5 ms·

Yeah, after what they did to Tim Peters in recent times, I don't see myself donating.

by commandersaki 11mo ago

SandmanDP 11mo ago
Can you clarify what you’re referring to?
- jbarham 11mo ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41234180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41234180
shadowgovt 11mo ago
[flagged]
- zahlman 11mo ago
  Can you explain where Tim Peters did anything wrong?
  - shadowgovt 11mo ago
    Not my job. You're welcome to draw your own conclusions from the public record as I have. The Foundation laid it out pretty clearly when they suspended him (https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250 https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co...).
    - zahlman 11mo ago
      > Not my job. You implicitly claim (in a snarky way) that the actions taken against Mr. Peters were justified. So yes, it absolutely is your job, if you intend for others to take you seriously (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=burden+of+proof+philosophy https://duckduckgo.com/?q=burden+of+proof+philosophy). > You're welcome to draw your own conclusions from the public record as I have. I have. They oppose yours. > The Foundation laid it out pretty clearly when they suspended him No, they absolutely did not. The claims made by the Code of Conduct Work Group did not stand up to even basic scrutiny. I have already cited that link repeatedly within the thread, and contrasted it with Mr. Peters' analysis (https://tim-one.github.io/psf/crimes.html https://tim-one.github.io/psf/crimes.html). To take just one example, as an objective matter of fact, not only did he not "use" the "potentially offensive language or slurs" referred to, he did not even write them out. (Also, I disagree that the word in question is a "slur".) He also as an objective matter of fact did not claim that the skit was funny, but rather that SNL generally was funny in that time period. And even that claim had a clear ironic meaning; the underlying point was that social norms change over time, which was relevant to the discussion. There is simply no way that any reasonable person who is paying attention could come to the conclusion that this was somehow endorsing the use of such language. The only reasonable underlying logic I can fathom for the objection is "when discussing an incident where someone used a naughty word, thou shalt not provide information that might assist the reader in figuring out what word it was". But I can't fathom a good moral reason for that, nor can I fathom a reading of the Code of Conduct which actually supports that. I can make similar arguments about every single point on the list. The findings were utterly absurd, and the action unjust. For that matter, in private discussion (as well as from some of what is said on the above-linked site) I have determined that Mr. Peters is in fact far more sympathetic to the social views of the Code of Conduct Work Group than I am. (I consider a large part of their expressed worldview to be frankly unjust and bigoted.)
      - shadowgovt 11mo ago
        [flagged]
        AlexeyBelov 11mo ago
        They won't listen to you anyway and everything will be dismissed. I remember when zahlman first came to HN, they always participate in threads adjacent to cultural wars and specifically around Python community. Like, religiously so.
        zahlman 11mo ago
        > I remember when zahlman first came to HN, they always participate in threads adjacent to cultural wars and specifically around Python community. Like, religiously so. I came here because I learned that an incident that I was personally connected to (which also happens to relate to this very thread) was being discussed: i.e., the 3-month suspension of Tim Peters. These topics are only "adjacent to culture wars" insofar as the enactment of the ban could only possibly be explained by culture-war beliefs of those doing the banning. This clearly led them to make many objectively false statements. In particular, they claimed that he had "used" offensive language that he didn't even write out; and suggested that he was defending the use of such language (by "finding it genuinely funny") when he was in fact agreeing that it should not be used, in the middle of citing a previous moderation action where he agreed that it should not be used. (In doing so, they misrepresented the antecedent of "finding it genuinely funny".) I "religiously" look for discussion of Python and participate in it. The most popular threads, and thus the ones you are most likely to see, are often ones that involve a culture-war angle; such is the nature of Internet discourse. I'm not going to shy away from that discussion when it concerns Python, because I really like Python and I want to see it flourish; and I consider that actions such as the unjust suspension of Mr. Peters interfere with that. > They won't listen to you anyway and everything will be dismissed. This is false and hurtful, and you reasonably ought to know so from your own claimed first-hand experience. Like, the above is not at all a long response by my standards. Replying like this takes effort and careful consideration of what people are saying.
ryan_lane 11mo ago
This is why folks can't take yall seriously when discussing code of conduct. This person has a history of being shitty, and they used the CoC to enforce a (temporary!) ban, citing the rules he violated. If the CoC didn't exist, you'd be screaming "he didn't do anything wrong", but obviously, according to the well posted rules, he did, and they enforced those rules for the good of the community. The reality of the situation is that yall don't want to be excluded from communities for being racist, misogynistic, or creepy.
- chocalot 11mo ago
  I looked into the issues listed ( https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250 https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co... ) and the surrounding context, and they all looked tenuous. I'd expect to see at see at least some clear cases. I think moderation and CoCs are needed, but this example looks to be an example of their misuse.
  - ayhanfuat 11mo ago
    It's been over a year, and they still haven't provided any tangible examples to support their claims. The best they could come up with was something like "he used the wink emoji" I think. There have been hundreds of posts, and many community members have demanded either evidence to back up those accusations or a public apology to Tim and their removal. But of course, those people are racist, misogynist, or creeps so nothing came out of it.
    - computerthings 11mo ago
      [dead]
- hitekker 11mo ago
  If Tim Peters has a "history of being shitty", I'd expect Wikipedia to mention it. But his article is clean, if not golden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Peters_(software_engineer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Peters_(software_engineer). The only thing I've heard is that he's a bit neurodivergent/socially awkward, which I thought we were suppose to be welcoming and inclusive of. The reality is that you may be confusing a victim with your political enemies.
AlSweigart 11mo ago
This is why most organizations take a blind eye when popular people in their community behave badly; if they even so much as give them a three-month ban from the forum, people will keep bringing it up years later.
- bgwalter 11mo ago
  [flagged]
- zahlman 11mo ago
  The argument you are making here is incredibly disingenuous. The facts matter. Tim Peters did not behave badly. The reasoning given for his suspension misrepresented the apparent evidence, vaguely alluded to unproven private activity, and alleged harm in clearly benign actions. Tim Peters preserved many of his removed posts, along with other relevant information, on a blog (https://tim-one.github.io/ https://tim-one.github.io/) which was largely following my lead in writing about my own prior ban from the forum (https://zahlman.github.io/posts/2024/07/31/an-open-letter-to-the-psf-coc-wg/ https://zahlman.github.io/posts/2024/07/31/an-open-letter-to... ; https://zahlman.github.io/posts/2024/08/10/open-letter-psf-coc-wg-addendum-1-tim-peters/ https://zahlman.github.io/posts/2024/08/10/open-letter-psf-c...) and preserving my own related deleted posts (https://zahlman.github.io/dpo_archive/ https://zahlman.github.io/dpo_archive/). It's clear to me, from reading everything (much of which I saw pre-deletion; and also including things that were left up) that at least part of what people objected to in Mr. Peters' "conduct" is that he defended me (despite having many ideological disagreements with me). I claim that I, too, did not behave badly. In particular, in "recommending" my ban, the Code of Conduct Work Group (which is unelected, and has considerable crossover with paid PSF staff; and to my understanding gets paid in some circumstances for code of conduct enforcement work even as the actual core developers are almost all volunteers) made bizarre mischaracterizations of my complaints — going so far as to falsely ascribe to me terminology that I do not use on principle. You, specifically, should know about these sorts of things because you comment in these discussions all the time. For example, you participated in https://discuss.python.org/t/shedding-light-on-a-three-month-suspension/66337 https://discuss.python.org/t/shedding-light-on-a-three-month... and your posts there demonstrate intimate familiarity with the situation, with quotes like "I suppose I have to point out that “This whole debacle…” wasn’t referring to just Tim personally and not just this one bylaw change but rather referring to, well, gestures to the last two months." (I remember reading that post, not logged in of course, back when you made it.) You have seen the list of charges in https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250 https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co...; so I think you reasonably should understand my position: to the extent that the referents of any of these actions were ever identified, the description is either nonsense or does not point at anything any reasonable person could consider actionable. If you disagree, please be concrete. The entire reason for the "endless litigation" you have repeatedly complained about is the lack of anyone on your side making any clear, understandable argument that anything Tim Peters did at any point was actually wrong. The closest I've seen to such an argument comes from ... Tim Peters (https://tim-one.github.io/psf/meaculpa https://tim-one.github.io/psf/meaculpa), and frankly I think it's far too self-effacing.

Yeah, after what they did to Tim Peters in recent times, I don't see myself donating.

SandmanDP 11mo ago

Can you clarify what you’re referring to?

jbarham 11mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41234180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41234180

shadowgovt 11mo ago

[flagged]

zahlman 11mo ago
Can you explain where Tim Peters did anything wrong?
- shadowgovt 11mo ago
  Not my job. You're welcome to draw your own conclusions from the public record as I have. The Foundation laid it out pretty clearly when they suspended him (https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250 https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co...).
  - zahlman 11mo ago
    > Not my job. You implicitly claim (in a snarky way) that the actions taken against Mr. Peters were justified. So yes, it absolutely is your job, if you intend for others to take you seriously (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=burden+of+proof+philosophy https://duckduckgo.com/?q=burden+of+proof+philosophy). > You're welcome to draw your own conclusions from the public record as I have. I have. They oppose yours. > The Foundation laid it out pretty clearly when they suspended him No, they absolutely did not. The claims made by the Code of Conduct Work Group did not stand up to even basic scrutiny. I have already cited that link repeatedly within the thread, and contrasted it with Mr. Peters' analysis (https://tim-one.github.io/psf/crimes.html https://tim-one.github.io/psf/crimes.html). To take just one example, as an objective matter of fact, not only did he not "use" the "potentially offensive language or slurs" referred to, he did not even write them out. (Also, I disagree that the word in question is a "slur".) He also as an objective matter of fact did not claim that the skit was funny, but rather that SNL generally was funny in that time period. And even that claim had a clear ironic meaning; the underlying point was that social norms change over time, which was relevant to the discussion. There is simply no way that any reasonable person who is paying attention could come to the conclusion that this was somehow endorsing the use of such language. The only reasonable underlying logic I can fathom for the objection is "when discussing an incident where someone used a naughty word, thou shalt not provide information that might assist the reader in figuring out what word it was". But I can't fathom a good moral reason for that, nor can I fathom a reading of the Code of Conduct which actually supports that. I can make similar arguments about every single point on the list. The findings were utterly absurd, and the action unjust. For that matter, in private discussion (as well as from some of what is said on the above-linked site) I have determined that Mr. Peters is in fact far more sympathetic to the social views of the Code of Conduct Work Group than I am. (I consider a large part of their expressed worldview to be frankly unjust and bigoted.)
    - shadowgovt 11mo ago
      [flagged]
      - AlexeyBelov 11mo ago
        They won't listen to you anyway and everything will be dismissed. I remember when zahlman first came to HN, they always participate in threads adjacent to cultural wars and specifically around Python community. Like, religiously so.
        zahlman 11mo ago
        > I remember when zahlman first came to HN, they always participate in threads adjacent to cultural wars and specifically around Python community. Like, religiously so. I came here because I learned that an incident that I was personally connected to (which also happens to relate to this very thread) was being discussed: i.e., the 3-month suspension of Tim Peters. These topics are only "adjacent to culture wars" insofar as the enactment of the ban could only possibly be explained by culture-war beliefs of those doing the banning. This clearly led them to make many objectively false statements. In particular, they claimed that he had "used" offensive language that he didn't even write out; and suggested that he was defending the use of such language (by "finding it genuinely funny") when he was in fact agreeing that it should not be used, in the middle of citing a previous moderation action where he agreed that it should not be used. (In doing so, they misrepresented the antecedent of "finding it genuinely funny".) I "religiously" look for discussion of Python and participate in it. The most popular threads, and thus the ones you are most likely to see, are often ones that involve a culture-war angle; such is the nature of Internet discourse. I'm not going to shy away from that discussion when it concerns Python, because I really like Python and I want to see it flourish; and I consider that actions such as the unjust suspension of Mr. Peters interfere with that. > They won't listen to you anyway and everything will be dismissed. This is false and hurtful, and you reasonably ought to know so from your own claimed first-hand experience. Like, the above is not at all a long response by my standards. Replying like this takes effort and careful consideration of what people are saying.

ryan_lane 11mo ago

This is why folks can't take yall seriously when discussing code of conduct. This person has a history of being shitty, and they used the CoC to enforce a (temporary!) ban, citing the rules he violated. If the CoC didn't exist, you'd be screaming "he didn't do anything wrong", but obviously, according to the well posted rules, he did, and they enforced those rules for the good of the community. The reality of the situation is that yall don't want to be excluded from communities for being racist, misogynistic, or creepy.

chocalot 11mo ago
I looked into the issues listed ( https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250 https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co... ) and the surrounding context, and they all looked tenuous. I'd expect to see at see at least some clear cases. I think moderation and CoCs are needed, but this example looks to be an example of their misuse.
- ayhanfuat 11mo ago
  It's been over a year, and they still haven't provided any tangible examples to support their claims. The best they could come up with was something like "he used the wink emoji" I think. There have been hundreds of posts, and many community members have demanded either evidence to back up those accusations or a public apology to Tim and their removal. But of course, those people are racist, misogynist, or creeps so nothing came out of it.
  - computerthings 11mo ago
    [dead]
hitekker 11mo ago
If Tim Peters has a "history of being shitty", I'd expect Wikipedia to mention it. But his article is clean, if not golden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Peters_(software_engineer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Peters_(software_engineer). The only thing I've heard is that he's a bit neurodivergent/socially awkward, which I thought we were suppose to be welcoming and inclusive of. The reality is that you may be confusing a victim with your political enemies.

AlSweigart 11mo ago

This is why most organizations take a blind eye when popular people in their community behave badly; if they even so much as give them a three-month ban from the forum, people will keep bringing it up years later.

bgwalter 11mo ago
[flagged]
zahlman 11mo ago
The argument you are making here is incredibly disingenuous. The facts matter. Tim Peters did not behave badly. The reasoning given for his suspension misrepresented the apparent evidence, vaguely alluded to unproven private activity, and alleged harm in clearly benign actions. Tim Peters preserved many of his removed posts, along with other relevant information, on a blog (https://tim-one.github.io/ https://tim-one.github.io/) which was largely following my lead in writing about my own prior ban from the forum (https://zahlman.github.io/posts/2024/07/31/an-open-letter-to-the-psf-coc-wg/ https://zahlman.github.io/posts/2024/07/31/an-open-letter-to... ; https://zahlman.github.io/posts/2024/08/10/open-letter-psf-coc-wg-addendum-1-tim-peters/ https://zahlman.github.io/posts/2024/08/10/open-letter-psf-c...) and preserving my own related deleted posts (https://zahlman.github.io/dpo_archive/ https://zahlman.github.io/dpo_archive/). It's clear to me, from reading everything (much of which I saw pre-deletion; and also including things that were left up) that at least part of what people objected to in Mr. Peters' "conduct" is that he defended me (despite having many ideological disagreements with me). I claim that I, too, did not behave badly. In particular, in "recommending" my ban, the Code of Conduct Work Group (which is unelected, and has considerable crossover with paid PSF staff; and to my understanding gets paid in some circumstances for code of conduct enforcement work even as the actual core developers are almost all volunteers) made bizarre mischaracterizations of my complaints — going so far as to falsely ascribe to me terminology that I do not use on principle. You, specifically, should know about these sorts of things because you comment in these discussions all the time. For example, you participated in https://discuss.python.org/t/shedding-light-on-a-three-month-suspension/66337 https://discuss.python.org/t/shedding-light-on-a-three-month... and your posts there demonstrate intimate familiarity with the situation, with quotes like "I suppose I have to point out that “This whole debacle…” wasn’t referring to just Tim personally and not just this one bylaw change but rather referring to, well, gestures to the last two months." (I remember reading that post, not logged in of course, back when you made it.) You have seen the list of charges in https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250 https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co...; so I think you reasonably should understand my position: to the extent that the referents of any of these actions were ever identified, the description is either nonsense or does not point at anything any reasonable person could consider actionable. If you disagree, please be concrete. The entire reason for the "endless litigation" you have repeatedly complained about is the lack of anyone on your side making any clear, understandable argument that anything Tim Peters did at any point was actually wrong. The closest I've seen to such an argument comes from ... Tim Peters (https://tim-one.github.io/psf/meaculpa https://tim-one.github.io/psf/meaculpa), and frankly I think it's far too self-effacing.