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

[M.-A. Lemburg]

On 05.03.2016 00:40, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 at 14:04 M.-A. Lemburg  wrote:
> 
>> Brett,
>>
>> I don't think that spamming all MLs, Github accounts, etc.
>> with CoC notices will help anyone.
>>
> 
> Which is not what I'm suggesting nor would I want to do unless it's a
> stated change in policy so people feel properly notified.

I was referring to adding CoC links to all ML footers (causing it
to appeary on each and every ML message), all Github repos, etc.

I think this is not helpful. It's better to have a single page
on the python.org where we state how we use the CoC and perhaps
a footer link on python.org pointing to it.

Perhaps we don't even need a new page and simply use the
existing CoC page for this, by adding some more text to it
and perhaps a FAQ section.

>>
>> You may not be aware, but all PSF infrastructure is covered by
>> the PSF CoC already, and has been for quite a while:
>>
>> """
>>  RESOLVED, that the Python Software Foundation shall manage and curate
>> the Foundation's public
>> and member-accessible web properties to remove spam, serve the membership,
>> and conform to the the
>> Python Community Code of Conduct.
>>
>> Approved 9-0-0 by IRC vote, 3 January, 2014.
>> """
>>
> 
> That's great, but how are people to know this if they don't read the
> minutes of the board? Is it considered too much if I link to the minutes in
> the devguide so people know about this (
> https://www.python.org/psf/records/board/minutes/2014-01-06/#management-of-the-psfs-web-properties
> )?

If needed at all, it's better to link to above yet-to-be-written page.

>> All PSF members have acknowledged this and adding yet another
>> notice to each and every point of interaction will not make
>> things better.
>>
> 
> I'm not worried about PSF members, it's all the new folk who are just
> "walking off the street" and are looking to contribute.
> 
> 
>>
>> If there are issues, point people to the CoC. Otherwise, let's
>> not get all tangled up in CoC links everywhere :-)
>>
> 
> Fair enough, but I would like at least one canonical location to link to
> that bit of the minutes so that it's somewhere a bit more public. Is a link
> in the devguide considered acceptable?
> 
> -Brett
> 
> 
>>
>> We can get the 16 ton weight out when needed...
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U90dnUbZMmM
>>
>> and optionally even send the tiger.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> Marc-Andre Lemburg
>>
>>
>> On 04.03.2016 22:31, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>> The discussion about the Code of Conduct has sputtered out, so I'm going
>> to
>>> assume those who care to speak up have at this point. It seems to me that
>>> the general agreement is that putting python-dev and bugs.python.org
>> under
>>> the CoC might not solve any real issues we currently have, but it won't
>>> hurt anything either (and both python-committers and python-ideas are
>>> already covered). And since the CoC might make some people feel more
>>> comfortable in participating, that means going ahead and flipping on the
>>> CoC where we reasonably can.
>>>
>>> So what I will do is try to convince the managers of python-dev to put it
>>> under the CoC and get the CoC mentioned in the footer of
>> bugs.python.org.
>>> I will update the devguide to say that the various mailing lists and
>> issue
>>> tracker are under the CoC so people are aware, but I won't go as far as I
>>> was originally proposing about covering all public, Python-related
>>> interactions. Once we move to GitHub we will most likely have a
>>> CONTRIBUTING file that links to the devguide and that file will mention
>>> that interactions involving the repo are under the CoC (or some other
>>> wording that says pull requests fall under the Code of Conduct).
>>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 at 11:29 Brett Cannon  wrote:
>>>
 I noticed that the devguide didn't explicitly mention that core
>> developers
 were expected to follow the PSF CoC (
 https://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html and
 https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/, respectively). I have opened
 http://bugs.python.org/issue26446 to make sure it gets documented.

 Since this is technically a modification of the requirements of getting
 commit privileges I wanted to mention it here before I (or anyone else)
 made the change.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Marc-Andre Lemburg
>> eGenix.com
>>
>> Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Mar 04 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/
>> 

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

[M.-A. Lemburg]

On 06.03.2016 17:52, Ezio Melotti wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Brett Cannon  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Python-ideas has been under the same CoC for a while now and it has been
>> nothing but positive. When people know they are expected to behave in a
>> civil manner and others know they are allowed to call someone out for being
>> uncivil it typically is enough to make people behave.
>>
>> So there is no issue of people "being overburdened by regulations". The CoC
>> only comes up when someone is being so rude that they need to be talked to
>> about their attitude  problem, so as long as we try and keep people from
>> being rude  it won't come up. Quite frankly, the CoC is really just meant as
>> a way for people to feel comfortable in knowing they don't have to tolerate
>> jerks. And I would hope none of us are jerks to people in the community, so
>> saying as much shouldn't change anything for any of us. This also lets the
>> community know that we don't view ourselves as some elite group of people
>> whose attitudes must be tolerated no matter what; we hold ourselves to the
>> same standards as the rest of the community does and it should be pointed
>> out as such to make people feel comfortable.
>>
> 
> It seems to me that the "controversies" raised in this thread stem
> from a few underlying problems and points of confusions.
> 
> The first problem is that it is not entirely clear (at least to me)
> why we need a CoC and what problem is the CoC trying to solve.  The
> CoC itself simply mentions: "[...] these guidelines [...] help steer
> our interactions and strive to keep Python a positive, successful, and
> growing community.".  Clearly stating the goal of the CoC will help
> people understand why it is useful.
> 
> The second problem is that Code of Conducts usually outline rules[0],
> and this can be perceived as limiting one's freedom and potentially be
> abused for censoring users.  Our CoC however is quite "mild", so I
> believe people that expressed concern were mostly against the idea of
> having a CoC, rather than being against our CoC in particular.
> However is also not clear what measures -- if any -- will be taken to
> enforce the CoC[1].
> 
> Which bring us to the the third problem: if, how, and by whom these
> "guidelines" are enforced.  Enforcement requires judgment, and
> judgment requires judges.  Who is to judge if e.g. one or more mails
> in broken English, or with a perceived rude tone, or with unrealistic
> proposals are detrimental to the conversation and should be "rejected"
> or if they should be accepted/tolerated/embraced in the spirit of
> inclusiveness?  If they are "rejected", what specific actions are
> going to be taken?

FYI: I only know of a single case where we have triggered the CoC
to ban someone from MLs. The decision was taken by the PSF board
members who ultimately have to decide these things (or delegate the
decision to someone else).

The board deliberately put the bar very high for any such sanctions.

> ISTM that our CoC simply puts black on white the general principles
> that we have already being following, without outlining any hard
> rules. It should therefore have little to no effects -- both positive
> and negative -- on existing members.  It might however serve as a
> remainder to people that disregard (intentionally or not) these
> principles, and help shaping the image of our community for external
> people -- including potential new members of our community.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Ezio Melotti
> 
> 
> [0]: "A code of conduct is a set of rules outlining the social norms
> and rules and responsibilities of, or proper practices for, an
> individual, party or organization." --
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct
> 
> [1]: "Studies of codes of conduct in the private sector show that
> their effective implementation must be part of a learning process that
> requires training, consistent enforcement, and continuous
> measurement/improvement." --
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct
> ___
> 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/
> 

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Mar 06 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 

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

[Ezio Melotti]

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Brett Cannon  wrote:
>
>
> Python-ideas has been under the same CoC for a while now and it has been
> nothing but positive. When people know they are expected to behave in a
> civil manner and others know they are allowed to call someone out for being
> uncivil it typically is enough to make people behave.
>
> So there is no issue of people "being overburdened by regulations". The CoC
> only comes up when someone is being so rude that they need to be talked to
> about their attitude  problem, so as long as we try and keep people from
> being rude  it won't come up. Quite frankly, the CoC is really just meant as
> a way for people to feel comfortable in knowing they don't have to tolerate
> jerks. And I would hope none of us are jerks to people in the community, so
> saying as much shouldn't change anything for any of us. This also lets the
> community know that we don't view ourselves as some elite group of people
> whose attitudes must be tolerated no matter what; we hold ourselves to the
> same standards as the rest of the community does and it should be pointed
> out as such to make people feel comfortable.
>

It seems to me that the "controversies" raised in this thread stem
from a few underlying problems and points of confusions.

The first problem is that it is not entirely clear (at least to me)
why we need a CoC and what problem is the CoC trying to solve.  The
CoC itself simply mentions: "[...] these guidelines [...] help steer
our interactions and strive to keep Python a positive, successful, and
growing community.".  Clearly stating the goal of the CoC will help
people understand why it is useful.

The second problem is that Code of Conducts usually outline rules[0],
and this can be perceived as limiting one's freedom and potentially be
abused for censoring users.  Our CoC however is quite "mild", so I
believe people that expressed concern were mostly against the idea of
having a CoC, rather than being against our CoC in particular.
However is also not clear what measures -- if any -- will be taken to
enforce the CoC[1].

Which bring us to the the third problem: if, how, and by whom these
"guidelines" are enforced.  Enforcement requires judgment, and
judgment requires judges.  Who is to judge if e.g. one or more mails
in broken English, or with a perceived rude tone, or with unrealistic
proposals are detrimental to the conversation and should be "rejected"
or if they should be accepted/tolerated/embraced in the spirit of
inclusiveness?  If they are "rejected", what specific actions are
going to be taken?


ISTM that our CoC simply puts black on white the general principles
that we have already being following, without outlining any hard
rules. It should therefore have little to no effects -- both positive
and negative -- on existing members.  It might however serve as a
remainder to people that disregard (intentionally or not) these
principles, and help shaping the image of our community for external
people -- including potential new members of our community.

Best Regards,
Ezio Melotti


[0]: "A code of conduct is a set of rules outlining the social norms
and rules and responsibilities of, or proper practices for, an
individual, party or organization." --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct

[1]: "Studies of codes of conduct in the private sector show that
their effective implementation must be part of a learning process that
requires training, consistent enforcement, and continuous
measurement/improvement." --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct
___
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

[Nick Coghlan]

On 6 March 2016 at 06:52, Brett Cannon  wrote:

>
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 at 10:58 Georg Brandl  wrote:
>
>>
>> Anyway, with the migration to Git it becomes much easier to spot and
>> remind us
>> of potential committers, as both author and committer info are retained in
>> commits.  This makes a periodic report (by a bot, presumably) possible
>> that
>> lists those authors with the most commits, but without commit bit.
>>
>
> That's a great idea! Recorded in PEP 512:
> https://hg.python.org/peps/rev/fad7b646ab06.
>

Bonus points if the bot can figure out how many iterations the patch went
through prior to being merged - when I've recommended folks for commit bits
in the past, it's generally been because I've got to a point where I feel
like I'm just rubberstamping their patches (rather than needing to suggest
changes), so I can be confident they've worked out for themselves what
"good" looks like.

(Such a bot would be useful even without that though, as the folks actually
reviewing and merging the commits would still be the ones to propose new
contributors for merge privileges)

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncogh...@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
___
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

[Serhiy Storchaka]

On 05.03.16 10:18, Ned Deily wrote:

In article <20160305043104.60898b14...@webabinitio.net>,
  "R. David Murray"  wrote:

I the past few years I've monitored the bug tracker fairly closely, and
watched for good prospects, and recommended or inspired the recommendation
of several.  Right now I don't have the time to monitor the bug tracker
the way I had been and watch people the way I had been, so I won't be
in a position to recommend anyone for the next while


I don't think any of us truly understand how much time you have put into
this kind of behind-the-scenes activity over the years nor fully
appreciate how important that has been to the on-going success of
python-dev.  Thanks, David.


Want to join the acknowledgement. David's work is invaluable.


PS: Actually, let me throw out that the people that had been at the
top of my list before I stopped were eryksun, paul.j3 (for argparse),
and davin (for multiprocessing).


I agree with your recommendations for all three.


I haven't been following the activity in the argparse module, but
I'm watching Eryk Sun and was going to offer his candidacy if it will 
retain his activity over the next few months.



___
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

[Ned Deily]

In article <20160305043104.60898b14...@webabinitio.net>,
 "R. David Murray"  wrote:
> Remember how new committers happen: current committers notice their
> contributions on the tracker, suggest they be given the commit bit and
> offer to mentor them, and we take a poll.  The critical bits here are
> (1) noticing and (2) being willing to mentor.  So, if we want more
> committers, current ones need to put forth the effort to monitor active
> bugs, evaluate prospects, and recommend and mentor them.  And hopefully
> do some mentoring via the bug tracker to get more people commit-bit ready.
> 
> This is a catch 22: we need more active committers in order to get
> more active committers.  But we know that; that question is what to do
> about it.
> 
> I the past few years I've monitored the bug tracker fairly closely, and
> watched for good prospects, and recommended or inspired the recommendation
> of several.  Right now I don't have the time to monitor the bug tracker
> the way I had been and watch people the way I had been, so I won't be
> in a position to recommend anyone for the next while

I don't think any of us truly understand how much time you have put into 
this kind of behind-the-scenes activity over the years nor fully 
appreciate how important that has been to the on-going success of 
python-dev.  Thanks, David.

> PS: Actually, let me throw out that the people that had been at the
> top of my list before I stopped were eryksun, paul.j3 (for argparse),
> and davin (for multiprocessing).

I agree with your recommendations for all three.

-- 
 Ned Deily,
 n...@python.org

___
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

[Raymond Hettinger]

> On Mar 4, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Brett Cannon  wrote:
> 
> I guess I'm just worried about the health of this project. I'm doing what I 
> can through the migration to GitHub to make it easier for others to get 
> involved while making it easier for us to accept the work of others, but the 
> maintenance and health of this team worries me. For instance, if you look at 
> the developer's log you will notice we only gained 2 core devs for all of 
> 2015 and the last one was August 2015:

Last year on this list, I recommended that Davin Potts be granted core 
developer status for his on-going work on the multiprocessing module.  This 
group collectively said no, leaving Davin in an odd and uncomfortable limbo.

The social barriers to entry proved too high even for an seasoned open source 
developer, the former chief scientist at Continuum, who had already devoted 
substantial time to reviewing the 100+ tracker entries for multiprocessing, who 
had expressed a willingness to handle complex and neglected tasks, and who was 
recommended by an active core developer.

If someone of his stature faces an uphill battle, then perhaps there is reason 
to worry.


Raymond
___
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

[R. David Murray]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 21:31:44 +, Brett Cannon  wrote:
> I guess I'm just worried about the health of this project. I'm doing what I
> can through the migration to GitHub to make it easier for others to get
> involved while making it easier for us to accept the work of others, but
> the maintenance and health of this team worries me. For instance, if you
> look at the developer's log you will notice we only gained 2 core devs for
> all of 2015 and the last one was August 2015:
> https://docs.python.org/devguide/developers.html. 2013 was the next slowest
> year with 4, but most years are much closer to 10 than 0. We also still
> have no female or minority members.

Remember how new committers happen: current committers notice their
contributions on the tracker, suggest they be given the commit bit and
offer to mentor them, and we take a poll.  The critical bits here are
(1) noticing and (2) being willing to mentor.  So, if we want more
committers, current ones need to put forth the effort to monitor active
bugs, evaluate prospects, and recommend and mentor them.  And hopefully
do some mentoring via the bug tracker to get more people commit-bit ready.

This is a catch 22: we need more active committers in order to get
more active committers.  But we know that; that question is what to do
about it.

I the past few years I've monitored the bug tracker fairly closely, and
watched for good prospects, and recommended or inspired the recommendation
of several.  Right now I don't have the time to monitor the bug tracker
the way I had been and watch people the way I had been, so I won't be
in a position to recommend anyone for the next while

--David

PS: Actually, let me throw out that the people that had been at the
top of my list before I stopped were eryksun, paul.j3 (for argparse),
and davin (for multiprocessing).  And I suspect maciej.szulik is also a
candidate once we've seen a few more patches from him.  (And I need
to find the time to review the ones he has already submitted in the
email area.)

Someone or ones should look at tracker activity by username and see if
they can find some more candidates.
___
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 03/04/2016 04:07 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:


We also still have no female or minority members.


Well, I'n not female, but I am of Native American / Latino descent.  So 
you have at least one.  :)


And yes, those extremely low numbers of new committers are a bit 
worrying.  :(


--
~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

[Eric Snow]

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Brett Cannon  wrote:
> When I thought about this the other week after a
> cranky email to python-dev appeared I realized that the CoC isn't exactly
> advertised so that people know they shouldn't act mean here like they might
> in other corners of the internet where it's tolerated. I thought perhaps if
> we took this one time to make it officially in effect then it would remove
> at least one tiny barrier that might be holding up people from getting more
> involved. I certainly don't want any morality police, but I do want people
> to know that Python development is not one of the mean, cesspool corners of
> the internet either. And so I figured adding a link at the bottom of a
> couple of things would be a minor thing and a nice gesture to newcomers. I
> didn't mean for it to seem like a perpetual burden for anyone or a deterrent
> to contributing.

Perhaps it would be sufficient to reference the CoC on each list's
page rather than in each email footer.  Then it's not so in-your-face
(not that I had visually noticed that it was already added on
recently).

-eric
___
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 Fri, 4 Mar 2016 at 15:07 R. David Murray  wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 21:31:44 +, Brett Cannon  wrote:
> > The discussion about the Code of Conduct has sputtered out, so I'm going
> to
> > assume those who care to speak up have at this point. It seems to me that
> > the general agreement is that putting python-dev and bugs.python.org
> under
> > the CoC might not solve any real issues we currently have, but it won't
> > hurt anything either (and both python-committers and python-ideas are
> > already covered). And since the CoC might make some people feel more
> > comfortable in participating, that means going ahead and flipping on the
> > CoC where we reasonably can.
>
> I guess I have one more thing to say.
>
> Thinking about this, I realized that in fact this emphasis on the CoC is
> making me feel less like contributing.  I doesn't feel like a large
> effect, but it is real[*].  Just thought you should know :)
>

I'm sorry if that's what this thread has caused for you, David, and it's
obviously not what I'm after.

I guess I'm just worried about the health of this project. I'm doing what I
can through the migration to GitHub to make it easier for others to get
involved while making it easier for us to accept the work of others, but
the maintenance and health of this team worries me. For instance, if you
look at the developer's log you will notice we only gained 2 core devs for
all of 2015 and the last one was August 2015:
https://docs.python.org/devguide/developers.html. 2013 was the next slowest
year with 4, but most years are much closer to 10 than 0. We also still
have no female or minority members.

Now I'm not advocating for some quota for adding new members or that they
have to meet some minority group status, but we should be aware of this and
perhaps ask why this is. When I thought about this the other week after a
cranky email to python-dev appeared I realized that the CoC isn't exactly
advertised so that people know they shouldn't act mean here like they might
in other corners of the internet where it's tolerated. I thought perhaps if
we took this one time to make it officially in effect then it would remove
at least one tiny barrier that might be holding up people from getting more
involved. I certainly don't want any morality police, but I do want people
to know that Python development is not one of the mean, cesspool corners of
the internet either. And so I figured adding a link at the bottom of a
couple of things would be a minor thing and a nice gesture to newcomers. I
didn't mean for it to seem like a perpetual burden for anyone or a
deterrent to contributing.

-Brett


>
> --David
>
> [*] I think it is a feeling of annoyance, like I'm being nagged for
> no good reason, inclining me to turn my attention away instead of joyfully
> engaging.  Talking about how welcoming the Python community is, and how we
> can be more so, engenders joy.  Talking about codes of conduct engenders
> annoyance.  Regardless of the reality, it *feels* like the bureaucrats
> have moved in and are squashing the native aliveness of 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/
>
___
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 03/04/2016 03:07 PM, R. David Murray wrote:

> I guess I have one more thing to say.

[snip]

> [*] I think it is a feeling of annoyance, like I'm being nagged for
> no good reason [...]

I'm inclined to agree, but some bureaucracy is the price of success.  Be 
grateful somebody else is willing to do the work of getting it in place, 
so we don't have to.  ;)


--
~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

[Brett Cannon]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 at 14:04 M.-A. Lemburg  wrote:

> Brett,
>
> I don't think that spamming all MLs, Github accounts, etc.
> with CoC notices will help anyone.
>

Which is not what I'm suggesting nor would I want to do unless it's a
stated change in policy so people feel properly notified.


>
> You may not be aware, but all PSF infrastructure is covered by
> the PSF CoC already, and has been for quite a while:
>
> """
>  RESOLVED, that the Python Software Foundation shall manage and curate
> the Foundation's public
> and member-accessible web properties to remove spam, serve the membership,
> and conform to the the
> Python Community Code of Conduct.
>
> Approved 9-0-0 by IRC vote, 3 January, 2014.
> """
>

That's great, but how are people to know this if they don't read the
minutes of the board? Is it considered too much if I link to the minutes in
the devguide so people know about this (
https://www.python.org/psf/records/board/minutes/2014-01-06/#management-of-the-psfs-web-properties
)?


>
> All PSF members have acknowledged this and adding yet another
> notice to each and every point of interaction will not make
> things better.
>

I'm not worried about PSF members, it's all the new folk who are just
"walking off the street" and are looking to contribute.


>
> If there are issues, point people to the CoC. Otherwise, let's
> not get all tangled up in CoC links everywhere :-)
>

Fair enough, but I would like at least one canonical location to link to
that bit of the minutes so that it's somewhere a bit more public. Is a link
in the devguide considered acceptable?

-Brett


>
> We can get the 16 ton weight out when needed...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U90dnUbZMmM
>
> and optionally even send the tiger.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Marc-Andre Lemburg
>
>
> On 04.03.2016 22:31, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > The discussion about the Code of Conduct has sputtered out, so I'm going
> to
> > assume those who care to speak up have at this point. It seems to me that
> > the general agreement is that putting python-dev and bugs.python.org
> under
> > the CoC might not solve any real issues we currently have, but it won't
> > hurt anything either (and both python-committers and python-ideas are
> > already covered). And since the CoC might make some people feel more
> > comfortable in participating, that means going ahead and flipping on the
> > CoC where we reasonably can.
> >
> > So what I will do is try to convince the managers of python-dev to put it
> > under the CoC and get the CoC mentioned in the footer of
> bugs.python.org.
> > I will update the devguide to say that the various mailing lists and
> issue
> > tracker are under the CoC so people are aware, but I won't go as far as I
> > was originally proposing about covering all public, Python-related
> > interactions. Once we move to GitHub we will most likely have a
> > CONTRIBUTING file that links to the devguide and that file will mention
> > that interactions involving the repo are under the CoC (or some other
> > wording that says pull requests fall under the Code of Conduct).
> >
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 at 11:29 Brett Cannon  wrote:
> >
> >> I noticed that the devguide didn't explicitly mention that core
> developers
> >> were expected to follow the PSF CoC (
> >> https://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html and
> >> https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/, respectively). I have opened
> >> http://bugs.python.org/issue26446 to make sure it gets documented.
> >>
> >> Since this is technically a modification of the requirements of getting
> >> commit privileges I wanted to mention it here before I (or anyone else)
> >> made the change.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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/
> >
>
> --
> Marc-Andre Lemburg
> eGenix.com
>
> Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Mar 04 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

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

[R. David Murray]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 21:31:44 +, Brett Cannon  wrote:
> The discussion about the Code of Conduct has sputtered out, so I'm going to
> assume those who care to speak up have at this point. It seems to me that
> the general agreement is that putting python-dev and bugs.python.org under
> the CoC might not solve any real issues we currently have, but it won't
> hurt anything either (and both python-committers and python-ideas are
> already covered). And since the CoC might make some people feel more
> comfortable in participating, that means going ahead and flipping on the
> CoC where we reasonably can.

I guess I have one more thing to say.

Thinking about this, I realized that in fact this emphasis on the CoC is
making me feel less like contributing.  I doesn't feel like a large
effect, but it is real[*].  Just thought you should know :)

--David

[*] I think it is a feeling of annoyance, like I'm being nagged for
no good reason, inclining me to turn my attention away instead of joyfully
engaging.  Talking about how welcoming the Python community is, and how we
can be more so, engenders joy.  Talking about codes of conduct engenders
annoyance.  Regardless of the reality, it *feels* like the bureaucrats
have moved in and are squashing the native aliveness of 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/

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

[Brett Cannon]

The discussion about the Code of Conduct has sputtered out, so I'm going to
assume those who care to speak up have at this point. It seems to me that
the general agreement is that putting python-dev and bugs.python.org under
the CoC might not solve any real issues we currently have, but it won't
hurt anything either (and both python-committers and python-ideas are
already covered). And since the CoC might make some people feel more
comfortable in participating, that means going ahead and flipping on the
CoC where we reasonably can.

So what I will do is try to convince the managers of python-dev to put it
under the CoC and get the CoC mentioned in the footer of  bugs.python.org.
I will update the devguide to say that the various mailing lists and issue
tracker are under the CoC so people are aware, but I won't go as far as I
was originally proposing about covering all public, Python-related
interactions. Once we move to GitHub we will most likely have a
CONTRIBUTING file that links to the devguide and that file will mention
that interactions involving the repo are under the CoC (or some other
wording that says pull requests fall under the Code of Conduct).

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 at 11:29 Brett Cannon  wrote:

> I noticed that the devguide didn't explicitly mention that core developers
> were expected to follow the PSF CoC (
> https://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html and
> https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/, respectively). I have opened
> http://bugs.python.org/issue26446 to make sure it gets documented.
>
> Since this is technically a modification of the requirements of getting
> commit privileges I wanted to mention it here before I (or anyone else)
> made the change.
>
___
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

[Nick Coghlan]

On 2 March 2016 at 05:44, R. David Murray  wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 19:00:21 +, Brett Cannon  wrote:
>> Now obviously I could be totally wrong and this isn't an actual barrier for
>> getting women or ethnic minorities to participate in Python's development.
>
> Yeah, there's no way to know, as far as I can see.  But I think our
> *being* welcoming is way, *way* more important than our *saying* we are
> welcoming.

Words that weren't backed up by behaviour would be false advertising,
and hence far more problematic than silence or an explicit statement
that an environment is deliberately adversarial.

However, it also isn't reasonable for open source projects to expect
potential contributors to invest weeks or months in assessing their
likely treatment if they speak up on a mailing list or submit a new
patch - it turns out that having the kind of spare time needed to
speculatively invest in following a community for long enough to make
that kind of judgement for ourselves is a rare luxury.

That's where written behavioural commitments can help - as long as
they accurately reflect the way that community members actually strive
to conduct themselves, than it helps newcomers better assess "Am I
likely to feel comfortable here?".

Regards,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncogh...@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
___
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

[R. David Murray]

On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 19:00:21 +, Brett Cannon  wrote:
> I don't want this discussion to drag on forever as CoC discussions tend to,

Agreed, I made my point and don't otherwise feel a need to engage in
further discussion.  Unless someone pushes one of my buttons, I
suppose :)

> Now obviously I could be totally wrong and this isn't an actual barrier for
> getting women or ethnic minorities to participate in Python's development.

Yeah, there's no way to know, as far as I can see.  But I think our
*being* welcoming is way, *way* more important than our *saying* we are
welcoming.

--David
___
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

[Alexander Belopolsky]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:36 PM, R. David Murray 
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 04:10:08 +, Brett Cannon  wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 at 18:01 Steven D'Aprano 
wrote:
> > > 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
>
> Just so Steven doesn't think he's a minority of one, let me say that I
> too find CoCs problematic.

I did not think I would ever reply in this thread, but its 25+ messages in
my inbox made me click on the CoC link and actually read it.

As a result, I am truly puzzled.  The CoC just states "we're good to each
other" in not so many words.  The dispute over Brett not being good to
others by stating that we all are reminds me of the Russell's paradox. [1]

I suggest that we deal with the question "Does CoC apply to core
developers?" in the same manner the modern set theory deals with the Barber
problem.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox
___
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

[Paul Moore]

On 1 March 2016 at 17:36, R. David Murray  wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 04:10:08 +, Brett Cannon  wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 at 18:01 Steven D'Aprano  wrote:
>> > 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
>
> Just so Steven doesn't think he's a minority of one, let me say that I
> too find CoCs problematic.  I have a code of conduct, and it applies to my
> *life*.  For shorthand, you could call it "being a gentleman", but a more
> modern term might be "being civil".  Do I fail to live up to my personal
> code occasionally?  Yes, and I hope people call me on it when I do fail.
> Do I care what code of conduct the organization has promulgated?  No.
> It has no affect on my behavior, nor will it.  At most, it might drive
> me from the community if it is ever used against me.

Let me also add that I have little or no interest in codes of conduct.
I don't *object* to them (specifically I have no problem with the
Python CoC or it being applied to core devs in relevant situations)
but it seems to me that they are becoming a bit of a "trendy thing to
have" rather than anything of any particular substance.

But ultimately what matters is that people who feel unwelcome, or
discriminated against, have said that they help lessen such problems -
so that's fine by me. I'm 100% behind doing whatever makes such people
feel better about participating in the community.

Contrariwise, I wouldn't feel any need to refer to a CoC when calling
someone out on bad behaviour - if pointing out that they are being
unpleasant isn't enough then waving a set of rules at them won't help.
And if *I* ever behave badly, I'd expect people to simply say so, not
to quote a CoC at me.

Going into specifics:

Brett - I don't have any problem with what you did, or the changes you
want to make.
Steven - you make some good points that I think people should keep in mind
But overall, arguing over the specifics of how we set our expectations
that people simply be nice to each other is basically a bit silly, and
if we let it go on, could easily result in the opposite effect from
what was intended.

That's about all I have to say on this matter.
Paul
___
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

[R. David Murray]

On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 04:10:08 +, Brett Cannon  wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 at 18:01 Steven D'Aprano  wrote:
> > 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

Just so Steven doesn't think he's a minority of one, let me say that I
too find CoCs problematic.  I have a code of conduct, and it applies to my
*life*.  For shorthand, you could call it "being a gentleman", but a more
modern term might be "being civil".  Do I fail to live up to my personal
code occasionally?  Yes, and I hope people call me on it when I do fail.
Do I care what code of conduct the organization has promulgated?  No.
It has no affect on my behavior, nor will it.  At most, it might drive
me from the community if it is ever used against me.

Referencing a CoC will only work at all with those who are self-governed
by a personal code of civility.  Yet all such people need is to have it
pointed out to them that they have been uncivil, with reference to the
universal code of civility and/or a civil discussion about civility in
the immediate context.

Those who are not already self-governed by a personal code of civility
will not be bound by the CoC, though they may give it lip service and
carry on a long, probably uncivil, argument about the rules embodied in
the CoC.

Against those who are not self-governed, only power plays, which
ultimately probably means expulsion by technical means, will work...and
what matters it if you reference that expulsion to a specific code of
conduct, or the universal one?

How it actually matters is that people who are not civil will "rules
lawyer" you on the specific one if you have one and you attempt to use it
to police their behavior.  Worse, they will use it to "rules lawyer" people
they don't like or whose opinions they object to.

When things get bad enough that a call to (universal) civility is not
enough, ultimately someone has to make the call.  That person might
as well do it based on their own moral code, as the "owner" of the
resource[*], and not have to try to justify it based on some specific set
of rules-on-paper.  They are going to take flak for making the decision
anyway, so why hand the uncivil an extra weapon?

Note that I am not saying that there aren't/weren't problems.  Those
problems need to be (and are) addressed *universally* by a change in
civic culture via the cultural dialog that is always going on around us.
Discussions of what civility is in the context of specific incidents are
an important part of that.  Specific codes of conduct, on the other hand,
very often make the problem *worse*, and delay the implementation of
beneficial cultural shifts, because they attempt to freeze the rules,
very often do it badly, and thus become instead a weapon in the hands
of the uncivil and/or the power hungry.

All that said, the Python CoC is not a bad restatement of parts of the
universal code, so it is hopefully less subject to this abuse than
others that I have seen.  For that I am thankful.  As I am thankful
that the Python community rarely has conflicts that rise to the level of
intransigent uncivility.  The fundamental civility of this community is
one of the things that I value about it, even if it isn't quite perfect :)

--David

[*] Yes, in our case that is ultimately Guido, as Brett indicated.
___
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

[Thomas Wouters]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Stefan Krah  wrote:

> Sorry, this is a huge strawman. Core developers are already very much on a
> level playing field.
>

The intent of the CoC isn't just about protecting the current community
members. It's also about making it open and inviting to *new members*. The
core-dev community, despite best efforts, can easily be seen as an "good
old boys club". Making it clear that we don't *intend* for it to be that
way is a good step to make.


> If you want, I can post a IRC log where people who are
> undoubtedly in favor of the CoC a) gossip about two core devs, b) ask if
> said core-devs "had any influence", and c) make fun of the works of said
> core-devs.
>

All the more reason to point them to the CoC and ask if they would be more
considerate.


> Some of these people have impeccable manners on mailing lists, and not
> addressing Machiavellianism is one of the most glaring flaws of this CoC.
>

It's proven quite hard to draft a CoC -- or any document -- that everyone
agrees to *and* covers everything everyone wants. I wish it were more
explicit about certain things, and more condemning, but I'm glad to have it
to refer to anyway. (I frequently refer to it on #python on Freenode.)


> I'm quite upset about you bringing in "kicking downward" (even if qualified
> by a smiley).
>

It was not meant as a personal attack, merely a reaction to what I
perceived as you making light of the idea of a CoC. I see that I was
mistaken, so I'm sorry.

-- 
Thomas Wouters 

Hi! I'm an email virus! Think twice before sending your email to help me
spread!
___
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

[Antoine Pitrou]

Le 01/03/2016 10:50, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
> 
> Monty Python have ridiculed militant practices and jargon in the past
> (e.g. the anarcho-syndicalist commune in Holy Grail, or the various
> Liberation Fronts in Life Of Brian).  I'm sure if the CoC frenzy had
> appeared in the 1970s they'd have made fun of it too.

Btw I'll admit the word "frenzy" isn't very fortunate here.  CoCs
certainly have their uses.  It would be nice if people like Anita
Sarkeesian didn't have to go through insults and threats every day...

Regards

Antoine.
___
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

[Antoine Pitrou]

Le 01/03/2016 10:33, Thomas Wouters a écrit :
> 
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Stefan Krah  > wrote:
> 
> Wondering what a Monty Python episode about CoCs would look like ...
> 
> I think you're misunderstanding Monty Python's humour if you think
> they'd have made one about the CoC :) They were very much for punching
> upward, not kicking downward.

Why would ridiculing a CoC have anything to do about kicking downward?
Promoters of CoCs are certainly mostly found in the same social classes
as their detractors.

Monty Python have ridiculed militant practices and jargon in the past
(e.g. the anarcho-syndicalist commune in Holy Grail, or the various
Liberation Fronts in Life Of Brian).  I'm sure if the CoC frenzy had
appeared in the 1970s they'd have made fun of it too.

Note ridiculing a CoC is not the same thing as ridiculing marginalized
people, just as ridiculing a self-proclaimed "Workers' Party" is not the
same thing as ridiculing factory workers.

Regards

Antoine.
___
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

[Stefan Krah]

Thomas Wouters  python.org> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Stefan Krah  bytereef.org>
wrote:Wondering what a Monty Python episode about CoCs would look like ...
> 
> I think you're misunderstanding Monty Python's humour if you think they'd
have made one about the CoC :) They were very much for punching upward, not
kicking downward. They ridiculed themselves and the environments they came
from, not those thinking of others. Certainly not measures taken to make the
playing field more open and clear for everyone. (Contrast with, say, South
Park, which inherited Monty Python's visual humour with an entirely
different stance on social responsibility ;P)

Sorry, this is a huge strawman. Core developers are already very much on a
level playing field.  If you want, I can post a IRC log where people who are
undoubtedly in favor of the CoC a) gossip about two core devs, b) ask if
said core-devs "had any influence", and c) make fun of the works of said
core-devs.

Some of these people have impeccable manners on mailing lists, and not
addressing Machiavellianism is one of the most glaring flaws of this CoC.


I'm quite upset about you bringing in "kicking downward" (even if qualified
by a smiley).



Stefan Krah


 

___
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

[Thomas Wouters]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Stefan Krah  wrote:

> Wondering what a Monty Python episode about CoCs would look like ...
>

I think you're misunderstanding Monty Python's humour if you think they'd
have made one about the CoC :) They were very much for punching upward, not
kicking downward. They ridiculed themselves and the environments they came
from, not those thinking of others. Certainly not measures taken to make
the playing field more open and clear for everyone. (Contrast with, say,
South Park, which inherited Monty Python's visual humour with an entirely
different stance on social responsibility ;P)

-- 
Thomas Wouters 

Hi! I'm an email virus! Think twice before sending your email to help me
spread!
___
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

[Stefan Krah]

M.-A. Lemburg  egenix.com> writes:
> > This particular CoC specifically addresses conference misbehavior, which is
> > fine.
> 
> The PSF CoC has a focus on community interaction, not on conferences.
> It's different from eg. the PyCon US conference CoC.

Consider me schooled. :)


> Mix all that with a good dose of Monty Python's don't-take-yourself-
> too-seriously, add some Tim Peters takes-one-to-know-one-ly and
> I believe we can all be on the same page 
> 
> Hmm, perhaps we ought to make reading some Python humor a
> prerequisite for core developers instead...

I would throw in "Life of Brian" (in particular the "we are all individuals"
dialogue) and "Yes Minister" (don't get me started on that one).

Wondering what a Monty Python episode about CoCs would look like ...


Stefan Krah



___
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 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/

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

[Georg Brandl]

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.

cheers,
Georg

___
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 02/28/2016 11:10 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:


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; I seriously thought it wasn't going to be an issue. But since it
is for  some I promise I won't make any change to the devguide unless
clear consensus can be reached or Guido tells me to flat-out (just like
any other change that affects Python).


+1 for CoC.  Better to have expectations written down so nobody has to 
guess.


--
~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

[Terry Reedy]

On 2/28/2016 3:56 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:

Hi,

2016-02-26 20:29 GMT+01:00 Brett Cannon :

I noticed that the devguide didn't explicitly mention that core developers
were expected to follow the PSF CoC
(https://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html and
https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/, respectively). I have opened
http://bugs.python.org/issue26446 to make sure it gets documented.

Since this is technically a modification of the requirements of getting
commit privileges I wanted to mention it here before I (or anyone else) made
the change.


I'm fine with this change. Especially core developers must respect the
CoC, give the example ;-)


+1, for reasons of other examples.

tjr


___
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, 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.

-Brett


> I hope, Steven, you're by now convinced that this wasn't a cloak-and-dagger
> operation (really, for volunteer work there is no such thing as "business
> hours").
>
> Neither is it a unique thing for a python.org mailing list. This is
> especially
> important: what is so different about python-ideas that it needs the CoC,
> while -committers doesn't?  Much better to be consistent and to have the
> same
> standards applied to every list (eventually).
>
> cheers,
> Georg
>
> ___
> 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/
>
___
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

[Georg Brandl]

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 hope, Steven, you're by now convinced that this wasn't a cloak-and-dagger
operation (really, for volunteer work there is no such thing as "business
hours").

Neither is it a unique thing for a python.org mailing list. This is especially
important: what is so different about python-ideas that it needs the CoC,
while -committers doesn't?  Much better to be consistent and to have the same
standards applied to every list (eventually).

cheers,
Georg

___
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 Sat, 27 Feb 2016 at 18:33 Steven D'Aprano  wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 05:17:50PM +, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> [...]
> > After a rather rude email on python-dev
>
> I haven't noticed this email. Care to link to it? We should be allowed
> to see what sort of behaviour is likely to treated as officially
> unacceptable in the future.
>

https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-February/143417.html is
the key email (there were two before it where tensions started to rise; you
can see my public response later in that thread.


>
> I think this is actually a very important point. I've seen forums and
> discussion groups where the enforcement of faux-politeness and "being
> friendly and positive" and "no jerks allowed" makes the place extremely
> hostile to anyone who doesn't follow the majority opinion.


I have never seen this happen in the Python community.


> Where even
> polite disagreement is seen as "being a jerk".


That would go against the very first part of the PSF CoC about being open.


> Since rudeness is so
> subjective, formal prohibitions on being "rude" is a potent weapon for
> groups to hijack a community by labelling anything and anyone they don't
> like as "rude". So I think it is important for us to know what you
> consider is rude enough to require a CoC.
>


>
>
> [...]
> > When people know they are expected to behave in a
> > civil manner and others know they are allowed to call someone out for
> being
> > uncivil it typically is enough to make people behave.
>
> You don't need a CoC for that. Social expectations apply even without a
> formal set of rules.
>

That is not the experience I've had on python-ideas. Since I implemented
the CoC over there I think the discourse has cleaned up a good amount.


>
>
> > So there is no issue of people "being overburdened by regulations". The
> CoC
> > only comes up when someone is being so rude that they need to be talked
> to
> > about their attitude  problem,
>
> Who judges that point?


Just like any other point discussed here; either we reach consensus as a
group or Guido makes a final call.


> 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).


> It is pushy and obnoxious
> and breeds resentment and is exactly the sort of reason why some people
> are deeply suspicious of CoCs. And when it happens on a Friday night,
> when people are likely to be away from their computers...
>
> http://politicaldictionary.com/words/friday-news-dump/


It happened Friday night because that's when I read the email on python-dev
that triggered me to go through all the mailing lists I manage and make
sure they mention the PSF CoC applies there.  There was no purposeful trick
to try and sneak this through (if I was trying to sneak it in then I did a
bad job by bringing this up here and/or not just committing the update
immediately). I'm not sure how you manage your Python contribution time,
but for me I don't have as much as I like and so I seize on it when I can
and I don't pay attention to what day of the week it is.


>
>
> My employer learned the hard lesson that even "self-evidently and
> obviously correct" policy changes need a consultation period before
> making official. No single manager can be allowed to make unilateral
> policy changes for the entire group without giving the other relevant
> managers time to respond. Python is over 20 years old and the core devs
> have managed without a CoC for all that time.


I'm quite aware of that having been a core dev for 13 of those years. But
that doesn't mean we can't improve the situation. And this is more about
giving people outside of the core dev group piece of mind than it is about
explicitly worrying about a core dev violating the CoC. I do not want
people thinking we are above reproach, and so I thought it would be good to
publicly state that we are not and we hold ourselves to the same standards
we expect everyone to follow at every major Python conference, on mailing
lists, etc. when it involves us representing Python and the other core devs
on this list.


> 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 honestly didn't expect it
to be that controversial at this point which is why the email is almost
nonchalant in saying that I viewed posting here as a technicality. I
seriously thought we 

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

[Nick Coghlan]

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.
That's grossly disrespectful of everyone's time and energy, include
that of the person that's shouting into the wilderness rather than
receiving direct and constructive feedback on which aspects of their
behaviour are problematic.

Everyone ends up being much better off in the long run if we're
explicit about "Don't be a jerk in this environment", rather than
pushing the task of putting up with jerkish behaviour back onto
individual participants. Things only need to escalate to suspensions
and bans if someone proves to be utterly incapable of either
moderating their own behaviour or else realising that being involved
in Python core development may not be the right activity for them (and
I'm personally only aware of one case where we've had to resort to an
outright permaban to protect the interests of other volunteers)

> Or maybe people could be a bit more flexible in what behaviour they
> accept from others and a bit less quick to label others as jerks?
>
> 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?

This is why *writing things down* instead of just assuming that
everybody has a shared understanding of what the phrase "don't be a
jerk" means is so important.

>> And I would hope none of us are jerks to people in the community,
>
> If I knew what you considered "a jerk", then I might be able to say
> whether I agreed or disagreed. For all I know, you might consider this
> email to be nothing but me being a jerk.

It doesn't read to me as you being a jerk, but it does read to me as
you responding without actually reading the PSF Community Code of
Conduct that Brett linked to.

Quoting the document in its entirety:

===
The Python community is made up of members from around the globe with
a diverse set of skills, personalities, and experiences. It is through
these differences that our community experiences great successes and
continued growth. When you're working with members of the community,
we encourage you to follow these guidelines which help steer our
interactions and strive to keep Python a positive, successful, and
growing community.

A member of the Python community is:

Open

Members of the community are open to collaboration, whether it's on
PEPs, patches, problems, or otherwise. We're receptive to constructive
comment and criticism, as the experiences and skill sets of other
members contribute to the whole of our efforts. We're accepting of all
who wish to take part in our activities, fostering an environment
where anyone can participate and everyone can make a difference.

Considerate

Members of the community are considerate of their peers -- other
Python users. We're thoughtful when addressing the efforts of others,
keeping in mind that often times the labor was completed simply for
the good of the community. We're attentive in our communications,
whether in person or online, and we're tactful when approaching
differing views.

Respectful

Members of the community are respectful. We're respectful of others,
their positions, their skills, their commitments, and their efforts.
We're respectful of the volunteer efforts that permeate the Python
community. We're respectful of the processes set forth in the
community, and we work within them. When we disagree, we are courteous
in raising our issues.

Overall, we're good to each other. We contribute to this community not
because we have to, but because we want to. If we remember that, these
guidelines will come naturally.
===

For mailing lists, the enforcement procedures are the same as those
that have existed on all mailing lists since time immemorial: the list
moderators have full authority to impose forced moderation and
outright bans on folks that they consider to be interfering with the
list's ability to achieve its intended purpose.

There's a *different* document, which I assume is the one Stefan is
referring to given his mention of conferences, which is the one used
to define acceptable behaviour at PyCon US:
https://us.pycon.org/2015/about/code-of-conduct/

Again, that is about putting behavioural 

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

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 05:17:50PM +, Brett Cannon wrote:

[...]
> After a rather rude email on python-dev 

I haven't noticed this email. Care to link to it? We should be allowed 
to see what sort of behaviour is likely to treated as officially 
unacceptable in the future.

I think this is actually a very important point. I've seen forums and 
discussion groups where the enforcement of faux-politeness and "being 
friendly and positive" and "no jerks allowed" makes the place extremely 
hostile to anyone who doesn't follow the majority opinion. Where even 
polite disagreement is seen as "being a jerk". Since rudeness is so 
subjective, formal prohibitions on being "rude" is a potent weapon for 
groups to hijack a community by labelling anything and anyone they don't 
like as "rude". So I think it is important for us to know what you 
consider is rude enough to require a CoC.


[...]
> When people know they are expected to behave in a
> civil manner and others know they are allowed to call someone out for being
> uncivil it typically is enough to make people behave.

You don't need a CoC for that. Social expectations apply even without a 
formal set of rules.


> So there is no issue of people "being overburdened by regulations". The CoC
> only comes up when someone is being so rude that they need to be talked to
> about their attitude  problem, 

Who judges that point? 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 is pushy and obnoxious 
and breeds resentment and is exactly the sort of reason why some people 
are deeply suspicious of CoCs. And when it happens on a Friday night, 
when people are likely to be away from their computers...

http://politicaldictionary.com/words/friday-news-dump/

My employer learned the hard lesson that even "self-evidently and 
obviously correct" policy changes need a consultation period before 
making official. No single manager can be allowed to make unilateral 
policy changes for the entire group without giving the other relevant 
managers time to respond. Python is over 20 years old and the core devs 
have managed without a CoC for all that time. You could have, should 
have, waited a few days before seemingly ramming this policy change in 
behind people's backs.


> so as long as we try and keep people from
> being rude  it won't come up. Quite frankly, the CoC is really just meant
> as a way for people to feel comfortable in knowing they don't have to
> tolerate jerks.

Nobody *has* to tolerate jerks, especially on an email forum. Just 
filter their emails into the trash.

Or maybe people could be a bit more flexible in what behaviour they 
accept from others and a bit less quick to label others as jerks?

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?


> And I would hope none of us are jerks to people in the community,

If I knew what you considered "a jerk", then I might be able to say 
whether I agreed or disagreed. For all I know, you might consider this 
email to be nothing but me being a jerk.



-- 
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

[Stefan Krah]

Brett Cannon  python.org> writes:

> I noticed that the devguide didn't explicitly mention that core developers
were expected to follow the PSF CoC
(https://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html and
https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/, respectively). I have
opened http://bugs.python.org/issue26446 to make sure it gets documented.
> Since this is technically a modification of the requirements of getting
commit privileges I wanted to mention it here before I (or anyone else) made
the change.

When I started here, the PSF and python-dev were considered disjoint
entities (quoting MvL from memory). Looking at

  https://www.python.org/psf/records/board/history/ ,

half of the current directors have never appeared anywhere on the python-dev
infrastructure, most notably on python-checkins.

Contrast this with e.g. the period of 2003-2004, where I still know all of
the directors even though I did not know Python at that time!

Some very prolific contributors do not appear in the list of PSF members at all.


This particular CoC specifically addresses conference misbehavior, which is
fine.  No CoC short of an 800 page volume can address the many forms of
human shortcomings in more complex situations.  I'm not going to go into
detail here, but "suaviter in modo, fortiter in re", even though usually
depicted as desirable behavior, can easily lead to more stagnation and
friction than occasional superficial impoliteness.


I think python-dev should remain an entity where interested people can just
come and "hack on something" instead of being overburdened by regulations.


As for the devguide, briefly mentioning the categorical imperative should
suffice. ;)



Stefan Krah


















___
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/