extensive details about the ongoing, persistent words or behaviors he used). If the SC was more forthright about the facts, they might manage to succeed here. However, their actions run the risk of alienating a lot of the community, such as those of us who have an extremely high tolerance for passionate people on the internet.

zahlman 2y ago
> this is partly guesswork, as the SC didn't name Peters Not really; there was clearly only one such suspension, and Peters publicly identified himself as the recipient. > nor give extensive details about the ongoing, persistent words or behaviors he used Well, yes, that's the point: they haven't clarified anything, but left several hints with obvious referents that imply a complete BS cause of action. And when called on this, the people responsible fall back to a nebulous claim that these are only examples of some supposed pattern of behaviour. Peters' conduct and phrasing throughout all of this, from what I have seen, have been exceptionally diplomatic. It's night-and-day different to the conduct that led to Stefan Krah's suspension (and subsequent resignation) in 2020 (https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-committers@python.org/thread/ZIAN7ERZNF4ZE2B2SLYNRPVNERNACG5A/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-committers@pyth...) - but even that situation, I believe, could have been avoided by better, less tone-deaf, more cognizant-of-neurodiversity handling earlier on.

by dekhn 2y ago

zahlman 2y ago

> this is partly guesswork, as the SC didn't name Peters Not really; there was clearly only one such suspension, and Peters publicly identified himself as the recipient. > nor give extensive details about the ongoing, persistent words or behaviors he used Well, yes, that's the point: they haven't clarified anything, but left several hints with obvious referents that imply a complete BS cause of action. And when called on this, the people responsible fall back to a nebulous claim that these are only examples of some supposed pattern of behaviour. Peters' conduct and phrasing throughout all of this, from what I have seen, have been exceptionally diplomatic. It's night-and-day different to the conduct that led to Stefan Krah's suspension (and subsequent resignation) in 2020 (https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-committers@python.org/thread/ZIAN7ERZNF4ZE2B2SLYNRPVNERNACG5A/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-committers@pyth...) - but even that situation, I believe, could have been avoided by better, less tone-deaf, more cognizant-of-neurodiversity handling earlier on.