On Dec 28, 2012 4:38 PM, "Chris Jerdonek" <chris.jerdonek@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 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).
>
> Thanks, Brett. These steps sound great to me. It would be good if
> the e-mail for (1) is posted here (either before or after sending but
> preferably before). Is Ezio being asked to let him know about (1)
> through (4) or to actually do (1)? To make the e-mail official, it
> should say it is being sent on behalf of this group or be signed by
> more than one person and CC more than one core dev.
>
It doesn't matter to me who writes the email. I was not thinking so formally, bit it wouldn't hurt.
-brett
> Also, for the record I never meant to defend Anatoly and don't
> personally believe he can be redeemed. I just felt he should be
> officially warned as a matter of process. Also, I admit that I was
> wrong in implying that he didn't disrespect the group or community.
> His recent e-mail about Eric's project was terrible. It was more how
> I felt personally because there is a point at which you start
> disregarding and not taking seriously anything a person says (he is
> past that point). The point about new people who don't have that
> understanding yet is a very good one.
>
> --Chris