> On Oct 17, 2018, at 02:56, Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> I find the presentation of threaded conversations in linear format to be
> confusing, figuring out what I have and have not read to be difficult, and
> the overall frustration to not be worth it.
Are there any linear-formatted communication
Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 à 03:56, Ethan Furman a écrit :
> I also supported the trial of Discourse.
>
> However, now that I have tried it, it will be a no from me. I find the
> presentation of threaded conversations in linear format to be confusing,
> figuring out what I have and have not read to be
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 02:30:33PM +0100, Łukasz Langa wrote:
> > I find the presentation of threaded conversations in linear format to be
> > confusing, figuring out what I have and have not read to be difficult, and
> > the overall frustration to not be worth it.
>
> Are there any linear-forma
Hi,
I see more and more discussions about the moderation of the Python community.
There is a PSF "conduct" Working Group:
https://wiki.python.org/psf/ConductWG/Charter
I noticed the following questions:
* Lack of transparency on how moderation is decided
* Lack of transparency on the number of
On 17/10/2018 15:03, Victor Stinner wrote:
Moreover, the Code of Conduct should be seen as
a way to evict a core developer out of Python.
I'm assuming you missed a "not" in that last sentence?
TJG
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers
Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 à 16:06, Tim Golden a écrit :
> On 17/10/2018 15:03, Victor Stinner wrote:
> > Moreover, the Code of Conduct should be seen as
> > a way to evict a core developer out of Python.
>
> I'm assuming you missed a "not" in that last sentence?
(Oops, I should read my emails before s
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 8:04 AM Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I see more and more discussions about the moderation of the Python
> community.
>
> There is a PSF "conduct" Working Group:
> https://wiki.python.org/psf/ConductWG/Charter
>
> I noticed the following questions:
>
> * Lack of transpar
Brian, thanks for a very well written response, and Victor, thanks for asking
for clarification.
I think Brian has covered my thoughts very thoroughly. As an FYI, Brett, Thomas
Wouters, and I are on the Code of Conduct workgroup so the core devs are
represented.
> On Oct 17, 2018, at 8:34 AM,
> On Oct 17, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> Handling conflicts between core developers is the most difficult
> question. I don't think that it's the role of the conduct working
> group to handle that. Moreover, the Code of Conduct should be seen as
> a way to evict a core develope
> On Oct 17, 2018, at 11:34 AM, Brian Curtin wrote:
>
> I think this type of issue is better solved internally to our team, perhaps
> via some form of mediator(s) I mentioned earlier, rather than involving a
> wholly external group. Time is of course a finite resource in open source,
> and p
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:09 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 17, 2018, at 11:34 AM, Brian Curtin wrote:
>
> I think this type of issue is better solved internally to our team,
> perhaps via some form of mediator(s) I mentioned earlier, rather than
> involving a wholly external group. Time i
Le 17/10/2018 à 21:44, Brian Curtin a écrit :
>
> Especially given who I've now found out is on that working group, I'm
> fine with them managing issues of behavior, but we should be able to
> (responsible for, even) handle standard team dynamics amongst ourselves.
> Maybe I was/am missing someth
Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 à 21:09, Donald Stufft a écrit :
> Honestly, I think an independent group managing these issues is the right way
> to handle them. I’m loathe to bring it up because the situation was a long
> time ago, and has been resolved, but I’ve personally had to engage the CoC
> proce
Oh, by the way, should we have two different choices: remove the
commit bit from a core dev (downgrade a core dev as a regular
contributor) and ban a core dev?
Victor
Le jeu. 18 oct. 2018 à 00:03, Victor Stinner a écrit :
>
> Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 à 21:09, Donald Stufft a écrit :
> > Honestly, I
I think you're dramatically overestimating a) the possibility that someone
would attempt to use the CoC process frivolously, b) the possibility that
the CoC WG would act on such a complaint without good cause.
FWIW I was involved in removing a core developer from another community for
CoC violatio
On 10/17/2018 03:05 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Oh, by the way, should we have two different choices: remove the
commit bit from a core dev (downgrade a core dev as a regular
contributor) and ban a core dev?
No. If it comes to this, then the dev needs to be banned. I would not
expect this to
> On 17 Oct 2018, at 20:44, Brian Curtin wrote:
>
> To me that's still a thing we should at least start to work on amongst
> ourselves, as opposed to something like the issues of offensive word choice
> or name calling. With the former we have some things to work on smoothing out
> towards a
Le jeu. 18 oct. 2018 à 00:16, Ethan Furman a écrit :
>
> On 10/17/2018 03:05 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> > Oh, by the way, should we have two different choices: remove the
> > commit bit from a core dev (downgrade a core dev as a regular
> > contributor) and ban a core dev?
>
> No. If it comes
Ok, I proposed an update to my PEP to explain the process to ban a
core developer:
https://github.com/python/peps/pull/810/files
Victor
Le jeu. 18 oct. 2018 à 01:23, Victor Stinner a écrit :
>
> Le jeu. 18 oct. 2018 à 00:16, Ethan Furman a écrit :
> >
> > On 10/17/2018 03:05 PM, Victor Stinner w
19 matches
Mail list logo
