To be clear: what you’re saying is that Tim needs to just-grow-a-thick-skin so this can be a truly welcoming space?
7 Likes
No, «hazing and just-grow-a-thin-skin era» refers to an older time of python-dev, the earlier social dynamics.
Al is saying python-dev has moved past that to the current era and hopes Tim can move there too.
9 Likes
That sounds very reasonable. If this case was to be viewed in isolation.
I think that if everyone felt that it is, nobody would be participating in this conversation. While whole reply seems to be conditional on this being true.
I propose a poll to measure how people feel in Python community. (Maybe it doesn’t work well for technical decisions, but I think it is a good tool to measure individual accounts.)
3 Likes
I’m saying the complete opposite: Tim has made quite clear that he has incredibly thick skin when it comes to dealing with others, and that he’d like Python to go back to the days where the behavior necessitating a thick skin was tolerated. But Tim also has a well-established position in the Python community and (clearly) numerous defenders, so it’s easy for him to suggest (explicitly or implicitly) this be a requirement for everyone to participate in Python.
I’d like to head off the tiresome “Paradox” of Tolerance that invariably gets brought up: an expectation of appropriate behavior that is actually enforced is not the same as bullying or exclusion. (And I’m sorry, but I don’t have time to provide definitions for “expectation”, “appropriate”, “behavior”, and every other word I used.)
16 Likes
Why? This whole debacle started over a proposed bylaw change that ended up passing in a 4 to 1 landslide without controversy, but that didn’t prevent endless relitigation and neither would the results of a new poll (and a new new poll, and a new new new poll). This is exactly what my earlier “war of attrition” comments were talking about.
I’m going to step back from this thread to give a chance for others to speak, but also because I have work to do. I’m frustrated, but please assume my words come plainly and in good faith. Tim Peters has made enormous contributions to Python that we are all grateful for and I wouldn’t be where am I without those contributions. I don’t want my position read as the opposite of what it is.
19 Likes
Wouldn’t it be good to know how people feel in social spaces of Python? What better data can there be to improve the community?
1 Like
Polls offer an extremely limited set of responses, they are prone to response bias[1] and they will only reach a small proportion of the community. Doing that kind of thing requires time and effort, and realistically money to pay people to do it correctly.
people with strong opinions are much more likely to respond ↩︎
6 Likes
Agreed.
I am just suggesting that maybe some initial investment into this area is worth it and it would be helpful to bring such conversations into constructive discussions.
2 Likes
Um, isn’t a core contributor being given a 3-month suspension “controversy”? Personally I was glad there was some discussion and pushback before the vote. And I felt Tim and others asked legitimate questions about the proposal. That it passed after the questioning shows the community wanted it anyway. It doesn’t make the questioning wrong or inappropriate.
27 Likes
It passed “without controversy”, yet there was “endless relitigation”. Which one is it? Was there controversy or not?
Remember that the bylaw change was voted on by a very narrow subsection of the community. Even if it had been completely unanimous, this doesn’t actually prove that everyone agreed with it - only that those with voting rights did.
But the biggest problem with Tim’s suspension wasn’t the original bylaw change. It was the silence. Lots and lots of silence from the SC and COC WG, and lots of silencing of anyone who objected. It is like pulling teeth to get any sort of official response on this matter. Those who have power are quite content to keep it, and to not be answerable to anyone.
And yet, those of us who have been hurt by the SC in this matter are expected to just grow a thick skin and move on. Or is there something else going on here?
11 Likes
The SC is fully answerable to the core devs. If they are bothered by this silence, they can vote them out. Based on the discussion around the motion of no confidence that was started (and halted), it doesn’t seem like there are many, if any, core devs that fundamentally disagree the decisions the SC/CoC is making to the point where they need to be removed. [1]
However, it seems like you are not content with this answer, meaning your position is in conflict with that of the core devs. And at some point the question comes up “what community”? To what community is the SC, CoC WG and Board of PSF directors accountable in your eyes, if not those communities who vote on their positions (indirectly in the case of CoC WG AFAIK)?
Some of the voiced complaints, and IIRC the most likely result is that future suspension will be handled entirely by the CoC WG - The SC will fully delicate it. I don’t think this is what most people who publicly complained wanted. But don’t quote me on this, read up on those discussions yourself. ↩︎
Éric,
Note my comments are not particularly about you, and I just chose your message as a point where I put a reply after reading many others.
Quite precisely, this discussion is about whether some small group can impose a new era and then demand everyone else shut up or even wildly support them or leave before they are removed. I suggest in demanding their form of tolerance, they are even more intolerant and should, by similar rules, be censured for making this a tense and intolerant place to work or a forum for discussions.
This discussion is not really just about this python forum and some people here are from other cultures that may not share the same sensibilities but have other sensibilities. It is not mathematically possible to make everyone happy, of course. Some milder middle conditions may suffice.
But you cannot have something like one vote and declare the matter is closed forever. I was not there and I can understand some people hoped people like Tim would just shut up or go away even if many of the changes seemed to be power grabs or really not particularly relevant, or even helpful, to maintaining and improving Python which is really the main purpose.
Again, I was not here at the time. But was the agenda we seem to be discussing made clear when the voting process was in place? Will candidates in any future elections be asked to share their thoughts so others can let them know if it is shared by a majority?
There has been some discussion on changing voting methods that may be a bit disturbing in this regard. One group wants staggered voting and that means just one or a few people are up for election each time. It is hard to change course, especially if they nominate and support their own candidates. But, it also makes it harder for various candidates from smaller or under-represented communities to be elected. Another group wants voting methods that increase the ability to bring in some form of diversity. As it happens, that tends to produce boards like the one we are discussing with people coming in with agendas other than about Python.
Consider a thought experiment. What if we have another set of elections and Tim and some similarly-minded people win and even manage to remove those in power and overturn much of the “progress” they have made. Do you think they would go away and declare the matter settled, or perhaps would they be way more militant about demanding a return to their way?
I have no vote but if I had, …
Avi
4 Likes
Al, I want to politely point out your argument is flawed.
I am not really a believer in small numbers meaning all that much and saying that 4 of 5 is a landslide, when some chose to not participate by recusing themselves, is not as meaningful as you think.
Yes, by the rules, they won a vote but that does not imply others outside the inner circle support them. Some do, and some don’t, and I suspect some that did are reconsidering especially when they see what is being discussed here including by the supposed winners.
Be that as it may, consider how many of those voters might have hesitated had they seen what the reaction has been since. Do they care about getting re-elected? All kinds of groups, and I am not trying to be political, tend to get into some form of power, and claim their agenda now has full support, and go way too far until another election gives people a chance to hand it over to another side. Unfortunately, that side probably overdoes it too, …
Rumor has it that maybe one person has been pushing an agenda and got others to go along including some perhaps less militant. What would happen if that person was identified and maybe even removed? Would the vote be closer?
I suggest that endlessly suggesting this matter be closed is precisely what won’t let it close without serious damage to the organization.
A poll done may be meaningless but it may send a message to board members or future board members.
The concept that people can be happy when they have to guard every word they write and when others take umbrage as if every opinion about their ideas is actually about them and that they are entitled to flag anyone is not a valid, let alone fair, concept. That is my definition of a hostile workplace.
And, as I noted elsewhere, that is why I can’t see working here at this time.
4 Likes
Are you aware that this is the vote they are talking about, with 492/605 PSF fellows[1] voting in favor of By law change 3? [2]
4:1 in this case does not mean 5 total votes, it’s an approximation for the ratio (showing about 80% support)
7 Likes
Cornelius,
Thank you for sharing that. As noted, have said repeatedly I was not here during much of the process.
What I read here earlier was 4 to 1 and if there are five members on a council, that fits. However, I do not see the vote count you mention of 492/605 which would be closer to 5 out of 6.
Did anyone take a closer look at the reported percentages and notice one of those was not quite like the others?
- Bylaws change 1 (merger of Contributing and Managing member classes): 94.2% yes (603 total votes)
- Bylaws change 2 (treating past voting activity as intent to continue voting): 93.2% yes (602 total votes)
- Bylaws change 3 (empowering the Board to remove Fellows for CoC violations by majority vote): 81.3% yes (605 total votes)
A few more people voted on the one some here consider controversial and yet, it got a smaller percentage of 81% of the vote. Yes, 81% is a fairly overwhelming number too but what were they voting about?
I have not read up on the code of conduct but I have to assume a large percentage of it is by now common sense. But, in my opinion, activists of many kinds have a tendency to keep expanding things by including a few additional things not everybody is in favor of and then asking for a vote on the entire thing.
We have had votes in places like the US Congress where whichever party is in power, offers gigantic bills with hundreds or thousands of pages of detail and demands a vote which ends up giving out lots of pork or has items they would want to vote against.
Of course, next election cycle they are accused of voting for (or against) what they have another opinion of and trying to explain.
I think if somehow some of the voters today were asked if they voted for specific actions by the board (that some consider unbalanced in representing Python users (I mean the larger group of us)) such as what they specifically did to a few persons based on what they charged them with and what the other side claims, you might see some change their votes.
I know this is how things work. The reality is we have people in charge who cannot easily be removed and perhaps shouldn’t be. But they should learn to be more cautious and back off from further antagonizing people and focus on python and not on changing yet another aspect of society into a college campus.
I had nothing to do with the withdrawn suggestion but don’t be so sure it will not be raised again and even get a large following.
The people who need to get a tougher skin, whatever that means, are some of the supporters of what has happened and they need to change as much, or more, as they demand others do. If not, they may find it harder to raise funds or get volunteers and may have a politically correct product that rarely changes.
And note, this reply, again, is about ideas, not about you. I noted earlier what the behavior I perceive reminds me of and, of course, somehow that was too offensive to be allowed to remain where people could see it. It remains true and I will not edit what I say when that is exactly what I mean.
And to be very clear, I have no real interest in this fight as what happens to python will not affect me much, let alone what happens in this forum. I can walk away. Some others though will be affected and have to decide for themselves.
3 Likes
Tim also has another article (and a list), commenting on the accusations, picking just one and describing how it’s completely made up and misrepresents what he had said.
Also reminds me yet again of @gpshead’s appalling straw man, completely misrepresenting what @mcdonc had actually written in his analysis, even putting “analysis” in quotes as if it wasn’t one.
10 Likes
Yes, so please inform yourself on this topic before commenting. This is all publicly available [1], you are doing yourself a disservice and wasting others time by not reading up on it.
492/605 = 81.3%, i.e. approximately 4:1 in favor. This is what they meant, even if you don’t believe it.
And yet, you feel the need to waste your and my time by commenting based on incorrect information and assumptions. Clearly, you are not willing to walk away.
Well, except for the raw vote info, but that is not really needed ↩︎
10 Likes
Al’s quotes from Tim are from https://discuss.python.org/t/inclusive-communications-expectations-in-python-spaces/57950
Well, no. For context, more quotes, further down the page in the Inclusive Communications topic:
So Tim said he agrees with the community educating or excluding someone who is “routinely impatient and dismissive,” not that he wants to go back to the way things used to be.
But he did drop it and move on, said nothing more about the bylaw change. He started one new topic, “How can we better support neurodivergent newcomers to the community?” I don’t think anyone was forced to participate. He hoped to “spark introspection and discussion.”
11 Likes
I was trying not to comment on this thread but Cunningham trapped me.
This is referring to the meme version of the paradox which everyone repeats because it’s very unfortunately the first line of its Wikipedia entry:
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance includes the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating both the tolerant and the practice of tolerance.
This is actually not what Popper said in context. This is the relevant chapter 7 footnote from the book[1] (available here on the Internet Archive, with many typos):
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
He’s not saying that tolerating intolerance itself is bad but rather specifically intolerance as defined by people who no longer respond to reason or those who do not wish to engage in such discussions.
It’s an exercise left for the reader to determine which parties could be interpreted as being intolerant under this more correct reading.
Popper, K., Ryan, A., & Gombrich, E. H. (1994). THE PRINCIPLE OF LEADERSHIP. In The Open Society and Its Enemies: New One-Volume Edition (NED-New edition, pp. 114–129). Princeton University Press. The Open Society and Its Enemies: New One-Volume Edition on JSTOR ↩︎
15 Likes
[Stefan]
Tim also has another article
That was a useful link. Now we know for certain what Tim really thinks about the ban notice.
[Tim]
I believe posting that list was all of unjust, immoral, and unethical. I will not pretend otherwise. It’s bullying, and a gross abuse of power by all involved. It’s wrong.
6 Likes