Hi, On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote:
> [...] > In order to deal with this, here is my proposal that should placate those > of us calling for a ban now and those that feel like there has not been > enough of a warning ((I can't communicate with him because I want him > banned and I personally don't get along with him even in person, so any > place where someone should talk to him it can't be me in the name of > fairness to the process): > > 1. Someone emails Anatoly to tell him he is on indefinite probation for > his behaviour where it is pointed out he can no longer insult anyone > (including the PSF), he can't re-open issues without an explicit solution > to the problem for why it closed, and in general has to just behave and not > be rude > > 2. We agree to point out to him nicely and calmly when he has screwed up > and overstepped his bounds while on this probation and to record when that > happened (an email here about any incident should be enough) so that he can > learn from his mistakes > > 3. If we do not see a pattern of improvement (this can be noticed by > anyone and I'm sure we can get a consensus on it; unanimity is not required > because that is impossible for anything with a group of our size), he gets > cut off from the resource he is abusing the most and those cut-offs will > continue on other locations if he does not improve there as well > > 4. If it goes as far as he is cut off and he manages to get the point and > behaves elsewhere he can be allowed back on to where he has been banned > after a year has passed (IOW he has to show actual improvement) > > Three key points in this proposal. One is that he gets an official > warning; no more side discussions with core devs, no more "does he know > people want to ban him" questions as it will be clear and explicit. He will > be flat-out told his attitude and actions are not acceptable as they stand > and they need to change. > > Two is that there is no time limit so that he doesn't just hide away for > e.g. six months, comes back, and then starts stirring up trouble while > saying he behaved within the allotted time that he had to. Any change needs > to be permanent and perpetuate forever. > > Three, the cut-offs are gradual per resource so that it isn't an > over-arching nuclear option. > > I say Ezio lets him know that this is the plan since he talked to him > recently and is in the no-ban-yet camp. > Yesterday I talked to him, informed him about the probation and showed him this message. I hope this is official enough. We also discussed about the contributor agreement and IIUC: 1) he signed it already 1.5 years ago but apparently it got lost (that wouldn't be too surprising if it really happened); 2) he thinks the current agreement is "invalid" because the PSF doesn't follow the terms and requirements of the linked Apache 2 license (and while he doesn't seem against signing in, that would be quite pointless if it was indeed invalid); 3) he said that an electronic signature like the one at the bottom of http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html should be used instead of printing/scanning/mailing the agreement (this (or some similar suggestion) already came up a few times here). Best Regards, Ezio Melotti > But even if people don't like the explicit steps as I have outlined them > as a general rule, someone who doesn't want him banned should tell him > flat-out that he is on thin ice as I am an admin for python-ideas and this > plan is what I will institute starting January 1 for that list and he is on > the top of the list of people who will be in trouble if their attitude does > not change (I am about to email Titus about drafting up a CoC for > python-ideas so that this applies to everyone, not just Anatoly). >
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers