Le lun. 15 oct. 2018 à 11:35, Antoine Pitrou email@example.com a écrit :
I don't want to put this responsibility on the board. So yes, conflicts between core developers will be handled by the conduct WG.
How does that work? The conduct WG doesn't even seem to have published procedures. Also we cannot expect them to follow the history of interpersonal interactions in Python core development.
https://wiki.python.org/psf/ConductWG/Charter contains many information.
But I'm open to other propositions how to handle such conflict :-)
If something is required, I would suggest some kind of ethical committee that would be comprised of core developers. I would also suggest their mission to focus on appeasement rather than punishment.
"punishment" Oh, you seem to have a very bad opinion about the conduct WG :-( Why do you have a so bad opinion? I don't think that the goal of the conduct WG is to punish.
I don't know if they already published transparency reports, but I'm quite sure that removing messages or ban someone is the least common option and only taken for the worst incidents. I'm quite sure that many issues are handled in private with people involved in the incident and that no punishment action has been taken.
... That's just guesses, I don't know much about this conduct group :-) It seems to be one of your concern, the lack of transparency?
I'm not sure how creating a *new* group would be way better: more fair and more transparent?
I like the idea of having a group which is external to the core developer group, since I expect them to be more "fair". For example, if an "important"/"popular" core dev misbehaves, it may be more difficult for other core developers to take any action. If the group handling CoC incidents is external, I expect them to handle incidents the same way for everyone.
For example, when Guido was the BDFL, if you imagine that BDFL misbehaved, who would stand up against Guido? Maybe this example is too hypothetical. Better examples can be found in the Linux community, their BDFL Linus Torvalds is known to have strong words on the mailing list: https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/after-years-of-abusive-e-mails-th...
I'm not interested here to discuss if Linus behaviour was appropriate or not. I'm just asking about the process: who is supposed to discuss with Linus about his behaviour? Replace "Linus" with any other famous/popular Linux developer. And why no action has been taken to reduce the toxicity of the Linux mailing list when Sage Sharp wrote a blog post explaining clearly that the Linux community has issues? https://sage.thesharps.us/2015/10/05/closing-a-door/
I'm using the example of Linux because multiple events are well documented, the situation is getting better, and in the past, there were many blocker issues to handle "Code of Conflict" incidents. Moreover, it's easier to criticize a community different than ours community :-) Our community is perfect, right? :-)