Inclusive communications expectations in Python spaces

[tim.one (Tim Peters)]

@brettcannon

@tim.one

I can tell you for a fact that more than just a few PSF members are terrified by the possibility that the CoC WG will ruin their careers.

@tim.one

… We even got an announcement of a “ban” once that said not one word about who was banned, or about why. Baffling to me, unless the intent was to foster an atmosphere of fear.

Contrast those two statements and notice there’s a spectrum there, but with a common theme. Be too public about a ban and you risk reputational harm to people that may be viewed as too much “punishment” for the transgressions. But keep it all quiet and people feel like they don’t know the practices here.

The two statements are actually about the same thing: the single incident that inspired most fear was far from “public”. The precipitating threads on python-dev and python-ideas were of course very visible, but I believe the name of the sole person banned was never revealed. They were the “secret subject” of the info-free ban announcement. Their name isn’t even in Victor Stinner’s external record of CoC bans.

But their name is widely known anyway. Some things cannot be kept hidden, no matter how hard you try (no, they didn’t advertise their name either - they stayed quiet as a mouse). In that case, the banned person was to my eyes (python-dev admin at the time, reading every tedious post in whole) hardly the most abusive poster in the thread. So why were they the only one banned?

But I’ve typed about that before, and no point rehashing it. As always, my take remains “sunshine is the best disinfectant”. Be as open as possible, not necessarily about victims, or even about offenders, but at least about the nature of offenses and actions taken (or not) in response.

PyCon CoC “transparency reports” do a nice job on that. But, best I can tell, there is nothing akin to them for CoC WG actions. Please consider doing something similar?

But at either end of that spectrum you used the term akin to “fear”.

Since there was in fact only one point in my spectrum, that’s not surprising . The worst outcome I’ve seen was from that, the least transparent ban. The best outcome from the most transparent one, although in that case SK nailed the door wide open by effectively saying FU on the way out. A whole lot was revealed about why he was booted, and that did not inspire much fear. About the only support he got came from me and Raymond, because of the extraordinarily good work he did in an area where CPython was (& remains) extraordinarily short on relevant talent. But even I dropped support after more info about his actions came out (spontaneously volunteered in a thread that was openly discussing the details).

Now we obviously try to balance all of this when making decisions around the CoC, but this is part of what makes this all such a hard (volunteer) job to do. It seems no matter what we do there’s “fear” from your/a perspective.

Of course. Fear is a universal emotion, and can never be eliminated. No matter how hard you try, you’ll never make members of marginalized groups feel truly safe either. What can be done is to make them feel safer. I want everyone to feel safer.

Now I personally choose to trust those in charge to do their best and be reasonable people (and to be clear, there are people above me like the SC and PSF board of directors, so I am in charge only so much).

I believe the SC has never rejected a CoC WG recommendation, and that the Board has never rejected a SC request. That the people “in power” all agree they’re all the best of all possible people isn’t a surprise in any organization, not even in an objectively evil one.

Now I think the PSF has some excellent people “in power” too, today. I’d much rather put trust in procedures and mechanisms than in people, though. But that’s an entirely different topic.

I also trust in myself that I won’t run astray of the CoC so badly that its enforcement will ruin my career. So, in the end, I don’t have the “fear” presented here and instead choose to have trust replace it.

Emotions may not be subject to the dictates of rational thought at all. People have to be taken as they are.

… I don’t know if there’s anything that can be done to fully alleviate that feeling if you don’t trust in yourself and the people involved.

Try some sunshine? CoC transparency reports, already mentioned, would be a start at real transparency.

And if that’s the case then participating here may be too stressful to warrant staying.

You wouldn’t dream about saying that of other people afraid to speak up. This topic isn’t about staying on Discourse (Steve Holden’s topic is), it’s about the PSF and core development. “Warrant staying” is far more consequential in this topic. You put “fear” in scare quotes as if you doubt it’s real, and suggest it’s due to an irrational distrust of the people they fear. Logically neat and tidy, I’ll agree - but utterly dismissive of the legitimacy of their emotions. People have to be taken as they are.

We’re already seeing people once highly placed in the PSF pecking order leaving Discourse, and even the PSF, due to the stresses they feel. They’re hardly evil, thin-skinned, fragile, fickle, or defenseless. There has to be major, mondo stress at work. But I have no doubt they’ll land on their feet - I fret more about people with no organizational power or status at all. So do you. There’s no fundamental reason for us to disagree here I can see. I hope we can cooperate on reducing fear for all.