I'll be another voice saying that the CoC isn't the right mechanism -- the CoC is for harassment and abuse (at least, most community's CoCs are, the Python one is pretty vague).
That said, I have no problem with the action taken, banning people who are extremely unproductive is a necessary step for open source communities, and one I think we are all extremely reticent to take, so much so that it got it's own chapter in the excellent book, Producing Open Source Software: http://producingoss.com/en/difficult-people.html Back to lurking'ly yours, Alex On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 at 09:27 M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: > >> On 01.04.2017 05:44, Raymond Hettinger wrote: >> > >> >> On Mar 31, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> In the (long) discussion of https://github.com/python/ >> core-workflow/issues/6, Wes Turner began to do his usual posting of >> lists. People pointed out he was stepping out of line by being somewhat >> off-topic and seemingly lecturing folks. He posted some of his lists again >> and then I warned him that if he did it again I would block him for a CoC >> violation since he did not want to respect anyone's time by taking the time >> to edit what amount to dumping his personal notes on GitHub. (This is a >> long-standing issue, BTW, with Wes where he has been warned in other >> settings like distutils-sig about his posting behaviour.) >> > >> > ... >> > So, if Wes is to be blocked for a while, it should be on the basis of >> "adding too much noise to an important communication channel" rather than >> CoC which should be sparingly used for only egregious issues. Also, if a >> real CoC issue does arise, I think any actions taken need to have multiple >> assents from a group of decision makers rather than having one person >> become a de-facto CoC czar with the power to banish people. >> >> It's definitely a requirement of any CoC management to have at >> least two people decide on this, since CoCs in general are >> always open to interpretation and need to take multiple views >> into account. > > > OK, but who is the second person supposed to be? Since this was the > core-workflow issue tracker for the core-workflow mailing list I figured it > fell on to my shoulders to deal with (I actually had to check the mailing > list this morning to see if I even had co-owners on it since I actually > didn't remember explicitly having any). Am I to ask just any core dev for a > gut check to make sure this is a reasonable action to take? > > I guess my point is that we don't have any form of policy or practices in > place for this sort of thing. An action of this level has (fortunately) > only occurred with Anatoly and we took so long to deal with it that no one > questioned my actions when I first used the CoC on python-ideas. > > >> Wes's comments are nowhere near a CoC violation, >> IMO. >> > > There's also extensive history spanning multiple mailing lists for Wes' > behaviour. This isn't isolated to just what I linked to, it just happens to > be what finally pushed me to take action. If I could block him at my > personal account level and have his posts not show up for me I would, or if > I could just block him for the core-workflow issue tracker I would, but we > just don't have that level of blocking on GitHub and the finest grain > available is organization level. > > >> >> I agree with Raymond that CoCs are not meant as a tool to >> silence people with different ideas or communication styles >> out of convenience. >> > > Now we're getting into a philosophical discussion as to whether the CoC > covers people who choose to continually communicate in an unproductive way > even after it has been pointed out to them that they are not contributing > constructively to the conversation (as Paul more eloquently stated). To me > the CoC covers that as part of requiring people to be respectful of others. > Time is one of those things that I can't get back and which we all have a > limited supply of to spend on this project, so having someone suck it away > in small doses regularly even after they have been told by multiple people > that they are not contributing seems like a CoC violation to me. > > >> >> It's the ultimate tool, not the first to consider. > > > It wasn't my first anything. As I have said, this isn't some isolated > incident in the Python community with Wes. And I didn't do this on a whim. > I literally felt like crap for about an hour after hitting the red "Block" > button because I realize the ramifications of what I did, so please don't > think I just had a bad day and decided to take it out on someone or did > this just because I didn't like someone's four messages on GitHub. > > >> If Wes were >> continuously offensive that would be a reason to start discussing >> CoC related actions. >> > > As I said, this spans at least distutils-sig and python-ideas for years > (to the point that I have had his emails being marked as read for a few > months and I know multiple other people who have done the same). > > From what people have said in opposition to what I did, I think we need to > have a discussion about two things: > > 1. Is it a CoC violation if someone chooses to ignore repeated warnings > that their communication style is unproductive and thus a waste of people's > time? And if people don't view it as an explicit CoC violation, do we still > view it as enough reason to block someone but under a different name? (I > obviously view it as a CoC violation.) > > 2. What is the exact procedure someone has to follow to instigate a ban > (and this policy should probably cover GitHub, mailing lists, and anywhere > else someone can be banned)? Is it having two core devs agree to the ban > and it being publicly stated here (as MAL suggested)? Whatever approach we > choose we should write it down in the devguide somewhere. > > As for Wes himself, I'm fine with the ban lasting only a couple months > (say the end of May?). Based on the positive feedback I received on the ban > I don't want to just drop it without at least some time passing to get the > point across that something needs to change, but I also don't expect the > ban to be permanent since there wasn't any malicious intent. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire) "The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero GPG Key fingerprint: D1B3 ADC0 E023 8CA6
_______________________________________________ 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/
