[Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah

[Brett Cannon]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 2:55 PM Toshio Kuratomi  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020, 5:30 AM Christian Heimes 
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/10/2020 04.04, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
>> > I don't see the point of requiring to "write an apology", especially
>> > *before a 12-month ban*. If they understand that their behavior is
>> > wrong, there's no need for a ban, at least not such a long one; if they
>> > don't, they clearly aren't going to write it, at least not now (they
>> > might later, after a few weeks or months, having cooled down and thought
>> > it over). So all it would achieve is public shaming AFAICS. Same issue
>> > with the threat of "zero tolerance policy" -- it's completely
>> > unnecessary and only serves to humiliate and alienate the recipient.
>>
>>
>> I have been the victim of Stefan's CoC violations on more than one
>> occasion. He added me to nosy list of a ticket just to offend and
>> humiliate me. For this reason I personally asked the SC to make a
>> sincere apology a mandatory requirement for Stefan's reinstatement as a
>> core dev.
>>
>> I would have been fine with a private apology. However Stefan has also
>> verbally attacked non-core contributors. In one case another core dev
>> and I contacted the contribute in private to apologize and ensure that
>> the contributor was not alienated by Stefan's attitude. Therefore it
>> makes sense that the SC has requested a public, general apology.
>>
>> Why are you more concerned with the reputation of a repeated offender
>> and not with the feelings of multiple victims of harassment? As a victim
>> of Stefan's behavior I feel that an apology is the first step to
>> reconcile and rebuild trust.
>>
>
> At the risk of putting my nose in where it doesn't belong... I think that
> Ivan has some good general points.  And i think that they could be
> distilled as this: if you are looking to correct bad behavior but allow a
> contributor to learn about proper behavior and then return to the
> community, the steps taken here seen counter-productive (1).  I would add a
> second piece to that: If, on the other hand, the goal is to remove a toxic
> person from the community whoneeds to go through major personality shifting
> changes before they can be allowed back, then this may be appropriate (2).
>
> For (1), what I'm getting from Ivan's post is that these measures are at a
> level that few (if any) people would be willing to fulfill them and then
> come back to be a non-bitter contributor. When the requirements are too
> costly for the violator to pay, they won't be able to learn and then pay
> those costs until they can disavow their former selves.  "i'm sorry i acted
> like that; i was a *different person* back then. I'm sorry that *past me*
> felt the need to hurt you."
>

And Stefan can still do that. As stated in the email we sent him, he can
still apply to become a core dev again after one year just like anyone else
out there. But I also expect that unless he has demonstrated remorse that
other core developers will not vote to bring him back in, nor would the SC
allow the reinstatement (which the SC is allowed via PEP 13).

But a key thing here is there are human beings who were hurt by what Stefan
did as well. It's a balance between treating Stefan justly but also getting
closure for the victims. And I think asking those who were on the receiving
end of mean behaviour to wait a whole year for a sense of closure is not
fair, hence why I supported asking for an apology upfront.


> I would think that in general, not necessarily this specific case, the
> steering committee would want to try taking steps to get people to learn
> proper behavior first and only resort to something which amounts to a de
> facto permanent ban when it becomes apparent that the person has to go
> through some major personality changes before their behavior will change.
>
> For (2), the steering committee is charged with protecting the community
> at large. A toxic person can cause great havoc by themselves and set the
> tone of a community such that other people feel that engaging in bad
> behavior is the proper thing to do in this community.  With that in mind,
> at some point, this kind of action has to be on the table.  It is great
> that pep-13 lists banning as a possibility so that people know where their
> actions can lead.
>
> One thing i would suggest, though, is documenting and, in general,
> following a sequence of progressively more strict interventions by the
> steering committee.  I think that just as it is harmful to the community to
> let bad behavior slide, it is also harmful to the community to not know
> that the steering committee's enforcement is in measured steps which will
> telegraph the committee's intentions and the member's responsibilities well
> in advance.
>

Documenting exact steps is really hard when it comes to a Code of Conduct.
Every case is unique and so rigid rules don't typically work well, e.g.
requiring everyone to get a warning 

[Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah

[Carol Willing]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 2:50 PM Toshio Kuratomi  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020, 5:30 AM Christian Heimes 
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/10/2020 04.04, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
>> > I don't see the point of requiring to "write an apology", especially
>> > *before a 12-month ban*. If they understand that their behavior is
>> > wrong, there's no need for a ban, at least not such a long one; if they
>> > don't, they clearly aren't going to write it, at least not now (they
>> > might later, after a few weeks or months, having cooled down and thought
>> > it over). So all it would achieve is public shaming AFAICS. Same issue
>> > with the threat of "zero tolerance policy" -- it's completely
>> > unnecessary and only serves to humiliate and alienate the recipient.
>>
>>
>> I have been the victim of Stefan's CoC violations on more than one
>> occasion. He added me to nosy list of a ticket just to offend and
>> humiliate me. For this reason I personally asked the SC to make a
>> sincere apology a mandatory requirement for Stefan's reinstatement as a
>> core dev.
>>
>> I would have been fine with a private apology. However Stefan has also
>> verbally attacked non-core contributors. In one case another core dev
>> and I contacted the contribute in private to apologize and ensure that
>> the contributor was not alienated by Stefan's attitude. Therefore it
>> makes sense that the SC has requested a public, general apology.
>>
>> Why are you more concerned with the reputation of a repeated offender
>> and not with the feelings of multiple victims of harassment? As a victim
>> of Stefan's behavior I feel that an apology is the first step to
>> reconcile and rebuild trust.
>>
>
> At the risk of putting my nose in where it doesn't belong... I think that
> Ivan has some good general points.  And i think that they could be
> distilled as this: if you are looking to correct bad behavior but allow a
> contributor to learn about proper behavior and then return to the
> community, the steps taken here seen counter-productive (1).  I would add a
> second piece to that: If, on the other hand, the goal is to remove a toxic
> person from the community whoneeds to go through major personality shifting
> changes before they can be allowed back, then this may be appropriate (2).
>
> For (1), what I'm getting from Ivan's post is that these measures are at a
> level that few (if any) people would be willing to fulfill them and then
> come back to be a non-bitter contributor. When the requirements are too
> costly for the violator to pay, they won't be able to learn and then pay
> those costs until they can disavow their former selves.  "i'm sorry i acted
> like that; i was a *different person* back then. I'm sorry that *past me*
> felt the need to hurt you."
>
> I would think that in general, not necessarily this specific case, the
> steering committee would want to try taking steps to get people to learn
> proper behavior first and only resort to something which amounts to a de
> facto permanent ban when it becomes apparent that the person has to go
> through some major personality changes before their behavior will change.
>
> For (2), the steering committee is charged with protecting the community
> at large. A toxic person can cause great havoc by themselves and set the
> tone of a community such that other people feel that engaging in bad
> behavior is the proper thing to do in this community.  With that in mind,
> at some point, this kind of action has to be on the table.  It is great
> that pep-13 lists banning as a possibility so that people know where their
> actions can lead.
>
> One thing i would suggest, though, is documenting and, in general,
> following a sequence of progressively more strict interventions by the
> steering committee.  I think that just as it is harmful to the community to
> let bad behavior slide, it is also harmful to the community to not know
> that the steering committee's enforcement is in measured steps which will
> telegraph the committee's intentions and the member's responsibilities well
> in advance.
>
>
Hi Toshio,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us in such a constructive manner. I
appreciate it.

Others on the Steering Council have done a good job of covering this
particular situation. All I will add to their comments is that we spent
many, many hours during our weekly meetings and via email and have tried to
be respectful and thoughtful in our decisions.

As for the additional information that you seek about process and
progressive actions, these two links, particularly the second, give more
details:

- https://devguide.python.org/#code-of-conduct
- https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/enforcement/

Thanks,

Carol



> This specific case may already have been out of hand by the time it came
> to the committee, the steering committee is relatively new and problems
> could have festered before they formed and started governing, but a new
> member of the community should know that if they 

[Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020, 5:30 AM Christian Heimes  wrote:

> On 09/10/2020 04.04, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
> > I don't see the point of requiring to "write an apology", especially
> > *before a 12-month ban*. If they understand that their behavior is
> > wrong, there's no need for a ban, at least not such a long one; if they
> > don't, they clearly aren't going to write it, at least not now (they
> > might later, after a few weeks or months, having cooled down and thought
> > it over). So all it would achieve is public shaming AFAICS. Same issue
> > with the threat of "zero tolerance policy" -- it's completely
> > unnecessary and only serves to humiliate and alienate the recipient.
>
>
> I have been the victim of Stefan's CoC violations on more than one
> occasion. He added me to nosy list of a ticket just to offend and
> humiliate me. For this reason I personally asked the SC to make a
> sincere apology a mandatory requirement for Stefan's reinstatement as a
> core dev.
>
> I would have been fine with a private apology. However Stefan has also
> verbally attacked non-core contributors. In one case another core dev
> and I contacted the contribute in private to apologize and ensure that
> the contributor was not alienated by Stefan's attitude. Therefore it
> makes sense that the SC has requested a public, general apology.
>
> Why are you more concerned with the reputation of a repeated offender
> and not with the feelings of multiple victims of harassment? As a victim
> of Stefan's behavior I feel that an apology is the first step to
> reconcile and rebuild trust.
>

At the risk of putting my nose in where it doesn't belong... I think that
Ivan has some good general points.  And i think that they could be
distilled as this: if you are looking to correct bad behavior but allow a
contributor to learn about proper behavior and then return to the
community, the steps taken here seen counter-productive (1).  I would add a
second piece to that: If, on the other hand, the goal is to remove a toxic
person from the community whoneeds to go through major personality shifting
changes before they can be allowed back, then this may be appropriate (2).

For (1), what I'm getting from Ivan's post is that these measures are at a
level that few (if any) people would be willing to fulfill them and then
come back to be a non-bitter contributor. When the requirements are too
costly for the violator to pay, they won't be able to learn and then pay
those costs until they can disavow their former selves.  "i'm sorry i acted
like that; i was a *different person* back then. I'm sorry that *past me*
felt the need to hurt you."

I would think that in general, not necessarily this specific case, the
steering committee would want to try taking steps to get people to learn
proper behavior first and only resort to something which amounts to a de
facto permanent ban when it becomes apparent that the person has to go
through some major personality changes before their behavior will change.

For (2), the steering committee is charged with protecting the community at
large. A toxic person can cause great havoc by themselves and set the tone
of a community such that other people feel that engaging in bad behavior is
the proper thing to do in this community.  With that in mind, at some
point, this kind of action has to be on the table.  It is great that pep-13
lists banning as a possibility so that people know where their actions can
lead.

One thing i would suggest, though, is documenting and, in general,
following a sequence of progressively more strict interventions by the
steering committee.  I think that just as it is harmful to the community to
let bad behavior slide, it is also harmful to the community to not know
that the steering committee's enforcement is in measured steps which will
telegraph the committee's intentions and the member's responsibilities well
in advance.

This specific case may already have been out of hand by the time it came to
the committee, the steering committee is relatively new and problems could
have festered before they formed and started governing, but a new member of
the community should know that if they step out of line, the committee will
make it apparent to them what the expectations are and whether their
ongoing behavior is putting them onto a disciplinary track well before that
discipline gets to the point of a one year ban and a public apology.

Thanks for reading,
-Toshio

>
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/IDFQDRHRA2JJ6OJAK2265UHCBEI45PIM/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah

[Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev]

On 09.10.2020 15:28, Christian Heimes wrote:

On 09/10/2020 04.04, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:

I don't see the point of requiring to "write an apology", especially
*before a 12-month ban*. If they understand that their behavior is
wrong, there's no need for a ban, at least not such a long one; if they
don't, they clearly aren't going to write it, at least not now (they
might later, after a few weeks or months, having cooled down and thought
it over). So all it would achieve is public shaming AFAICS. Same issue
with the threat of "zero tolerance policy" -- it's completely
unnecessary and only serves to humiliate and alienate the recipient.


I have been the victim of Stefan's CoC violations on more than one
occasion. He added me to nosy list of a ticket just to offend and
humiliate me. For this reason I personally asked the SC to make a
sincere apology a mandatory requirement for Stefan's reinstatement as a
core dev.


As a requirement for _reinstatement_ , it does make sense.



I would have been fine with a private apology. However Stefan has also
verbally attacked non-core contributors. In one case another core dev
and I contacted the contribute in private to apologize and ensure that
the contributor was not alienated by Stefan's attitude. Therefore it
makes sense that the SC has requested a public, general apology.

Why are you more concerned with the reputation of a repeated offender
and not with the feelings of multiple victims of harassment? As a victim
of Stefan's behavior I feel that an apology is the first step to
reconcile and rebuild trust.

Christian
--
Regards,
Ivan

___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/XPZI4CWHJ2FB4BLUIZ54II6WLHZQKUV3/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah

[Serhiy Storchaka]

09.10.20 16:48, Antoine Pitrou пише:
> Also, we now have an unmaintained module
> (_decimal) requiring specific competence.

It is not so bad. Due to high quality of the module there were not much
changes in it in recent years, and many of them were cosmetic. We also
have other Decimal experts.
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/CCITUQVXSEQELH3ZAQTQTHTWGBVVSASD/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah

[Brett Cannon]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 12:05 PM David Mertz  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 10:25 AM Charalampos Stratakis 
> wrote:
>
>> Does it really matter that much in regards to the specific context? If
>> someone poses problematic behavior (as it seems, as I'm not familiar with
>> any specifics here), maintenance of a module should be the last of the
>> worries. There are many pieces in the stdlib which remain or have remained
>> unmaintained for years. Maybe someone could pick up the pace, maybe not.
>>
>
> I agree with Charalampos here.  I am NOT opining on any specifics of
> problematic behavior or the SCs actions.
>
> But many module contributors or maintainers become unavailable for many
> different reasons.  We cannot, and should not, rest these broader
> collaboration decisions on some specific expertise, which we cannot
> guarantee will remain regardless of SC actions.  If needed, hopefully
> someone else can pick up _decimal.  But the same principle applies to any
> module mostly maintained by anyone else who has contributed.  Things happen
> in people's life, quite independent of CoC issues.
>

This is also why the SC has emphasized multiple times that no one "owns"
anything in CPython. We obviously have experts, but spreading knowledge is
an important part to maintaining a large, open source project like this. If
that hasn't happened for _decimal then that's something to fix.

And to put a very fine point on it: we literally had a primary maintainer
of a module die, so there is absolutely zero guarantee that someone will
ever come back to contribute past their last contribution.

-Brett


>
> --
> The dead increasingly dominate and strangle both the living and the
> not-yet born.  Vampiric capital and undead corporate persons abuse
> the lives and control the thoughts of homo faber. Ideas, once born,
> become abortifacients against new conceptions.
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
> Message archived at
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/2UQX46YPBBMV4EUCEVI4TNNZQLQHZDI6/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/24EEXDNK6UMNKAZKWNA3C6YOYJN4UJUV/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah

[Brett Cannon]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 5:34 AM Christian Heimes 
wrote:

> On 09/10/2020 04.04, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
> > I don't see the point of requiring to "write an apology", especially
> > *before a 12-month ban*. If they understand that their behavior is
> > wrong, there's no need for a ban, at least not such a long one; if they
> > don't, they clearly aren't going to write it, at least not now (they
> > might later, after a few weeks or months, having cooled down and thought
> > it over). So all it would achieve is public shaming AFAICS. Same issue
> > with the threat of "zero tolerance policy" -- it's completely
> > unnecessary and only serves to humiliate and alienate the recipient.
>
>
> I have been the victim of Stefan's CoC violations on more than one
> occasion. He added me to nosy list of a ticket just to offend and
> humiliate me. For this reason I personally asked the SC to make a
> sincere apology a mandatory requirement for Stefan's reinstatement as a
> core dev.
>
> I would have been fine with a private apology. However Stefan has also
> verbally attacked non-core contributors. In one case another core dev
> and I contacted the contribute in private to apologize and ensure that
> the contributor was not alienated by Stefan's attitude. Therefore it
> makes sense that the SC has requested a public, general apology.
>
> Why are you more concerned with the reputation of a repeated offender
> and not with the feelings of multiple victims of harassment? As a victim
> of Stefan's behavior I feel that an apology is the first step to
> reconcile and rebuild trust.
>

I think another way to view it is an apology shows intent to improve. I'm
not sure how universal it is, but in North America it's common to teach
kids that the first thing they do when they have been mean to someone is to
apologize to demonstrate remorse and to reinforce that what the child did
was wrong. In this instance there were multiple people that Stefan was mean
to and with enough severity to warrant an apology.

I would also argue that the fact that all of these acts against others
occurred publicly suggests that the apology should also be public.
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/RGN2OOMFLJH7TA4IMNIZF5IFPMFSRJ6S/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah

[Brett Cannon]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 7:23 AM Charalampos Stratakis 
wrote:

>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Antoine Pitrou" 
> > To: python-dev@python.org
> > Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 4:02:51 PM
> > Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan
> Krah
> >
> >
> > Le 09/10/2020 à 15:57, Christian Heimes a écrit :
> > > On 09/10/2020 15.48, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 05:04:55 +0300
> > >> Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev  wrote:
> > >>> I don't see the point of requiring to "write an apology", especially
> > >>> *before a 12-month ban*. If they understand that their behavior is
> > >>> wrong, there's no need for a ban, at least not such a long one; if
> they
> > >>> don't, they clearly aren't going to write it, at least not now (they
> > >>> might later, after a few weeks or months, having cooled down and
> thought
> > >>> it over). So all it would achieve is public shaming AFAICS. Same
> > >>> issue with the threat of "zero tolerance policy" -- it's completely
> > >>> unnecessary and only serves to humiliate and alienate the recipient.
> > >>
> > >> That's my impression as well.  Also, we now have an unmaintained
> module
> > >> (_decimal) requiring specific competence.
> > >
> > > Please elaborate. I feel like you are insinuating something with your
> > > "unmaintained module" remark.
> >
> > Well, it's not hard to notice that Stefan was the maintainer (as well as
> > the primary or sole author) of the C _decimal module, right?
>
> I think that is irrelevant to the decision of the steering council though.
>

We did thank Stefan in the email for his technical contributions, but being
the primary contributor to a module in the stdlib should not give you
leeway to be mean to others compared to anyone else (nor should any
technical contributions for that matter). So I agree with Charalampos that
it's irrelevant.


> >
> > I wouldn't say for sure, but I don't expect him to transmit patches
> > through a third party, now that the SC banned him for 12 months, and
> > that he publicly resigned (signalling that he has probably no intention
> > to try to come back).
> >
> > Do you think otherwise?  Or do you think there's someone else ready to
> > take up maintenance?  Are you volunteering for that?
>
> Does it really matter that much in regards to the specific context? If
> someone poses problematic behavior (as it seems, as I'm not familiar with
> any specifics here), maintenance of a module should be the last of the
> worries. There are many pieces in the stdlib which remain or have remained
> unmaintained for years. Maybe someone could pick up the pace, maybe not.
>

Another way to look at this is to realize that Stefan's behaviour may have
scared off people who would have been willing to contribute to the decimal
module. As Christian pointed out, there is already one instance of a
contributor who he felt needed to be followed up with to make sure they
were okay. As much as we know they could have become a major contributor to
'decimal' and this specific concern wouldn't even exist.

-Brett



>
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Antoine.
> > ___
> > Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
> > Message archived at
> >
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/5WX63I23WZ4ZBJALWDA3VBSGV3J5KLM5/
> > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
> >
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Charalampos Stratakis
> Software Engineer
> Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
> Message archived at
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/6QCFOVUS5PIPXWWHNXPWB26EPM26UHAR/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/PLHQL6NEVDFUZUQNKXHPB7HVNI6EPAG3/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah

[David Mertz]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 10:25 AM Charalampos Stratakis 
wrote:

> Does it really matter that much in regards to the specific context? If
> someone poses problematic behavior (as it seems, as I'm not familiar with
> any specifics here), maintenance of a module should be the last of the
> worries. There are many pieces in the stdlib which remain or have remained
> unmaintained for years. Maybe someone could pick up the pace, maybe not.
>

I agree with Charalampos here.  I am NOT opining on any specifics of
problematic behavior or the SCs actions.

But many module contributors or maintainers become unavailable for many
different reasons.  We cannot, and should not, rest these broader
collaboration decisions on some specific expertise, which we cannot
guarantee will remain regardless of SC actions.  If needed, hopefully
someone else can pick up _decimal.  But the same principle applies to any
module mostly maintained by anyone else who has contributed.  Things happen
in people's life, quite independent of CoC issues.

-- 
The dead increasingly dominate and strangle both the living and the
not-yet born.  Vampiric capital and undead corporate persons abuse
the lives and control the thoughts of homo faber. Ideas, once born,
become abortifacients against new conceptions.
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/2UQX46YPBBMV4EUCEVI4TNNZQLQHZDI6/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-Dev] Summary of Python tracker Issues

[Python tracker]

ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2020-10-02 - 2020-10-09)
Python tracker at https://bugs.python.org/

To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.

Issues counts and deltas:
  open7690 ( +2)
  closed 46029 (+69)
  total  53719 (+71)

Open issues with patches: 3126 


Issues opened (42)
==

#41913: EnvBuilder.install_scripts should use explicit permissions
https://bugs.python.org/issue41913  opened by Frederik Rietdijk

#41914: test_pdb fails
https://bugs.python.org/issue41914  opened by sumagnadas

#41915: unittest.mock.create_autospec(Obj, instance=True) has self key
https://bugs.python.org/issue41915  opened by ettang

#41916: cxx pthread check is not overrideable
https://bugs.python.org/issue41916  opened by virtuald

#41918: exec fails to take locals into account when running list compr
https://bugs.python.org/issue41918  opened by qpeter

#41919: Modify test_codecs to use the new codecs.unregister() function
https://bugs.python.org/issue41919  opened by shihai1991

#41921: REDoS in parseentities
https://bugs.python.org/issue41921  opened by yetingli

#41926: Unpredictable behavior when parsing xml. (xml.etree.ElementTre
https://bugs.python.org/issue41926  opened by CyberCreator

#41928: ZipFile does not supports Unicode Path Extra Field (0x7075) zi
https://bugs.python.org/issue41928  opened by ivan.sorokin.tech

#41929: Detect OEM code page for zip archives in ZipFile based on syst
https://bugs.python.org/issue41929  opened by ivan.sorokin.tech

#41930: Wrap sqlite3_serialize API in sqlite3 module
https://bugs.python.org/issue41930  opened by Kerrick Staley

#41932: Incorrect struct definition with bitfields
https://bugs.python.org/issue41932  opened by berthin

#41933: Wording of s * n in Common Sequence Operations is not optimal
https://bugs.python.org/issue41933  opened by mdk

#41938: concurrent.futures.wait calls len() on an possible iterable
https://bugs.python.org/issue41938  opened by rohitkg98

#41940: AMD64 Debian root 3.x: tests fail because downloaded files sta
https://bugs.python.org/issue41940  opened by vstinner

#41943: unittest.assertLogs passes unexpectedly
https://bugs.python.org/issue41943  opened by mrbean-bremen

#41944: [security] Python testsuite calls eval() on content received v
https://bugs.python.org/issue41944  opened by serhiy.storchaka

#41945: http.cookies.SimpleCookie.parse error after [keys]
https://bugs.python.org/issue41945  opened by xnovakj

#41946: Add concrete examples to os.path documentation
https://bugs.python.org/issue41946  opened by theacodes

#41948: Runtime error while trying to use Python3.9 with virtualenv
https://bugs.python.org/issue41948  opened by abhicantdraw

#41949: Redefinition of HMAC functions prevents static linking
https://bugs.python.org/issue41949  opened by indygreg

#41950: Typo in Python 3.9 what's new page
https://bugs.python.org/issue41950  opened by kigawas

#41951: python-3.8.2.exe /uninstall /quiet fails with Exit code: 0x643
https://bugs.python.org/issue41951  opened by szheng

#41954: [mock] Recursion on mocking inspect.isfunction
https://bugs.python.org/issue41954  opened by stanislavlevin

#41956: Regression in HTMLParser on malformed tags
https://bugs.python.org/issue41956  opened by dan

#41959: Doc/library/asyncio-policy.rst grammar error
https://bugs.python.org/issue41959  opened by raulcd

#41960: Add globalns and localns to the inspect.signature and inspect.
https://bugs.python.org/issue41960  opened by BTaskaya

#41961: Windows install failure "could not set file security"
https://bugs.python.org/issue41961  opened by steve.dower

#41962: Make threading._register_atexit public?
https://bugs.python.org/issue41962  opened by Ben.Darnell

#41963: ConfigParser: stripping of comments should be documented
https://bugs.python.org/issue41963  opened by jugmac00

#41966: datetime.time issue with pickling in PyPy
https://bugs.python.org/issue41966  opened by 

#41967: Handle annotations in the parser to avoid the need for roundtr
https://bugs.python.org/issue41967  opened by pablogsal

#41969: ttk.RadioButtons mis-sized under Windows 10 UI Scaling, with d
https://bugs.python.org/issue41969  opened by Athanasius

#41971: multiple tests in test_tools fail since Python 3.9
https://bugs.python.org/issue41971  opened by felixonmars

#41972: bytes.find consistently hangs in a particular scenario
https://bugs.python.org/issue41972  opened by Zeturic

#41973: Docs: TypedDict is now of type function instead of class
https://bugs.python.org/issue41973  opened by gaborjbernat

#41975: Textwrap to conform to https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/tr
https://bugs.python.org/issue41975  opened by mdk

#41977: ctypes array inside structure requires explicit garbage collec
https://bugs.python.org/issue41977  opened by maxim.pichler

#41980: Argparse documentation is slightly misleading
https://bugs.python.org/issue41980  opened by ygingras

#41981: Errors building python 

[Python-Dev] Re: Python Documentation, Python language improvement, and productive discussion

[Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer]

Would be good to see @Lorena and @JulienPalard from the translation WG,
might be helpful

Kind Regards,


Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer

https://www.github.com/Abdur-RahmaanJ

Mauritius

sent from gmail client on Android, that's why the signature is so ugly.
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/GBEBD6YBN6AV52DLTXFBCG5WQDDATLRA/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-Dev] Re: Python Documentation, Python language improvement, and productive discussion

[Brian Curtin]

Hey Team,

Has this workgroup started yet? If not, can I help get it going, or if so,
is there a mailing list or place where things are happening?

Brian Curtin

On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 12:58 Carol Willing  wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks for the interest. I apologize for the delay in getting this
> workgroup started. I'm happy that there is strong interest in working on
> documentation and improving it for all users.
>
> I will do my best to get the workgroup charter drafted this week and then
> open an interest list for initial workgroup members.
>
> Luciano, I agree that rewriting asyncio docs and typing are helpful
> improvements and welcome your contributions to accessible and high quality
> docs.
>
> Warmly,
>
> Carol
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 9:21 AM Luciano Ramalho 
> wrote:
>
>> I am also interested in helping with making Python's documentation
>> more user friendly.
>>
>> Yuri Selivanov's rewrite of the asyncio documentation was brilliant.
>> We need more of that.
>>
>> My recent contribution to Python's doc doesn't compare with
>> Selivanov's awesome rewrite, but it involved reorganizing existing
>> documentation.
>>
>> The typing module chapter in the library reference is comprehensive,
>> and the top 1/3 of it has good narrative explanations to the core
>> concepts. But the remaining 2/3 of the content is in a single section
>> titled "Classes, functions, and decorators" that covers more than 70
>> objects, and there's no apparent ordering.
>>
>> With the help of Guido, I split that section in subsections, and
>> arranged the entries within the subsections by relevance to most
>> users—subjective, yes, but not too harmful if we made bad calls,
>> because now there are fewer entries per subsection.
>>
>> Before:
>> https://docs.python.org/3.8/library/typing.html
>>
>> After:
>> https://docs.python.org/3.10/library/typing.html
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Luciano
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 12:43 PM Mats Wichmann  wrote:
>> >
>> > On 8/5/20 10:43 AM, Dominic Davis-Foster wrote:
>> > > Hi Carol,
>> > >
>> > > I was wondering if you've been able to set up the workgroup yet? I'd
>> certainly be interested in participating the there's an opportunity.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Stay safe
>> > >
>> > > Dom
>> >
>> > Indeed, I was wondering if there were any updates - I'm also interested
>> > in participating.
>> >
>> > -- mats
>> > ___
>> > Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
>> > To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
>> > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
>> > Message archived at
>> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/MRV5SQCC2GC6MLIUCSPJZL3AQCXVDUEG/
>> > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Luciano Ramalho
>> |  Author of Fluent Python (O'Reilly, 2015)
>> | http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920032519.do
>> |  Technical Principal at ThoughtWorks
>> |  Twitter: @ramalhoorg
>> ___
>> Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
>> Message archived at
>> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/P6S4Q3H6VOXVJTXX4UCRRYDCIDLC2M4C/
>> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>>
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
> Message archived at
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/ZTIK4R7HNPV2HZJ6TJHONGCCYUOSL5CW/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/MCGGPWD5C66IG3ITL2SOROYW62CQTKBJ/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah

[Charalampos Stratakis]

- Original Message -
> From: "Antoine Pitrou" 
> To: python-dev@python.org
> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 4:02:51 PM
> Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah
> 
> 
> Le 09/10/2020 à 15:57, Christian Heimes a écrit :
> > On 09/10/2020 15.48, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 05:04:55 +0300
> >> Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev  wrote:
> >>> I don't see the point of requiring to "write an apology", especially
> >>> *before a 12-month ban*. If they understand that their behavior is
> >>> wrong, there's no need for a ban, at least not such a long one; if they
> >>> don't, they clearly aren't going to write it, at least not now (they
> >>> might later, after a few weeks or months, having cooled down and thought
> >>> it over). So all it would achieve is public shaming AFAICS. Same
> >>> issue with the threat of "zero tolerance policy" -- it's completely
> >>> unnecessary and only serves to humiliate and alienate the recipient.
> >>
> >> That's my impression as well.  Also, we now have an unmaintained module
> >> (_decimal) requiring specific competence.
> > 
> > Please elaborate. I feel like you are insinuating something with your
> > "unmaintained module" remark.
> 
> Well, it's not hard to notice that Stefan was the maintainer (as well as
> the primary or sole author) of the C _decimal module, right?

I think that is irrelevant to the decision of the steering council though.

> 
> I wouldn't say for sure, but I don't expect him to transmit patches
> through a third party, now that the SC banned him for 12 months, and
> that he publicly resigned (signalling that he has probably no intention
> to try to come back).
> 
> Do you think otherwise?  Or do you think there's someone else ready to
> take up maintenance?  Are you volunteering for that?

Does it really matter that much in regards to the specific context? If someone 
poses problematic behavior (as it seems, as I'm not familiar with any specifics 
here), maintenance of a module should be the last of the worries. There are 
many pieces in the stdlib which remain or have remained unmaintained for years. 
Maybe someone could pick up the pace, maybe not.

> 
> Regards
> 
> Antoine.
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
> Message archived at
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/5WX63I23WZ4ZBJALWDA3VBSGV3J5KLM5/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
> 

-- 
Regards,

Charalampos Stratakis
Software Engineer
Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/6QCFOVUS5PIPXWWHNXPWB26EPM26UHAR/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah

[Antoine Pitrou]

Le 09/10/2020 à 15:57, Christian Heimes a écrit :
> On 09/10/2020 15.48, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 05:04:55 +0300
>> Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev  wrote:
>>> I don't see the point of requiring to "write an apology", especially 
>>> *before a 12-month ban*. If they understand that their behavior is 
>>> wrong, there's no need for a ban, at least not such a long one; if they 
>>> don't, they clearly aren't going to write it, at least not now (they 
>>> might later, after a few weeks or months, having cooled down and thought it 
>>> over). So all it would achieve is public shaming AFAICS. Same 
>>> issue with the threat of "zero tolerance policy" -- it's completely 
>>> unnecessary and only serves to humiliate and alienate the recipient.
>>
>> That's my impression as well.  Also, we now have an unmaintained module
>> (_decimal) requiring specific competence.
> 
> Please elaborate. I feel like you are insinuating something with your
> "unmaintained module" remark.

Well, it's not hard to notice that Stefan was the maintainer (as well as
the primary or sole author) of the C _decimal module, right?

I wouldn't say for sure, but I don't expect him to transmit patches
through a third party, now that the SC banned him for 12 months, and
that he publicly resigned (signalling that he has probably no intention
to try to come back).

Do you think otherwise?  Or do you think there's someone else ready to
take up maintenance?  Are you volunteering for that?

Regards

Antoine.
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/5WX63I23WZ4ZBJALWDA3VBSGV3J5KLM5/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah

[Christian Heimes]

On 09/10/2020 15.48, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 05:04:55 +0300
> Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev  wrote:
>> I don't see the point of requiring to "write an apology", especially *before 
>> a 12-month ban*. If they understand that their behavior is 
>> wrong, there's no need for a ban, at least not such a long one; if they 
>> don't, they clearly aren't going to write it, at least not now (they 
>> might later, after a few weeks or months, having cooled down and thought it 
>> over). So all it would achieve is public shaming AFAICS. Same 
>> issue with the threat of "zero tolerance policy" -- it's completely 
>> unnecessary and only serves to humiliate and alienate the recipient.
> 
> That's my impression as well.  Also, we now have an unmaintained module
> (_decimal) requiring specific competence.

Please elaborate. I feel like you are insinuating something with your
"unmaintained module" remark.
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/5KTGHFOGDYBUBD6JAC3A7QELDSIZYDLP/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah

[Antoine Pitrou]

On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 05:04:55 +0300
Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev  wrote:
> I don't see the point of requiring to "write an apology", especially *before 
> a 12-month ban*. If they understand that their behavior is 
> wrong, there's no need for a ban, at least not such a long one; if they 
> don't, they clearly aren't going to write it, at least not now (they 
> might later, after a few weeks or months, having cooled down and thought it 
> over). So all it would achieve is public shaming AFAICS. Same 
> issue with the threat of "zero tolerance policy" -- it's completely 
> unnecessary and only serves to humiliate and alienate the recipient.

That's my impression as well.  Also, we now have an unmaintained module
(_decimal) requiring specific competence.

Regards

Antoine.

___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/DKNXYE3LMZQUDZEIMELNZPBQMWSFPOXF/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-Dev] Re: Farewell, Python 3.5

[Boris Orlov]

Gg python 3.5, and hello world to python 4 !
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/CE5ZWBO2WLF5CK4ABD4SBZSJYMZSWMWK/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-Dev] Re: [RELEASE] Python 3.9.0 is now available, and you can already test 3.10.0a1!

[Pablo Galindo Salgado]

Hi Miro,

Thanks for your email. I will see if I can modify that file to include my
key.

> I see the text at
https://www.python.org/downloads/ about GPG has changed (since yesterday?)
and
it no longer contains the link.

The text changes because I added my key bug I didn't delete any link IIRC.
Do you know if the link to the file you mentioned used to be there?

Thanks,
Pablo


On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, 09:25 Miro Hrončok,  wrote:

> On 05. 10. 20 22:22, Łukasz Langa wrote:
> > In fact, our newest Release Manager, Pablo Galindo Salgado, prepared the
> first
> > alpha release of what will become 3.10.0 a year from now. You can check
> it out here:
> >
> > https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3100a1/
> > 
>
> Hello Pablo.
>
> Could you please include your GPG key in
> https://www.python.org/static/files/pubkeys.txt ? I see the text at
> https://www.python.org/downloads/ about GPG has changed (since
> yesterday?) and
> it no longer contains the link.
>
> In Fedora, we verify the tarball during build time (offline) so we include
> the
> keys in the source package. It was really convenient to be able to use
> that key
> file directly instead of using the key of a specific release manager for
> each
> release.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Miro Hrončok
> --
> Phone: +420777974800
> IRC: mhroncok
>
>
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/RMGGCIENSIHFVAPYO3HQVUZGPMIJC37F/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah

[Christian Heimes]

On 09/10/2020 04.04, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
> I don't see the point of requiring to "write an apology", especially
> *before a 12-month ban*. If they understand that their behavior is
> wrong, there's no need for a ban, at least not such a long one; if they
> don't, they clearly aren't going to write it, at least not now (they
> might later, after a few weeks or months, having cooled down and thought
> it over). So all it would achieve is public shaming AFAICS. Same issue
> with the threat of "zero tolerance policy" -- it's completely
> unnecessary and only serves to humiliate and alienate the recipient.


I have been the victim of Stefan's CoC violations on more than one
occasion. He added me to nosy list of a ticket just to offend and
humiliate me. For this reason I personally asked the SC to make a
sincere apology a mandatory requirement for Stefan's reinstatement as a
core dev.

I would have been fine with a private apology. However Stefan has also
verbally attacked non-core contributors. In one case another core dev
and I contacted the contribute in private to apologize and ensure that
the contributor was not alienated by Stefan's attitude. Therefore it
makes sense that the SC has requested a public, general apology.

Why are you more concerned with the reputation of a repeated offender
and not with the feelings of multiple victims of harassment? As a victim
of Stefan's behavior I feel that an apology is the first step to
reconcile and rebuild trust.

Christian
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/LGYATAHYU2EL5BH4NPKKZQDIIGEVNXQL/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-Dev] Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah

[Victor Stinner]

Le ven. 9 oct. 2020 à 04:14, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev
 a écrit :
> I don't see the point of requiring to "write an apology", especially *before 
> a 12-month ban*. If they understand that their behavior is wrong, there's no 
> need for a ban, at least not such a long one; if they don't, they clearly 
> aren't going to write it, at least not now (they might later, after a few 
> weeks or months, having cooled down and thought it over).

The question was to ban or no, there is a 12-month ban in any case:

"If you choose not to satisfy these conditions, the 12-month
suspension will become a permanent ejection from the Python core
developer community as per the procedures outlined in PEP 13."

Victor
-- 
Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death.
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/VP6EBYQ5L666SGFU7Y2BRRM52ENFCPA5/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/