Mailing List Archive

1 2  View All
Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah [ In reply to ]
> the problem is only a specific behavior ("gatekeeper").

I'm (obviously) not on the SC, but I have to strongly disagree with you here -- there is nothing inherently wrong with
being a gatekeeper, nor is there anything in the CoC about it. A gatekeeper can help ensure high-quality code, can
provide a direction for a module, can keep a module from bloating, etc.

The issue that I saw with Stefan was his treatment of others: some of his actions on b.p.o. were cruel and hateful, and
some of his messages were demeaning and spiteful. If his behavior in person is anything close to his online persona he
would definitely be a missing stair for me.

> Victor (speaking for himself, not in the name of the Steering Council)

Thank you for clarifying.

Also, my thanks to the Steering Council - personnel problems are never fun nor easy to deal with, and I appreciate you
and them for making it a priority.

--
~Ethan~
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/WBNVFYQ2VFV53ZNUXEGELOAARDJ4L7AX/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah [ In reply to ]
Full marks to the SC for transparency. That's a healthy sign that the
community acknowledges its disciplinary processes must also be open to
scrutiny, and rather better than dealing with matters in a Star Council.

Kind regards,
Steve


On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 12:10 AM Thomas Wouters <thomas@python.org> wrote:

>
> Stefan did indeed receive, and was notified of, a 1-year ban from core
> development. This action was based on advice from the Conduct WG and our
> own deliberations. We wanted to have a discussion with him before we made
> this public. The SC sent him an email with details (quoted below), three
> weeks ago, CC'ing the Conduct WG. We had a brief back-and-forth last week.
> Unfortunately (and without telling us), Stefan apparently declined to
> address the matter in the way we asked.
>
> For the record, the Steering Council followed the PEP 13 procedure for
> ejecting a core developer (
> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0013/#ejecting-core-team-members) and
> voted unanimously to eject Stefan, as we told Stefan we would do if he
> chose not to address the concerns we outlined below.
>
> Our original message to Stefan:
> """
> Dear Stefan,
>
> The Python Steering Council and the PSF Conduct Working Group have
> received reports of your ongoing behavior in the Python core developer
> community. The Steering Council agrees with the Conduct Working Group’s
> findings that this behavior is unacceptable. While we appreciate your
> valuable technical contributions to CPython, that does not exempt you from
> the expected standards of behavior and the Code of Conduct.
>
> Specifically, your behavior has displayed:
>
> * Disrespectful, hostile, and unwelcoming communication in tone and content
> * Harassment by needlessly adding people to issues
> * A disregard of the directions and authority of the release manager
>
> Some examples of the problematic behavior include:
>
> * https://bugs.python.org/issue36839#msg344544
> * https://bugs.python.org/issue40874#msg372616
> * https://bugs.python.org/issue40874#msg372917
> * https://bugs.python.org/issue40874#msg372922
> * https://bugs.python.org/issue39542#msg372983
>
> We are also aware that this is not new behavior. We know the PSF Conduct
> WG warned you on April 23, 2020 about your previous violations of the Code
> of Conduct.
>
> As such, we are taking the action of suspending your participation in
> Python's development for 12 months starting today. You will lose access to:
>
> * Python-committers
> * Python-dev
> * Python-ideas
> * Core-mentorship
> * bugs.python.org
> * discuss.python.org
> * The Python organization on GitHub
>
> Along with the 12-month suspension, you will need to meet additional
> conditions in good faith:
>
> * Please acknowledge that you have read and understand the Code of Conduct
> and promise to abide by it going forward
> * You write an apology to your fellow core developers for your actions
> which we will publish on your behalf when announcing your suspension
> * Acknowledge that future reinstatement will include a zero-tolerance
> conduct policy in regards to your future behavior
>
> We offer you 14 days from today to meet these conditions and submit them
> to the Steering Council via email.
>
> If you choose not to satisfy these conditions, the 12-month suspension
> will become a permanent ejection from the Python core developer community
> as per the procedures outlined in PEP 13. You are then free to go through
> the Python core developer election process also as outlined in PEP 13,
> however the Steering Council will not consider approving any positive
> outcome of that vote until the 12-month suspension has elapsed.
>
> - The Python Steering Council
> """
>
> On behalf of the Steering Council,
> Thomas.
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:48 PM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Apparently, Stefan Krah (core developer and author of the C _decimal
>> module) was silently banned or moderated from posting to python.org
>> mailing-lists. He asked me to forward the following message:
>>
>>
>>
>> ==================================================================================
>> Hello,
>>
>> Today I have left the Python organization. It wasn't an easy decision,
>> after all there are so many amazing people here.
>>
>> My vision of how development should be handled differs from many people
>> who are currently active. Other projects are more aligned with my
>> preferences, so I prefer to focus my energies elsewhere.
>>
>> Having a shared understanding of what constitutes politeness is
>> important and eliminates all sources of friction that sometimes result
>> in losing one's patience.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Stefan Krah
>>
>> ====================================================================================
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Antoine.
>> _______________________________________________
>> python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to python-committers-leave@python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-committers.python.org/
>> Message archived at
>> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-committers@python.org/message/ZIAN7ERZNF4ZE2B2SLYNRPVNERNACG5A/
>> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Wouters <thomas@python.org>
>
> Hi! I'm an email virus! Think twice before sending your email to help me
> spread!
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
> Message archived at
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/BSFWGLR45PKP6CK3LW2ZHVPYFCXWNFBI/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
Re: [python-committers] Resignation from Stefan Krah [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:17:33AM +0100, Steve Holden wrote:
> Full marks to the SC for transparency. That's a healthy sign that the
> community acknowledges its disciplinary processes must also be open to
> scrutiny, and rather better than dealing with matters in a Star Council.

The SC didn't say anything until Antoine posted an open letter from
Stefan to the list.

There is tension between the requirements of openness and privacy, and I
don't have a good answer for where the balance should be. But it seems
to me that giving "full marks for transparency" for a decision made
behind closed doors that we only found about about because one of the
parties was able to announce their ban via a third party is a remarkably
soft grade.


Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/IQZNTGMRGNWVHDGZVYKO4KXJ5TF4CO2E/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Re: Re: Resignation from Stefan Krah [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 1:32 PM Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:17:33AM +0100, Steve Holden wrote:
> > Full marks to the SC for transparency. That's a healthy sign that the
> > community acknowledges its disciplinary processes must also be open to
> > scrutiny, and rather better than dealing with matters in a Star Council.
>
> The SC didn't say anything until Antoine posted an open letter from
> Stefan to the list.
>

We didn't say anything because, as I mentioned, we wanted to discuss the
matter with Stefan before we did so. Also, as I mentioned, we had a
back-and-forth with Stefan, and were not aware he had already decided not
to comply with our requests or the Code of Conduct. Had he let us know, we
would've posted pretty much the same information a few days later.

There is tension between the requirements of openness and privacy, and I
> don't have a good answer for where the balance should be. But it seems
> to me that giving "full marks for transparency" for a decision made
> behind closed doors that we only found about about because one of the
> parties was able to announce their ban via a third party is a remarkably
> soft grade.
>

The SC had already discussed how public to be about this, and we were
always going to publish our decision as well as our initial correspondence
to Stefan. Posting his replies is not up to us, and posting our replies to
him without that context feels unfair and inappropriate. However, the
Conduct WG was copied on all the correspondence. This was not
backroom justice.

The SC does have to balance openness and privacy, and also fairness, the
health of the code base, the health of the community, personal feelings of
individual contributors, the perceptions our actions and decisions and
silence create for the individuals involved, the other core developers, and
the Python community at large. We're also still figuring out the process
and standards we want to set for this kind of thing, because it is fairly
new to the core developer community.

--
Thomas Wouters <thomas@python.org>

Hi! I'm an email virus! Think twice before sending your email to help me
spread!
Re: [python-committers] Re: Re: Resignation from Stefan Krah [ In reply to ]
Reading through this thread and the linked comment chains was very educational.
While I'm not involved enough to form an educated opinion, it's good
to see that the wheels of python org are moving.
That being said, I think that "dear stefan" email could have been
written better.
Also +1 on "not punitive" rule from wikipedia, cheers, Ivan!

On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 21:05, Thomas Wouters <thomas@python.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 1:32 PM Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:17:33AM +0100, Steve Holden wrote:
>> > Full marks to the SC for transparency. That's a healthy sign that the
>> > community acknowledges its disciplinary processes must also be open to
>> > scrutiny, and rather better than dealing with matters in a Star Council.
>>
>> The SC didn't say anything until Antoine posted an open letter from
>> Stefan to the list.
>
>
> We didn't say anything because, as I mentioned, we wanted to discuss the matter with Stefan before we did so. Also, as I mentioned, we had a back-and-forth with Stefan, and were not aware he had already decided not to comply with our requests or the Code of Conduct. Had he let us know, we would've posted pretty much the same information a few days later.
>
>> There is tension between the requirements of openness and privacy, and I
>> don't have a good answer for where the balance should be. But it seems
>> to me that giving "full marks for transparency" for a decision made
>> behind closed doors that we only found about about because one of the
>> parties was able to announce their ban via a third party is a remarkably
>> soft grade.
>
>
> The SC had already discussed how public to be about this, and we were always going to publish our decision as well as our initial correspondence to Stefan. Posting his replies is not up to us, and posting our replies to him without that context feels unfair and inappropriate. However, the Conduct WG was copied on all the correspondence. This was not backroom justice.
>
> The SC does have to balance openness and privacy, and also fairness, the health of the code base, the health of the community, personal feelings of individual contributors, the perceptions our actions and decisions and silence create for the individuals involved, the other core developers, and the Python community at large. We're also still figuring out the process and standards we want to set for this kind of thing, because it is fairly new to the core developer community.
>
> --
> Thomas Wouters <thomas@python.org>
>
> Hi! I'm an email virus! Think twice before sending your email to help me spread!
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
> Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/4FXU6ZZRLZ6274QSEMXWDXZM6XTKH2W5/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/JQQUTBRIGRUCBMDJI67AOQGEUXEIQWDE/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

1 2  View All