On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 at 18:01 Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 03:11:25PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 28 February 2016 at 12:27, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> > wrote: > > > Nobody *has* to tolerate jerks, especially on an email forum. Just > > > filter their emails into the trash. > > > > This approach means every *future* participant in that community then > > has to encounter the person that's behaving like a jerk, realise they > > consistently behave that way, and add them to their own filters. > [...] > > It also means they get to decide for themselves what is and isn't > unacceptable behaviour *to them*, without imposing those values on those > who don't share them. > > Look, I get it. I'm outvoted, and the community -- at least those who > are willing to speak up publicly -- agree with the CoC. I'm obviously in > a minority here, and I accept that. > > But that's not the point. The point is that if we're actually going to > be "open, respectful and considerate" as the CoC requires, then we > actually have to make time to listen to those diverse viewpoints we say > we want to listen to. If we're serious about the CoC, then we should > treat it seriously and not just give lip-service to it. > > How can we say we're in favour of diversity if we don't give those > diverse voices and viewpoints a chance to speak up before making > decisions? Community values come from the entire community, not just > from a couple of guys with admin powers on the mailing list software. > > Being open, respectful and considerate means that, even if you have the > de facto power to apply whatever rules you want, you *ask first* and > listen to what the community has to say. Maybe you'll be surprised by > what they say. Maybe you won't. But you won't know unless you ask. > > Even if the community is overwhelmingly in favour of the change, at > least those with a different opinion will have had the chance to be > heard. And that is critical for a healthy community. "You never listen" > is deadly for relationships, whether they are family, business or > community. There is a reason why members of minorities are often > described as "voiceless", and why we should *listen to them*. > > Even if, after due consideration, we choose to dismiss their point of > view. We're all adults here, and I trust that none of us expect to "win" > all the time. So long as we get a fair chance to have our say and have > it honestly considered with an open mind. I don't ask for anything more > than that. > > The most frustrating thing is that we've been through this before. In > 2013, Brett and Titus did exactly the same thing on the Python-Ideas > list: > > https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2013-June/021087.html > > So let me make it clear: Brett, and the other list maintainers, you're > not listening. Even if I'm a minority of one out of the whole community, > your words say "of course we care what you think" but your actions say > "actually no, we couldn't care less". You might not have intended it > that way, but nevertheless that's the way it is. > I see where the issue came in: I simply considered the discussion on the CoC already settled. As you pointed out in your second paragraph, the community has decided that they like the idea of a CoC (for instance, I was applauded at PyCon US 2014 when I gave the opening address and pointed out that there was a CoC in effect). I also went through these points with python-ideas years ago (and you're right, it wasn't a discussion as much as an edict of new rules on python-ideas, but I felt that was necessary to deal with the situation). I wasn't trying to silence dissent, I just considered it a settled point. And the key word for me is "settled". It's like people wanting a Python 2.8 release: at some point we decided the key points were made and that our decision had been settled. I feel the same way about the CoC, so I didn't view it as silencing the anti-CoC side before they could argue as much as the argument had been had and the CoC side had won. > > Imagine an alternate universe where Brett had said, "I'm the dictator of > this mailing list and I don't care what anyone thinks. From now on, I'm > going to ban 'jerk' behaviour, and if you don't like it, tough." How > exactly is that alternate universe different from what actually took > place? > Two ways. One, the CoC is at least written down so it isn't quite so arbitrary as "Brett says so!" The other is that I considered it "... tough, because we have already had this discussion as a community and decided having a CoC is a good thing". > > When this happened on Python-Ideas, people wrote to me defending the > change on exactly that basis: Brett's the dictator and can do what he > likes, he doesn't have to listen, if I don't like it, I should leave. > This was coming from people who were vigourously supporting the CoC and > the need to be welcoming to all. If there is a way to reconcile those > two seemingly contradictory positions, I don't know what it is. > In that instance I think it's because when you come down on the anti-CoC side, the pro side tend to view it as you're putting the worry of silencing dissenting voices over protecting those who feel they can't speak up without a CoC. And since the pro side views the CoC as enough to prevent dissenting voices from being silenced in the first place then that makes the anti-CoC as censoring more implicitly and the possible explicit censoring of the anti- side. > > I'm not accusing Brett or anyone else of being a moustache-twirling > villain who is out to ruin this group, or of acting maliciously. I truly > believe that he is trying to act in the best interests of the community. > But I think he is failing. It takes actual effort to listen to minority > views, really listen, not just say "we're listening", and in this case I > feel that Brett didn't even bother with the "we're listening" part, he > just went straight to the "we know what's best". > > Having your voice heard goes a long way to making people feel welcome. > Having rules applied by fiat with no opportunity to be heard is not > open, respectful or considerate, but it is a good way to build > resentment and make people feel like outsiders. Which is exactly how I > feel now. > > (Although the measured and reasonable responses to my earlier email have > gone a long way towards mitigating that. Thank you to all those who > replied respectfully, and thankfully this time I wasn't told to GTFO if > I didn't like it.) > > I have worked in a team where managers would apply policy changes that > affected the entire team (including other managers) without a period of > consultation, and it is toxic behaviour. It breeds resentment and a > feeling of being pushed into the outer. The feeling of voicelessness can > break work-places, families and entire communities, and one of the most > important parts of social justice is to give people a voice. > Right, but as I said earlier in this email, this was not some knee-jerk decision where opposing voices had not been listened to previously. To me the CoC debate spanned years and has been settled at this point. So it isn't like a manager walking into a meeting and saying "we're switching to Java because I say so", it's more like "the rest of the company has standardized on Python and we're the lone hold-outs, so we're finally going to align with the rest of the company". -Brett
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
