Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers
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 [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[python-committers] This mailing list is now under the PSF CoC
I have updated the list's info page as well as the footer for this mailing list to denote this fact. ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] 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
On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 at 04:10 Stefan Krah wrote: > 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. > They are separate organizations. The PSF isn't mandating any of this. After a rather rude email on python-dev I realized we had never clearly stated anywhere that we expect people to be civil on various mailing lists or that we expect all core devs to represent Python by being civil in their interactions with the community. > > 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. > 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. > > > As for the devguide, briefly mentioning the categorical imperative should > suffice. ;) > As long as we don't require them to actually read Kant, it probably would make a decent CoC. :) ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] 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
On 27.02.2016 13:07, Stefan Krah wrote: > 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. The PSF CoC has a focus on community interaction, not on conferences. It's different from eg. the PyCon US conference CoC. > 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. ;) While I don't like the term "code of conduct", I do believe that the text itself provides a reasonable summary of what we all expect from Python community interactions. It's certainly more easily comprehensible than philosophical models of moral and ethics such as Kant's categorical imperative or the more modern discourse ethics of Habermas. 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... https://www.python.org/doc/humor/ Only-half-joking-ly, -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Feb 27 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 [email protected] 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
On Saturday, February 27, 2016, Stefan Krah wrote: > 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. FYI It has nothing to do with conferences. ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] 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
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 [email protected] 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
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 expectations in writing since we
