# Inclusive communications expectations in Python spaces **URL:** \ **Category:** PSF\ **Tags:** conduct, expectations, community, communication\ **Created:** [July 12, 2024, 12:32am UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/inclusive-communications-expectations-in-python-spaces/57950 "2024-07-12T00:32:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 15
**Author:** ![tim.one](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/tim.one/32/282_2.png) [@tim.one](https://discuss.python.org/u/tim.one)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2024, 8:02pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/inclusive-communications-expectations-in-python-spaces/57950/15 "2024-07-14T20:02:50Z")
EDIT: sorry, this was meant to be a reply in the " Inclusive communications expectations in Python spaces" topic. Discourse doesn’t appear to support a way for me to move it. Neither will let it me delete the post here and repost in the intended topic.] > [@gpshead](#): > > We did reach out to Tim privately beforehand. Which I appreciate. The original expressed concern was that I was “making light of the SH itself”. Which I replied couldn’t be read that way by a reasonable person. I didn’t get a response, but next thing I saw was a public post in which the claim had morphed into that I was “making light of workplace SH training”. Which is also an implausible reading, although slightly less implausible. I didn’t, e.g., mention that the bosses in these cases were exempted from attending the training. It wasn’t the training that was the joke, but the corrupt _process_ that let the bigwig off the hook. I was decrying the lack of justice for the victim(s). I decided to let it go, since there’s no point fighting confirmation bias. If you’re determined to take offense, offense is what you’ll find. I see that at least two others here read the post with its intended meaning, as did the person I was originally replying to. They exposed themselves to shunning by speaking up. That’s brave. > [@](#): > > I want to assure everyone that the points we made in the original post were so pointed exactly because of the complaints we received from community members. They do not owe anyone an explanation of how or why they interpret things perhaps different than yourself. The important point is to recognize that people do. The right course of action is to believe them, accept that, and learn. Not try to tell them they are wrong. We’re _all_ community members here, yes? I have no problem with someone telling me I’m wrong. But I’m not required to agree with them either. It cuts both ways. They’re not required to “explain” anything to me. Somehow that burden falls only on those you don’t favor - but, in which case, even their attempt to explain is unacceptable. I simply don’t buy it. I worked with a person who had a traumatic childhood experience with a house fire. They had major PTSD, physically shaking upon encountering any reminder. Nobody asked them to “explain” it - some reactions are plain out of reach of rational thought. We accommodated instead, when we could. For example, if they had to be in a meeting, we picked a room without a fire extinguisher, on a path from their office free of fire extinguishers too. Neither did anyone try to tell them they’d actually be safer if they were closer to a fire extinguisher. Etc. We were all happy to accommodate. But that was a “small, collegial” environment, akin to Python’s earliest days. The PSF wasn’t intended to be a support group for PTSD survivors, and is spectacularly ill-suited to such a role. People who need therapy should by all means pursue that. This is not the place to find it. IMO it’s very much your proper job to apply “reasonable person” standards. And it’s all our proper jobs to be accommodating when we can be. > [@](#): > > … > So no, the “CoC WG”, “PSF”, or “SC” cannot “ruin their career”. That’s entirely on them. Blaming others for the consequences of their own actions would demonstrate a lack of self awareness, which if that is their attitude, was IMNSHO likely part of the problem in the first place. Shoe, foot, other. You’re very plainly telling _them_ “you’re wrong”. What happened to the imperative to “believe them, accept that, and learn”? Indeed, if the roles were reversed here, you’d be accusing me of “blaming the victim”. > [@nedbat](#): > > This is an odd definition of welcoming. You seem to be saying, “everyone was allowed in, it was their decision whether they wanted to hang out with people who were routinely impatient and dismissive.” It’s actually a very plain meaning of “welcoming”: “you’re welcome to join. Period.”. It didn’t come with pages of subjective fine print 😉. > [@](#): > > I’m fully in favor of the community educating or excluding someone who is “routinely impatient and dismissive.” Allowing that behavior drives other people out. It’s a bad tradeoff. I actually agree. In the early days, Python was in much more of a “beggars can’t be choosers” category. It outgrew that long ago. Still, to my eyes, the PSF is remarkably intolerant of various forms of neurodivergence. They’re people too, but don’t have a lobby with political power to shape public opinion. In the US in general, the default response is to medicate the “troublemakers” into compliance. I have a specific core dev in mind who was a major pain to work with, and was almost certainly (to my eyes) at an extreme on several measures of autism. But they were (literally) obsessed with a specific core library, of which they were the author and sole maintainer. Leave them alone with that, and they _usually_ left you alone. Needless to say, I got along with them fine 😉. They got a ban, and with 100% predictability had no interest in ever returning. Rational talk was never going to work with them, which was also thoroughly predictable. Can’t say I know what might have worked, but still regret that they’re gone. They weren’t evil - they were neurodivergent, I can’t help but feel there must have been some more truly compassionate way to resolve that one. --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/inclusive-communications-expectations-in-python-spaces/57950)._