FWIW, I agree 100% with Terry here. I'm certainly annoyed by many of Anatoly's contributions, and find myself extremely unwilling to do anything about his perceived issues, but to exclude a community member publicly (!) from all (!) python.org resources is going too far IMO. Individual policy violations can and should of course be sanctioned.
cheers, Georg On 12/26/2012 08:36 AM, Terry Reedy wrote: > This is a continuation of my answer to Christian > > On 12/25/2012 5:56 PM, Łukasz Langa wrote: >> Dnia 25 gru 2012 o godz. 13:37 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> >> napisał(a): >> >>> I'm well and truly to the point of caring far more about the >>> feelings of people who get frustrated trying to deal with his >>> obtuseness (whether that arises deliberately or through genuine >>> cluelessness) than I care about his feelings. He has the entire >>> internet to play on, we don't have to allow him access to >>> python.org controlled resources. >> >> +1 >> >> I opened this thread so I feel somewhat responsible to carry this out >> to finish. Give me a day or two to contemplate on how to achieve the >> following: > > Please do wait. Contemplation and sleep can work wonders. > >> 1. Communicate what happened clearly and openly to our community. > > I am not sure how broadly you mean 'our community', but please no. > Nothing need or should be said beyond this list. (Unless Anatoly says > something elsewhere -- but let him be the first. > > Spam accounts and messages on the tracker are routinely cancelled > without notice. The one time I know of that a contributor was banned > (suspended, actually, soon followed by an offer of re-instatement > without admin privileges), it was pretty much handled privately (though > I would have preferred notice on this list first). > >> 2. Communicate to Anatoly the decision to cut him off. > > I think any cut-off should be in stages: tracker, pydev, python-ideas. > Anything beyond the tracker should be approved by Guido. > > As far as the tracker goes, I think it should be clearly communicated to > him and everyone in plain English (and specified in the user guide if > not already) that a) the purpose of the tracker is to help committers > receive reports, communicate with reporters and others, and to manage > issues, and b) after an initial report, the administrative fields are > mostly intended for the use of tracker administrators, including > committers. The only reason a submitter can edit the status field is so > that they can close an issue to withdraw it (possible after review). If > we can enforce that in the database (only admins (or possibly only > committers) but not the submitter can reopen), I think we should! That > would eliminate bogus reopenings by anyone, not just Anatoly. > > I say this because he specifically justified his re-open action on the > basis that *he* also uses the tracker to track issues. So he does not > quite understand what it is for. As I said in my previous post, if he > reopens a third time, act. He has not yet that I have seen. I also > notice that he just 'voted' to reopen http://bugs.python.org/issue7083 > but did not do so himself (possible because he cannot). > > Going a bit further, I actually would not let a non-admin submitter edit > any field as long as an issue is closed. I see this as a sensible > refinement of the database policy based on years of experience and not > directly specifically at Anatoly. Another tweak based on experience > would be that only committers can set version to security issues. I > routinely unset 2.6 and 3.1 with a short explanation. Better that the > ignorant cannot even make that mistake (I know, submit to the metatracker.) > >> 3. Arrange for feasible technological ways to execute the ban on > > python.org resources, > > See the suggestion above for the tracker. I presume that the mailing > list software can reject specific users and the the gmane is or can be > set up to honor rejections. But if that have ever been done, it has been > done so privately that I am not aware of it. I would ban from pydev > before I would ban from python-ideas. The latter is intended to be a bit > more open to off-the-wall posts. I do not see that Anatoly has really > abused python-ideas. His post today has 16 responses from other people > and only 1 from him. People could have just ignored him after 1 response. > > Another technological fix: enforce no cross-posting to peps editors list > and anything else by rejecting cross-posted messages, both at the > editors list and all other python.org lists. My theme with all these > suggestions is that making mis-behavior impossible, when possible, is > preferable to scolding and banning. Pushes to the repository by > unauthorized people are just rejected. If anyone were to complain > publicly about such rejection, they would just be laughed at. > > > preparing also for vengeful action (which given >> the history is unfortunately likely). > > Shaming anyone publicly is more likely to get such action, and would > almost make it justified in my view. > >> 4. Prepare for rectifying unjust PR by the banned person, etc. > > Better to not unnecessarily provoke it, and worry about it when it > actually happens. > > For months, Jim Fauth (sp?) has repeatedly trashed 3.3 on python-list to > the point of telling people not to use it, and implicitly slandered us > developers, because he hates the new Unicode implementation (it is > 'unfair' because some people benefit more than others). I find Jim more > annoying than Anatoly because unlike Anatoly, he does not acknowledge > contrary facts or answer questions but just repeats the same stupid or > irrational generalizations that are based on one fact. > > The one fact is that str.find, and hence str.replace, is much slower in > 3.3 than 3.2. Because of his report of that fact, there is an issue on > the tracker. Jim will not even acknowledge that he did get an issue > opened because *that* fact undercuts his narrative about our indifference. > > Anyway: > 1. I find Jim *much* more annoying and destructive than Anatoly. (This > is possibly one reason Anatoly, by comparison, does not bother me as > much as others). > 2. The response on python-list is that one or more regulars (sometimes > me, often others) responds to each repetition, more of less politely and > rationally, as the spirit moves us. If you are worried about bad PR, > driving Anatoly to become like Jim on python-list would be the wrong > thing to do. > >> I'm seriously considering writing all this as a PEP (most likely >> without any personal details). I hope this won't be useful in the >> future but it might help having this gathered as written policy, if >> only for transparency reasons. > > This strike me as over-reaction. > > -- > Terry Jan Reedy > > > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
