# Shedding light on a three-month suspension **URL:** \ **Category:** PSF\ **Created:** [October 1, 2024, 8:44pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/shedding-light-on-a-three-month-suspension/66337 "2024-10-01T20:44:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 84
**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:** [November 22, 2024, 7:47pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/shedding-light-on-a-three-month-suspension/66337/84 "2024-11-22T19:47:35Z")
This is a cross-topic reply, because [the original](https://discuss.python.org/t/changing-pep-13-to-remove-the-coc-responsibility-from-the-sc/71885/20) didn’t belong in the PEP 13 topic. > [@Changing PEP 13 to remove the CoC responsibility from the SC](https://discuss.python.org/t/changing-pep-13-to-remove-the-coc-responsibility-from-the-sc/71885/20): > > > [@Changing PEP 13 to remove the CoC responsibility from the SC](https://discuss.python.org/t/changing-pep-13-to-remove-the-coc-responsibility-from-the-sc/71885/13): > > > > It’s also the case that I told the SC, in advance, about almost all the things I would be saying if they didn’t speak up first, and about how that would be perceived, and about how that would in turn increase community damage. But they never replied to anything I sent after Aug 8, the day after the ban was announced. > > We couldn’t. It wasn’t an appropriate use of our collective limited volunteer time. It was placing an undue burden on all of us to expect us to continue to engage with someone banned in part for excessive communication and endless debate in the first place. > > If you want your personal reputation to be one of destruction, that’s on you. > > Silence is not consent or agreement. It occurs to me that my reply there missed the point of what he was trying to say: that I said things to people in private email (and much more so later on my blog) that I knew would increase damage, and that the SC never replied did not mean they approved of my doing so. Both parts of which are true enough, but missed my point entirely too: my intent was never to cause damage, and that’s _why_ I told the SC first. I wanted the SC to have the chance to “beat me to the punch”, to try some openness of their own to head off the damage, and with luck stop it from increasing. The damage to trust was going to happen regardless eventually. It was never on the table that I wouldn’t be as open and transparent as possible \[1\], so everything I knew _would_ come out eventually. The SC couldn’t stop that, & I would not. I was offering them the chance to put their spin on it first. They didn’t, and that’s on them. As I wrote to Barry at the time (despite that he stayed out of this): > [@](#): > > … I want the SC to try something different. Nothing but damage is coming from stonewalling and gaslighting. That’s not a self-serving view - I’m not hurting. But the images of the PSF, the CoC WG, and the SC are cratering, and for reasons explained in my msg will continue to deteriorate in the absence of the SC trying to reach out honestly & respectfully to the dissenters, accepting as a given that they truly believe this ban is profoundly unjust. He said he would forward that to the SC too. * * * 1. things I’ve very openly & strongly advocated for across years --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/shedding-light-on-a-three-month-suspension/66337)._