On 4 May 2017 at 06:10, Guido van Rossum email@example.com wrote:
Two ex-board members disagree. I have to side with Brian; the PSF board should have minimal say in how the developers develop.
Note, I'm fine with the board being the arbiter when someone disagrees with their ban though -- there's got to be a "higher authority" for appeals. But I don't agree that the board should be the decider on the initial ban.
I think initial temporary suspensions should definitely be handled without involving the Board (just as they are for any other PSF provided channel).
I also think there are two cases that can definitely only be handled at the board level:
development team appealing to the Board for reconsideration
(python-dev, python-ideas, core-workflow, bugs.python.org, GitHub python org) be extended to other PSF provided channels
I'd previously said that I thought conversion of temporary suspensions to permanent bans should also go to the Board, but I now think it makes more sense to handle that as:
a permanent ban
P.S. Don't forget that the specific context here is *public* behaviour that is the domain of channel moderators, rather than confidentially reported Code of Conduct concerns. Handling of the latter will remain with the PSF Board or their appointed representatives, independently of how we handle moderation of the development channels.