Hi, Glyph. Nice to see you here. First day on the web?
If so, ya, of course there are many different topics in play, and of course it’s discursive and expanding, and of course almost none of it is about Franz, or even related directly to his suspension (if you haven’t read everything, I have, and I haven’t seen anyone object to the fact of his suspension).
It’s the chaos inherent in every prelude to change. Very much of an authentic creative process in the presence of uncertainty about what’s possible - or even desirable. It fill find its way or fizzle out. From my POV, the latter is most likely. The titular captain of Team Tim team is ready to check out anyway
Perhaps @malemburg will take up another attempt that follows all the “proper endorsed procedures” more to your liking. And perhaps @ofek will make progress on his more modest hope to introduce an optional mediation path. The latter might even succeed. I too would prefer some tangible progress over none.
Be very VERY careful what you say. You are asking for the termination of discussion, while also stating that you support a specific side in that discussion.
Splitting to a different topic is straight-forward and does not require that the discussion cease. You’re right that this isn’t specifically about one person’s suspension, but that’s not in itself a reason to end the discussion.
I am inferring from this intense emphasis that you have read some kind of threat into my post.
So, let me make it clear: I do not hold any power here beyond influence based on individual esteem. There was no threat of consequence in my post beyond my own opprobrium. If you (or anyone else) find it unconvincing, you may continue making everyone upset without further obstruction. While I would certainly find that outcome disappointing, I probably won’t even post anything else, let alone take any procedural steps towards stopping you.
Not a threat per se, but just that it is a very common means of silencing opposition to call for the end of a discussion. Doing so while also entering the discussion and stating a side looks like you’re trying to have a say while stopping anyone else from having a say. Maybe that wasn’t your intention, but it came across like that.
BTW, you could instead apply some of the analytical approaches I used here:
viewing hearts as Approvals on ballot “candidates”. Proportional representation schemes excel at identifying the consequences of “factions”, but multidimensional scaling is a visual method that’s much better at showing who the factions consist of.
It could all use some tweaking to better fit this different context, though. The thought inspires me to try a conceptually much simpler approach based on counting a version of n-grams (“how many posts were hearted by all of X, Y, and Z?”). If that proves interesting, I’ll write it up in the referenced topic tonight or tomorrow.
The intuition is, I think, clear enough on first sight: factions reveal themselves by which people tend to like mostly the same posts Which leaves those who fear to express a view invisible, but then they already are.
Off topic? Mostly. But The State could use it to automate building Enemies Lists without even bothering to read through content, so it’s not really hostile to power .
Yeah I’m deeply uncomfortable by the personal nature of this.
I need to ask you, as just myself on no merit beyond my reasoning, to please refrain from doing this. I understand this is likely not your intent, but this strays exceptionally close to encouraging briganding and harassment by creating lists of groups.
When disconnected and academic, this kind of analysis can be incredibly interesting and insightful. But it can become something which is intended to do good and be insightful but which enables or causes harassment when it’s personal and tied to people you work with. I don’t think it adds value to the growth of python or programmers with respect to its presence in this forum.
I am afraid that some folks may see this as a reason not to engage in the community at all, lest they accidentally be grouped in the wrong group.
I want to be clear, I, by assumption of good faith, doubt you intend to harass, but having been online on reddit I’ve seen well intentioned analysis become something that fuels harassment when it focuses on persons and not tangible ideas.
This is an interesting point. I suspect that there are a number of factions that are likely silent for various reasons.
I remember the old usenet days where I was silent. While I can appreciate that many found it a useful forum, I found it a forum that I might lurk but rarely post. It wasn’t my cup of tea as discussions ran the gamut from hostile to helpful. The hostile signal to helpful noise ratio wasn’t worth it to me though I respected that others found value there.
I’m not sure where this conversation should go from here. I do think for it to produce meaningful change that the conversation needs to find more common ground and less polarizing discourse.
Thanks, @KeithTheEE! I think your cautions are wise, and I’ve dropped this. I’m certain, though, that various governments’ agencies already have quite sophisticated software used for similar ends.
In the ballot analysis topic, I left out names for similar reasons, but they’re really quite easy to deduce (and the int->name mapping is explicit in the publicly available ballot download).
However, those are candidate names. Nothing whatsoever is available (not to the public, nor to me, nor to the PSF) to associate names with voters. In theory, that connection existed only on the voting service’s servers for the duration of the election. Although I haven’t done an audit of the software they used, so can’t rule out the possibility of a security hole (for example, perhaps that they neglected to shuffle the list of email addresses the PSF gave them, and the ballot download reflects that order, in which case it would be trivial for the PSF it attach names to voters). A smaller hole would be, e.g., that the ballot download reflects the order in which votes were cast. Then people with info about when particular people may have voted could make inferences with some success. Etc. Best would be if they randomized the ballot order right before making them available for download.
Before tossing the code, there’s one on-topic result I got: 3 ballots approved of Franz alone. 3 “bullet ballots” for Franz. All of the candidates got at least one bullet ballot, and the three top vote-getters got most of the bullet ballots. So don’t read much into the “bullet terminology”. As briefly explained in that topic, there are multiple reasons for “why” people vote that way
Absolutely, Carol! People are complicated, but that’s not news to you ;
I expect the biggest “faction” is accidental: plain lurkers. In the recent election, there were 929 eligible voters. So they were interested enough to, at least at one time, register their intention to vote. But only 683 bothered to vote. Decent turnout as such things go, but the level of abstention is still a puzzle to me. Not just here, but in pretty much all elections everywhere.
And it appears that most people on online forums never participate: pure consumers of content rather than producers. A while ago I read that most users of Twitter/X had never tweeted/posted (even after attempts to weed out bot accounts).
WRT Discourse, those I hear from have specific, related reasons. Some did post here in the past, but felt picked on, powerless, and targeted. In all, I’m sure they’re a small minority of the non-participators here, though. Others explained why they withdrew (like Steve Holden, a great loss to me, because he’s one of those who grew wiser as he aged - but, of course, we’re still in touch).
Quite similar to my late sister, although she wasn’t a tech person and lurked more on policy, environmental, social sciences, and “far left wing” political forums. She found most of those too unpleasant to contribute to too, but she was much keener on consuming ideas than socializing.
I was very happy that when she made a stealth account here. nobody “piled on” her. It would have been nicer if someone bothered to reply to her, if only to say “welcome!”, but she was happy with her brief time here. Had she lived longer, I was hoping to seduce her into learning Python. She had a good mind for programming, and excelled at solving all kinds of puzzles.
I can’t even see a consensus forming on whether any problem, of any kind, exists, no matter how narrowly focused.
So, as usual, the fundamental problem is that other people exist, but are so perverse they won’t echo my opinions verbatim
You’re free to do so, and it may be so, but I’ve been here forever. There’s no consistency across cases. Sometimes there’s a list of charges; sometimes not. Sometimes a person is named; sometimes not. Sometimes links are given to posts supporting the action; sometimes not. In one case, neither the person was named nor the nature of the offense (& so too, of course no evidence of any kind was given).
So in the absence of any communication from the groups about this appearance of change, I don’t assume any change is more than just what a Magic-8 Ball picked today. If they have a policy, or made a change in policy, the community shouldn’t have to guess. Note that the source of much of the speculation here is that speculation is the only source of “information” we have. It’s a very poor substitute for dialog - or even for a monolog.
Note that this is specifically about “corrective action announcements”. The mods certainly have engaged in some dialog in some other areas.
@brettcannon in particular has sometimes posted without the bloodless “corporate voice”, to pull back the curtain on various moderation-related topics as they came up. I thought those were always well-received (including by me!). That’s engagement.
I think you might have taken the opposite point than the one I intended.
I did not mean to say that I couldn’t tell who is in which faction because I found the graph analysis challenging. For my purposes, that part was intuitively trivial.
For the reasons @KeithTheEE outlines, among others, I would also request that everyone refrain from doing this sort of numerical analysis in the future.[1]
What I meant to express is that while I can fairly clearly see who is in which faction, the factions do not have clearly articulated policy platforms. Partisanship, while it may stoke conflict, can still be principled and even necessary, but factionalism based on personality without specific partisan policy preferences is just cliquishness. So ideally the factions would have some declared platforms to rally around.
I have a very small amount of knowledge specifically about using n-grams for a similar purpose of sympathy-identification, and while I cannot really talk about it publicly I can say it got dark, and fast; my hope with respect to that experience is just that it is really antiquated and doesn’t reflect anything materially related to this situation. But I would still hope that such a dataset would never come to exist for the PSF. ↩︎
Na, but you missed mine entirely because I didn’t explicitly make it
For your purposes I’m sure that’s so. For other people, there may be “revelations” in store if they haven’t yet seriously considered the implications of applying data analysis to public information when applied to dubious ends. Edward Snowden put his freedom on the line to expose some of the dirty tricks the US government engages in at massive scale, but he’s too abstract for most of the public to see more than “oh - just another traitorous malcontent - lock him up!”. I like instead to highlight easy, concrete, “small”, contemporary possibilities. Perhaps that can help stir people from eternal slumber. Perhaps not. Worth a try, to me.
I already yielded to @KeithTheEE’s good points, and, as I said to him, dropped the mini-project. But it was approximately nothing compared to what’s possible now.
But “antiquated” because it’s technically far behind current state-of-the-art. Analyzing securely anonymized ballots [1] is far as I’ve gone, and is all I ever wanted. I wouldn’t cooperate with someone who wanted to try to “weaponize” the raw data in any way. Bur a reasonably bright person with minimal relevant background go could a long way on their own. I’m not at all a gatekeeper of relevant know-how. Not even close to being an actual expert in the general field.
And here are our views of the world genuinely and deeply differ. I find apparent chaos both normal and necessary for a creative process hoping to address “deep” governance issues. There are no “clearly articulated positions’” (except for the default “everything is unicorns and rainbows, because it’s the status quo” and the kneejerk “everything sucks, because it’s the status quo”) to be had yet, and it’s too early in the process to realistically demand some. While desirable, that’s not how the world works, “Facts” and “objective merit” count for nothing compared to social dynamics. Unfortunately for me, my social skills are eclipsed by those of your average murder hornet.
So, as in another “deep governance” topic I started last year (in fact the only topic I did start back then, despite peoples’ confabulated memories insisting otherwise), you made a similarly long and persuasive “thoroughly reasonable” post.
Which resulted in .. nothing. It effectively killed the discussion, although that wasn’t your intent then either. I went on to make some more-than-less specific suggestions, which were rejected at once by “people with power” who didn’t believe there was “a problem” to be addressed. I just gave up then, and stopped posting in PSF entirely, and the topic was closed without any resolution or “official response”. I expect past is prelude again.
The last time a “deep governance” problem made progress I’m aware of came from the African groups’ “Open Letter to the PSF”. Which was very short on articulated policy prescriptions, but was a very clear expression of pain, on multiple grounds for multiple reasons.
But what made it work was that the PSF would have been hypocritical beyond anyone’s ability to rationalize away if they refused to acknowledge utterly blatant discrimination against African groups in the grant process. That’s social dynamics at work. And, to its great credit, the PSF did go on to take that critique to heart, making and announcing real changes with some grace. No PEP (etc) even asked for. “Umm - we were in the wrong there. Let’s try to fix it. We’re really going to try..”
The people whose pain I indirectly express mostly aren’t members of officially recognized “protected classes”, so I can only make a case for that indecent treatment of anyone, even “unpopular” people, technically violates our CoC. I know. “Yawn. Nothing to see here. Move along,”
candidate identities are easily deduced, but nothing about voter identities - although it’s plausible to infer that if a candidate received a single ballot that approved of only that candidate, ya, one guess as to who that is - but even Franz got 3 “bullet ballots” ↩︎
I don’t believe that individuals were being treated indecently during the time that I served on the Steering Council and CoC Workgroup. Though we could argue the semantics of my perspective, I will share the fact that every incident that was reported during my tenure was handled with care and consideration for all individuals involved.
I do believe that reporters experienced pain as did those who received action on behalf of the CoC workgroup or Steering Council.
Personally, I respect that the Guidelines - Discussions on Python.org and CoC have tried to distill down communication norms. One area, that could perhaps use more articulation by the CoC workgroup, is the reinstatement steps, if any, after an indefinite or lengthy ban (over one year).
In my view, things have gotten worse every year since then.
Sure, we disagreed about one of the decisions during your tenure, but we never lost respect for each other. My main gripe about that I never even expressed to you. The way the target was informed, which took them by surprise after “a long time” had passed in silence, and was so cold it left them psychologically devastated. It took years for them to recover, and the “peanut gallery” went on in real life to harass their potential employers and clients. The actual effects in real life went far beyond just being silenced here for a few months.
I don’t believe you would have done such a thing. It was indecent treatment to my eyes. But groups aren’t individuals, and actions groups take are often inexplicable without appeal to the social dynamics unique to groups. There’s a reason mobs don’t enjoy a good reputation
In last year’s purges, I have no words left to convey how contemptible the actions were. I’ve already used unjust, immoral, unethical, abuse of power, and bullying on my blog. That’s a start, anyway. You, for example, would not have signed off on publicly accusing me of “defending reverse sexism”, not just because you already know it’s something I wouldn’t defend, but because I in fact never even mentioned the topic. There’s 0 evidence because it never happened. “Well, someone said they thought they saw something like that once” wouldn’t meet your standards.
It’s just compounding indecent behavior to have been challenged on that very point multiple times, but never even acknowledge that such challenges have been made. Decent behavior would be producing such a post, or publicly retracting the false public charge. In the latter case, more than just minimal decency would also include a public apology, but I never asked for one, and won’t.
No argument about that there’s plenty of pain to spread around .
But no effective way to appeal. “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe” . One brave woman shared her tale of getting dinged for using what appeared to be an ordinary word in an ordinary technical sense. Willing to have her name made public, and all her correspondence with the mod in question. But I declined to write it up on my blog, with mixed feelings, because I saw no sign of bad intent on either side. They just disagreed about whether a reasonable person could take offense at her use of that word. I agreed with her, but it wasn’t my call to make. She was left deeply offended that the mod in question appeared to move Heaven and Earth to read what she wrote in the worst possible light imaginable.
I would like to see the actual community weigh in on cases “like that”. We’re not children, and should have some direct say about the standards by which our peers are judged.
I know one “indefinite” recipient who would like to return to participating here, but they’re lost as to how to proceed. According to them, they never heard anything about how the suspension could ever be lifted. Beyond that it gets complicated and confidential, and I won’t disclose more. Suffice it to say that, last I heard, they still haven’t gotten a clue.
So, yes, absolutely, something should be public about how such cases are treated.
There’s a now hidden post where you are doing exactly that. Hidden posts can’t be seen by forum users anymore as we received many complaints that it was unfair that “only trust level 3 people can see them”. But if I understand correctly, you should be able to see your own hidden post.
In fact, the entire context there is hidden due to a large number of user flags we received from users on that topic, including relevant posts by Karl. Long story short: Karl went on a tirade about how the CoC is immoral due to the “reverse sexism” clause. Somebody objected because the term is widely understood in context. You went on to defend Karl.
In any case, the moderators stayed off this topic despite a growing number of flags we’re receiving. 1/3 of the posts here are yours, in fact you’re typing right now as I’m finishing this post! The last post currently published is by you as well. I would like to suggest you slow down.
BTW, it’s not my interest to go on about “my case” here. It’s been so long since it saw any relevant activity that it slipped my mind that there’s a different topic about that:
For a year, I was conscientious in trying to steer all such discussions to there, where they could die in relative obscurity .That muscle memory apparently faded away.
So please follow up there if you have something to say. I’d just add that last year’s actions weren’t just about me, but that topic overwhelmingly is. Which isn’t fair to the other people we’ve lost.
Not true. As I said on my blog, I copied the phrase “reverse sexism” verbatim by way of quoting a post I was replying to. I never expressed any direct opinion about the doctrine itself, but, if I had, would have opposed it.
Cool! I don’t know that - thanks. Would have saved me time wrestling with the Wayback Machine to capture deleted posts.
I defended nothing whatsoever of what Karl said. I did defend him from accusations of necessarily acting in “bad faith” for expressing opinions that didn’t match the PSF’s stated opinions. I did signal that I in fact agreed with the PSF’s opinions in the general area:
I happen to agree that more useful definitions incorporate an analysis of power dynamics …
That wasn’t agreeing with Karl’s arguments, but was agreeing with the PSF’s position, although by way of explaining part of “the reason” that the PSF took the position it did. Which the PSF itself declined to say for itself, apparently just assuming that its views must be universal among all people of good faith.
I take the CoC’s requirement to respect other opinions seriously. although it’s really more the case that the Golden Rule and principle of charity inform my choices. I don’t primarily care whether someone agrees with me or not.
IMO, Karl should be free to disagree, without that taken as dispositive evidence of “bad faith”.
That was my point.
I fully agree my participation in this topic has been excessive. I’ll go back to wrestling with some code now.
I have several things to say, but I’ve said them all before in one form or another. Let me just reiterate that I appreciate the work that the moderation team and the CoC WG do. After reading through yet another lengthy thread of re-litigation on already-decided matters, I can see why other tech communities take a blind eye on actual enforcement. It certainly spares them from all this. But the efforts of the members (who are real people who you can actually meet and talk to in their limited time) that make up the mod & CoC groups are no small part of what make the Python community so special.
You are a very busy individual with a lot of responsibilities so this is probably an issue of not having enough time to read what you linked. That post (as can be seen on archives) isn’t saying what you just stated and I fear that not addressing that would invariably leave the uninformed reader with an inaccurate perception.
Tim’s words read as him stating he would never “defend discriminatory behavior” and yours imply that the hidden post is an example of him advocating for or being supportive of such behavior. In actuality, the discussion was about certain terms from academia being used directly in the PSF CoC (which are still present). Specifically, the language states that usage of those terms is a sign of bad faith and that reports containing them may be dismissed outright. People take objection to those terms because they mean something very particular only within academic settings (and some social media) when the general populace understands it as referring to a very real umbrella concept that can happen.
I’m happy for people to read the post for themselves. It was what I later said it was here. Not one word “defending reverse sexism” (to the contrary, strongly implying that I agreed with the PSF’s view of that, not with Karl’s), but rather that I supported Karl in posting whatever views he favored provided they were made in good faith. Which wasn’t really a problem with Karl. While his style was almost universally disliked, he was about as WYSIWYG as anyone I’ve ever seen.
Since this is the only 'evidence" that’s ever been identified directly, it merits attention.
But I expect it would violate some rule here to copy the content of a hidden post. So I won’t.
I’ll make it available on my blog instead, in the long-inactive “Ban Q&A” section, but not tonight. I’m tired .
And because I don’t rely on “just trust me” when I can avoid it with non-heroic effort, I located the original post on the Internet Wayback Machine, and will share a link to their archives, over which neither I nor the PSF has any influence. If you want to try that yourself, it was post #5 in the PSF “I’m leaving too” topic, dated July 18, 2024, 3:24am.
But, frankly, it’s not really interesting on its own. I shouldn’t have bothered typing it to begin with. Making it the basis of a chargeable offense is beyond comprehension to me, short of granting that a careless reading leaping to pre-determined conclusions based on skimming for keywords could account for it. Or just a mistake.
BTW, there is some snarky “Uncle Timmy” humor in that too, not even signaled with a wink. It could be that’s what people really took offense at. But I’ll spell that out on the blog.
;
.