On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, 18:04 Erik Bray, <erik.m.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 4:48 PM William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:35 AM Jeroen Demeyer <j.deme...@ugent.be> > wrote: > > >> > > >> On 2018-09-24 18:00, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > >> > Perhaps the most tricky is 2 (or perhaps not anymore, after out > > >> > infamous CoC discussion fiasco we could agree it makes sense to get > > >> > something in place; we can have a look at > > >> > https://numfocus.org/code-of-conduct > > >> > and see if we can just agree to this) > > >> > > >> Speaking of Code of Conducts, there has recently been a CoC incident > in > > >> the Python community where somebody was banned permanently after a > > >> single controversial post on a mailing list [1]. > > >> > > >> Personally, I think that this is huge overreaction (at most a warning > or > > >> a temporary ban would have been in order) and it shows that a CoC can > be > > >> used as an excuse to take such actions. That incident certainly makes > me > > >> less supportive of having a CoC. > > >> > > >> [1] > > >> > https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2018-September/053602.html > > > > > > TLDR: Someone proposes to remove "ugly vs beautiful" wording from > > > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/, > > > resulting (unsurprisingly) in an escalating shouting contest... > > > How can I unsee this, please (I could have done something useful in > > > the lost 30 min... > > > > I didn't look. But if something like that happened on sage-devel, > > somebody else would email sage-ab...@googlegroups.com (as it says to > > do in our CoC), then we would look at it, probably delete some > > messages from sage-devel (?), and definitely tell the person to take > > it to sage-flame, where there is no code of conduct, and they can > > shout into the void. If they were OK with that resolution, I think > > that would be fine. If they continued posting what is generally > > considered flame bait to sage-devel *after being told to use > > sage-flame*, we would definitely have to ban them from sage-devel for > > the good of the community. > > FWIW the message in question was really bad IMO, and CoC or no CoC had > I been a moderator of the python-ideas mailing list I would have taken > similar actions. That said, they did violate the Python CoC on at > least three counts within one message, so the CoC definitely validated > its existence in that case. >
I think the whole thread there basically started with a flame-bait. The next logical step would be to propose to ban talking about bad code as bad, etc etc. In particular given the totally opposite to English ways to communicate in Dutch (way, way, way more direct), no wonder a native Dutch speaker took the bait (as he freely admitted). I have no clue why moderators sat on their hands for so long. But we digress. > Also if I recall the poster in question has been a problem in the past > and has received warnings, though I *might* be confusing them with > someone else, so don't take my word for it. The PSF has a CoC working > group, which I believe is also that which decides what to do with > complaints (which are I understand are relatively rare), and its > membership is public information: > https://www.python.org/psf/committees/#code-of-conduct-work-group If > a majority of the WG decided that this was a serious enough issue that > they didn't want that person participating in that space > (python-ideas) I think that carries some weight (especially > considering that we don't know the full context, such as the volume of > complaints about that post, that poster's past history, etc...) > > The CoC is being "used" here only to guide evaluation of the issue at > hand. It's not being used to decide how to take action--you'll note > that the PSF CoC [1] does not make specific prescriptions on how to > handle incidents, and leaves that up to maintainers of the spaces in > which the CoC applies, (mailing lists, conferences, etc.) to determine > how best to implement the working group's recommendations. I think > within that, as a superset of the CoC, the moderators of python-ideas > specifically have their own process and I know in the past have talked > about formalizing that process and making it more transparent. But > either way there are judgment calls to be made, and both Sage and > Python are fortunate that such incidents are rare enough that we can > usually take the time to evaluate the best course of action in each > case individually without having to appeal with some inflexible set of > laws (which a CoC is not). > > [1] https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
