On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Chris Jerdonek <chris.jerdonek@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 5:28 AM, R. David Murray <rdmurray@bitdance.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/25/2012 5:56 PM, Łukasz Langa wrote:
>> > I'm seriously considering writing all this as a PEP (most likely
>> > without any personal details). I hope this won't be useful in the
>> > future but it might help having this gathered as written policy, if
>> > only for transparency reasons.
>>
>> This strike me as over-reaction.
>
> I'm not at all sure that it is, but that "most likely" had better be
> replaced by "most certainly".  Such a policy needs to rest on fundamental
> principles.  "Bad cases make bad law", so one must be careful not to
> craft a policy to deal only with a specific egregious thing, but rather
> craft something that will serve well in the general cases.  Specifically,
> any such policy, and any statement made if we take action on Anatoly, will
> have to address the inevitable calls that we are engaging in censorship.
> There are principled answers to that charge, but we must decide which
> of them we are following and why, and articulate that clearly and
> consistently.

+1.  It might seem bureaucratic to some, but I think grounding actions
in due process and documented policy is important.  The Diversity
Statement is a good example of this.  (That statement has a different
purpose though.  It's more about something we want rather than how to
handle something we don't want.):

http://www.python.org/community/diversity/

What is CoC by the way?

Code of Conduct.

-Brett
 

> As an aside, it has occurred to me that the fundamental problem here is
> that we do not feel that Anatoly respects *us*.  So it is no wonder that
> we are offended and do not respect him.

FWIW, I've found him to be more what I'd call spammy/annoying and
lacking in some areas rather than disrespectful (opening many issues
with vague descriptions, starting more than his share of threads on
python-ideas, etc).  So I've never felt offended.  Granted, I'm
relatively new to being involved and don't follow him closely.  I
quickly learned to pass over most of what he writes for lack of time.
It's a source of amazement to me that what he writes sometimes leads
to something productive.

This is where I disagree with everyone who is defending Anatoly as someone who can be redeemed and given yet another chance to allow him to continue to  poison the community where he participates because he is just "annoying". On python-dev I checked my email on Xmas morning to an email from Anatoly where he said "What should I do in case Eric lost interest after his GSoC project for PSF appeared as useless for python-dev community". That is not "spammy/annoying" but flat-out disrespectful and rude.

I think I was the first person to publicly state I put Anatoly's email into the trash after he publicly said the PSF board should be completely disbanded and we should restructure the PSF because he viewed it as worthless. That was not annoying but disrespectful.

We have spent **years** trying to get him to be more productive and yet he manages to not to. He flat-out refuses to sign any contributor agreement and expects us to do all the work and gets mad when we don't spend our free time fixing what he wants us to. He won't even search the internet for prior discussions as David has pointed out. That's not annoying but disrespectful.

I fully understand that we are all nice people and don't want to do anything drastic, but simply ignoring him doesn't solve the issue for new people to the community who come to python-ideas, python-dev, or even the tracker on occasion and actually take the time to read his emails, reply, etc. and don't realize that a decent chunk of core developers never even see their responses as the entire thread has already been deleted/muted in the core dev's inbox. If I was new and spent some time replying to a thread only to find out that the person was being ignored and thus my hard work as well I would be frustrated.

In order to deal with this, here is my proposal that should placate those of us calling for a ban now and those that feel like there has not been enough of a warning ((I can't communicate with him because I want him banned and I personally don't get along with him even in person, so any place where someone should talk to him it can't be me in the name of fairness to the process):

1. Someone emails Anatoly to tell him he is on indefinite probation for his behaviour where it is pointed out he can no longer insult anyone (including the PSF), he can't re-open issues without an explicit solution to the problem for why it closed, and in general has to just behave and not be rude

2. We agree to point out to him nicely and calmly when he has screwed up and overstepped his bounds while on this probation and to record when that happened (an email here about any incident should be enough) so that he can learn from his mistakes

3. If we do not see a pattern of improvement (this can be noticed by anyone and I'm sure we can get a consensus on it; unanimity is not required because that is impossible for anything with a group of our size), he gets cut off from the resource he is abusing the most and those cut-offs will continue on other locations if he does not improve there as well

4. If it goes as far as he is cut off and he manages to get the point and behaves elsewhere he can be allowed back on to where he has been banned after a year has passed (IOW he has to show actual improvement)

Three key points in this proposal. One is that he gets an official warning; no more side discussions with core devs, no more "does he know people want to ban him" questions as it will be clear and explicit. He will be flat-out told his attitude and actions are not acceptable as they stand and they need to change.

Two is that there is no time limit so that he doesn't just hide away for e.g. six months, comes back, and then starts stirring up trouble while saying he behaved within the allotted time that he had to. Any change needs to be permanent and perpetuate forever.

Three, the cut-offs are gradual per resource so that it isn't an over-arching nuclear option.

I say Ezio lets him know that this is the plan since he talked to him recently and is in the no-ban-yet camp. But even if people don't like the explicit steps as I have outlined them as a general rule, someone who doesn't want him banned should tell him flat-out that he is on thin ice as I am an admin for python-ideas and this plan is what I will institute starting January 1 for that list and he is on the top of the list of people who will be in trouble if their attitude does not change (I am about to email Titus about drafting up a CoC for python-ideas so that this applies to everyone, not just Anatoly).