In an effort to combat this “information asymmetry”, Tim has posted an article detailing the events from his side.
I am not a discuss moderator, but I am, and have been, a moderator of other Python spaces (python-list, python-dev, etc.). I see nothing in the way of CoC issues in his article.
Tim.
Our community is much larger. More regimented. Our policers need to be held accountable and be seen to stand up to scrutiny.
The account by Tim Peters directly contradicts earlier assurances that the process involved fair two-way communication with a realistic opportunity to avoid being banned.
I don’t think it contradicts that post at all, which Tim links to directly and confirms in part.
The one piece of information not presented is the email exchange between the SC and Tim, because he did not ask for or get permission to share it[1]. It does sound like the conversation was surprisingly short, but I guess the SC didn’t like what they heard?
I just hope we’re not still discussing this right up to the point where the ban is lifted–which is in a month! It’s 2/3 over already!
and he did not share his response because it involved too many quotes ↩︎
AFAIK, it will only be lifted if Tim admits wrongdoing and promises to not do the same thing again in the future - based on the blog post, I am not confident that will happen.
The problem won’t just “go away” when the three months are up. I hope that this sees much more visibility and discussion, and an official response from the people concerned.
No idea. I expect that decision is between Tim and the SC, and hopefully they are able to meet somewhere for the good of the Python community
I was gonna write a long paragraph about how I neither showed support for this rule nor is this rule that different from “western” countries’ legal systems, but the fact that you are categorizing “communist” and “dictatorship” as approximately the same thing indicates to me that you are not the kind of person I am going to convince of anything in this topic.
Instead of speculating, we can read Tim’s response here. (Again, no CoC issues in the post.)
That page wasn’t there when I posted earlier, as it appears to be a response to this very thread[1].
but not, as far as I can tell, a response to my post ↩︎
My apologies – I am no expert with forum software. I was originally replying to your post, then went away and came back and posted something different in the “replying to your post” box. 
(Then, of course, made it worse by trying to fix it. :sigh:)
And you are correct.
I do feel that this situation has been very damaging to public perceptions of PSF, although not Python as a language. When the news of Tims ban broke out the reaction in comments on Register and such was what even I would call … excessive.
That being said, I agree with some of the push back.
I do not dispute need for moderation, nor do I think that it’s an easy job. After all, humans have been dealing with the question of what is polite, proper or honorable for all of our recorded history. So it’s not an easy thing. Not something we can solve here, and certainly not something a single post will ever be able to conclude.
But I do think that in this case the situation wasn’t handled properly and that it sends a very concerning message. It certainly doesn’t make me very convinced about the fairness of the guidelines, nor their enforcement.
We may have to accept that any solution will either offend or curtail someone. But that doesn’t make me feel any better about this.
Edit:
In my opinion, this point by Tim is one of the most problematic:
However, Aug 8 is also the last time I heard from the SC. They haven’t replied to anything I sent to them since. I’m apparently ghosted for the duration.
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
This topic was automatically opened after 4 hours.
3 posts were split to a new topic: Automated moderation due to community flag volume
This has been an interesting day here and it has convinced me.
I had considered offering to volunteer to work on some project of mutual interest to somewhat give back to the community. But the attempts to repress others here, even if well meaning, make this an uncomfortable place to work so why volunteer?
Whoever seems to like pressing buttons to report others may need to get some feedback on how that helps those suspicious already will view it when not one, but multiple posts were reported including some arguably fairly harmless.
Do note lots of us have the original emails.
I agree: this entire situation is a massive PR disaster that has the potential of discouraging contributors, and thus generating far more damage to the language than the suspension-generating posts did. The posts happened on an obscure forum, but the suspension was reported on outside of the Python community. The censorship situation (even if said censorship is fully automated) does not make things better.
It would be great for Python’s future if this was sorted out more amicably.
Not just potential, unfortunately. And not just potential contributors.
I’ve heard that at least one person (with a long history of contribution) stepped down as core developer, at least partially on the ground of “this situation”. I will not mention person, but this was briefly discussed in public Python places and hardly a kind of private info. IMHO, this deserve less silence.
I wonder what’s good in this another enforcement of CoC for the community.
I’ve been in tech communities where widespread exclusion has taken place, and it’s quite a regular pattern: people throw around their social capital and make others accommodate them, they push back against CoCs with a “we don’t need all these rules” reasoning, and carry on a verbal war of attrition until others give in because they have other work to do.
Tim didn’t like a proposed bylaw change, and when it passed in a 4 to 1 landslide (he never mentions the fact that people overwhelmingly just plain disagreed with him) instead of dropping it and moving on, he added new topics and accusations. The common thread between all of them is 1) forcing other people to spend time and energy responding to him and 2) attempting to delegitimize the official channels for censuring members for their behavior. (Often this is the only way popular and longstanding members can be held accountable for their behavior.)
Like I’ve said, I’ve seen this pattern play out in hackerspaces and other tech/geek groups. It’s not new. Jo Freeman wrote about this in 1971 in their The Tyranny of Structurelessness essay. Unlike a theoretical power-mad Board of Directors, there’s nothing hypothetical about my concerns.
This drives people away. People see a space where they have to tolerate rude dismissals and they find somewhere else. When Tim says, “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 
.” and “In the “good old days”, Python was more welcoming to my eyes. For example, some developers are just plain hard to work with, routinely impatient and dismissive.” I know exactly the social dynamics he describes, and I’m glad the Python community and elected leadership has moved past this hazing and just-grow-a-thick-skin era so that it can be truly welcoming space. I hope Tim moves on as well.