Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers

[Brett Cannon]

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 at 18:01 Steven D'Aprano  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 03:11:25PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > On 28 February 2016 at 12:27, Steven D'Aprano 
> 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 

Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers

[Ethan Furman]

On 02/29/2016 06:00 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:


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.


Very true.  Thank you for speaking up and being persistent.

--
~Ethan~
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 03:11:25PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 28 February 2016 at 12:27, Steven D'Aprano  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.

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?

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.

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 

Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 07:10:18PM +, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 at 18:33 Steven D'Aprano  wrote:

[...]
> > You could have, should
> > have, waited a few days before seemingly ramming this policy change in
> > behind people's backs.
> 
> Steven, I didn't try to sneak this past anyone.

I can give you nothing less than full credit for not generally abusing 
your list admin powers. And I do believe that you think you are acting 
in the best interests of the group. But even the most innocent actions 
can *seem* suspicious, which is why I used the words I used: "seemingly 
... behind people's backs".

I can believe that the timing of a Friday night was an unfortunate 
coincidence. But the objection isn't about that, or even about the CoC 
itself. I know that I'm in a minority here. If this had come down to a 
vote, or community consensus, you probably would have got your CoC 
approved. I'm a grown-up, I know I can't get my way all the time. But in 
a community that claims to welcome diverse opinions, I do expect that we 
all should be given the opportunity to express those opinions when it 
matters -- and not just reduced to complaining afterwards.

This exact objection has come up before, when you and Titus decided to 
apply the CoC on the Python-Ideas list in 2013, and announced it to the 
list as a done deal.

Brett, I know that you have de facto powers that the rest of us don't, 
by virtue of being a list admin. You're an elite among elites. Do the 
CoC principles of openess, respect and consideration apply to elites 
too? Then you should have been open to opposing viewpoints; you should 
have given the community the respect and consideration of asking for 
community feedback before imposing this change of rule.

The honest truth is, if you had said "If nobody strongly objects by 
Monday my time, two days from now, I'll take that as consensus in favour 
and apply the CoC" I probably wouldn't even have argued against it. (I 
only have so much energy for tilting at windmills, and I have to pick 
the most important ones.)


[...]
> > This is an international group, and I'm an Australian, and the language
> > I use with my wife, friends and co-workers is far more forthright and
> > strong than the language I use here. But if I slip occasionally, and
> > call a spade a bloody shovel as they say, I don't want those with more
> > restrictive, less enlightened or even merely different standards to be
> > able to formally rebuke me. Why should I have to change my behaviour
> > more than I already do? Why can't they be a bit more flexible and
> > accepting of differences and less judgmental?
> 
> There is a massive difference between using a word that someone might
> consider a swear word and regularly being mean or disrespectful.

I'm afraid you misunderstand me. To call a spade a bloody shovel is not 
about using "swear words". It is about being frank, direct and blunt, 
even brusque, without sugar-coating the message, beating around the 
bush or using euphemisms. It's not even a uniquely Australian saying:

1964 J. Reston in N.Y. Times 14 Feb. IV 8: The time has come to call a 
spade a bloody shovel. This country is in an undeclared and unexplained 
war in Vietnam. Our masters have a lot of long and fancy names for it 
[...] but it is war just the same.

Sometimes people take offence at direct language. Call a piece of 
software "crap", or even "a jenky mess", and some people will say that 
you're being rude and disruptive. I do not hold with that view.


[...]
> I swear that I did not mean to pull a fast one or somehow exert some
> influence to make this happen on the sly and I'm sorry if you thought that;

Brett I unconditionally believe you and I too am sorry that I didn't 
make it clear enough that I was talking about the *perception* of 
sneakiness rather than actual sneakiness.

I think I've made it clear that I am not a supporter of the CoC, but I 
am a supporter of the principles it sets forth. (And if anyone thinks 
this is an insane contradictory position to take, I'm happy to discuss 
it off-list.) I fully expect that had you asked for comments prior to 
making the change, they would have been overwhelmingly in favour.

Nevertheless, I believe that you should have asked first. Not because 
you have to (you are list admin, and you are physically capable of doing 
whatever you like to the list), but because failing to consult with the 
community goes against the principles of the CoC.


-- 
Steve
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers

[Ethan Furman]

On 02/29/2016 12:09 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:


This is the part about all this CoC talk I never understand. Why
on earth would someone change their regular behavior when
"at a meetup or conference that has not implemented a CoC" ?


Sadly, there are plenty of people who act wildly differently depending 
on where they are.



To me, the main purpose of CoCs is not the text itself. It's
getting organizers thinking about how they would react to possible
issues upfront.


Definitely.

--
~Ethan~

___
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/

Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers

[M.-A. Lemburg]

On 29.02.2016 18:38, Brett Cannon wrote:
> ... If we
> happen to be at a meetup or conference that has not implemented a CoC that
> shouldn't give us an excuse as esteemed representatives of this language
> and community to be lax in our behaviour since how we act as core devs is
> probably amplified compared to others in the community.

This is the part about all this CoC talk I never understand. Why
on earth would someone change their regular behavior when
"at a meetup or conference that has not implemented a CoC" ?

This sounds to me like a very "Wild West" kind of interpretation of
civil life that doesn't necessarily map to other societies - and
even the days of "Wild West" are long over, aren't they ;-)

To me, the main purpose of CoCs is not the text itself. It's
getting organizers thinking about how they would react to possible
issues upfront.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Feb 29 2016)
>>> Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ...  http://www.egenix.com/
>>> Python Database Interfaces ...   http://products.egenix.com/
>>> Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ...   http://zope.egenix.com/

2016-02-19: Released eGenix PyRun 2.1.2 ...   http://egenix.com/go88

::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs :::

   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
   Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
   http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
  http://www.malemburg.com/

___
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/

Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers

[Brett Cannon]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 at 23:15 Georg Brandl  wrote:

> On 02/28/2016 10:25 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016, 12:02 Georg Brandl  > > wrote:
> >
> > On 02/28/2016 08:10 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >
> > > Can *anyone* take it upon themselves to (let's
> > > say) say "Brett, you unilaterally changed the policy with no
> discussion
> > > or consultation and just four minutes notice. That is
> unspeakably rude
> > > and total jerk behaviour, so under your own rules you're out
> of here"?
> > >
> > > I'm not just making a rhetorical point. I wouldn't accept that
> sort of
> > > unilateral behaviour from my work colleagues.
> > >
> > >
> > > It wasn't a unilateral decision. If it was then I would have just
> done it
> > > without  opening an issue or bringing it up here. I mentioned it
> here just in
> > > case someone might get upset by it (which obviously happened).
> >
> > FWIW, Eric Smith and myself (co-"owners" of the mailing list)
> supported this
> > when Brett asked.
> >
> >
> > I think Steven's objection was me wanting to state in the devguide that
> core
> > devs would adhere to the CoC in all Python-related interactions in the
> community
> > regardless of whether that interaction explicitly occurred under the
> purview of
> > the CoC, which is a stronger statement than just this mailing list being
> under
> > the CoC.
>
> Well, "Python-related" is a bit strong and includes activities the PSF/the
> CPython developer community has no business in. It should be rephrased to
> "Python core-related" - that mostly happens through the mailing lists (and
> the tracker).  We should not presume to be an employer that will fire
> employees based on a post on their private Facebook account.
>

That rephrasing is fine by me (as would be adding "public" to the
statement). My point is when any of us have our core-dev "hat" on, people
should know that they can expect us to behave appropriately and that if we
misstep and say something offensive they can point it out to us without
worries of any of us taking offense (i.e., we are just like everyone else
and being a core dev doesn't place our behaviour above anyone else). If we
happen to be at a meetup or conference that has not implemented a CoC that
shouldn't give us an excuse as esteemed representatives of this language
and community to be lax in our behaviour since how we act as core devs is
probably amplified compared to others in the community.
___
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/