On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 13:57 Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:

On Sep 20, 2018, at 4:25 PM, Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:

I think the action taken by Brett (apparently decided with Titus and a
mysterious "conduct working group") is not the right one:

Just FTR, the conduct working group is the PSFs CoC Working Group, which I believe had an open call for membership at some point. I think it’s still getting setup so it hasn’t been added to the list of WGs yet or anything, but it was approved awhile back: https://www.python.org/psf/records/board/minutes/2017-08-22/#code-of-conduct-work-group

At least, I’m pretty sure that’s what Brett means.

Yep, that's exactly who I meant. Didn't realize the group had not been added to the WG list online yet.

With regards to the action, it seems reasonable to me, particularly since it was not a one-off done by one person, but was an action taken after discussion amongst the moderators and the CoC WG.

I will also say I didn't voice an opinion or participate in the discussion on the conduct WG when deciding how to handle it (beyond outlining our levels of escalation when handling these situations).

So to Yury's point of neutrality in another email, I stayed out of the decision and basically just coordinated the handling of it.

I do agree that our tools are bad, and we need to come up with new ones. With limited moderation tooling we have limited ability to head off unproductive discussions before they delve too far into the bad end of the world.

My hope is we will end up with something that allows us to centralize managing things like CoC issues so there is a consistent neutral party to manage all of this. It's something I'm actively talking to the conduct WG about in hopes that they can support that somehow and help make it happen.