Here's a step-by-step guide of how things would be handled with Raymond's proposal -- which seems reasonable to me, BTW -- and can act as an initial draft of what we can put in the devguide:
  1. A person is warned that they are violating the CoC by the moderator of the resource being used and it is explained to them how they are violating it in hopes that they change their behaviour
  2. Depending on the severity of the violation, the person in question may receive multiple warnings until they are told that one more violation will lead to a temporary ban
  3. If the person violates again after their final warning, the moderator of the resource being used has the right to temporarily ban the violator from the resource for a length of time of their choosing, but no more than 3 months
    1. XXX or some length of time we all are comfortable with that doesn't require creating a panel like permanent banishment does;
    2. XXX and who can the person who is temporarily banned appeal to if they disagree? PSF board?
  4. When the person who was violating the CoC is allowed back into the resource, if they violate the CoC I permanent ban may be considered by convening a panel of three people to decide if a permanent ban is necessary
    1. If banishment occurs, it will be followed with an email to python-committers recording that the banishment has occurred and who formed the panel in making that decision
    2. The person who has been banned may appeal to the PSF board if they disagree with the ban
  5. The moderator of the resource reserves the right to request from the PSF board a ban from all PSF-controlled resources if the violations of the CoC are deemed severe enough
    1. Banishment from two separate resources will automatically trigger a request of the PSF board to ban the violator from all PSF-controlled resources

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 at 04:34 Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2 April 2017 at 06:59, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> And from the point of view of the impact on folks suspended and/or
> banned, "I got suspended/banned from <channel> due to my inability to
> follow explicit directions regarding my communications style" doesn't
> seem to me all that different from "I got suspended/banned from
> <channel> due to my inability to be respectful and kind towards my
> fellow participants".
[...]

In principle, I agree with pretty much all of what you said. However,
the one point I disagree on is that describing someone as having
violated the code of conduct is no big deal. In your quote above, you
avoid the term "Code of Conduct", and I think that's pertinent.

While the Python community is the focus here, I think it's naive to
ignore what other parts of the technical community, and even wider
observers of that community, think. From what I can tell, people in
general are aware that the technical community has identified an issue
with how we handle diversity - openness to contributions from people
outside of the "white male technical geek" stereotype. The means that
technical communities have chosen to address that issue is perceived
as the adoption of explicit codes of conduct that clarify that
exclusive behaviour is unacceptable, and not to be tolerated.

As a result, the public perception of a "code of conduct violation" is
that someone has harassed, or otherwise made a community member
uncomfortable, specifically because they don't conform to the
stereotypical norm. That's not necessarily what any specific code of
conduct might say, but it's how the public perceives such things (and
high-profile blog entries that expose exclusive behaviour, and cite
codes of conduct and how they help and where they fail to, simply
reinforce that perception).

We may not like the fact that a simple term like "Code of Conduct"
gets appropriated in the public perception in such a way, but denying
the reality of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
 
[SNIP]

In summary, though, I think the issue here is simply one of how we
describe things. I think that as a community we do a good job, and
we're continually seeking to do better, which is great. But perception
is key, and terms can be loaded in ways that we may not agree with,
but have to deal with.


Assuming the outline of procedures I wrote up above is fine, what about people like Wes who are consistently unproductive participants and thus are IMO being disrespectful of others, just not in an overtly rude way? Do we open with a sentence saying "In the steps below, a 'bad actor' is anyone found violating the CoC or who is deemed to be a persistently unproductive participant and thus being disrespectful of other people's time"? To me that feels like saying "substitute with [CoC] or [not-malicious-but-wasting-everyone's-time], whichever fits the situation". And at that point I feel like we're treating CoC like a naughty word because we're not willing to say that someone who is wasting people's time isn't being disrespectful or inconsiderate even though they are.

But based on how others are stating their views, I'm seem to be in the minority on this one. I'm fine with that as I can view it personally as political wordsmithing. For me the key is that if I'm going to shoulder the burden of being a moderator I want to have the ability to keep discussions open, respectful, and considerate. If that means that someone gets a "CoC" label when they run afoul of those tenants by being mean while they get an "persistently unproductive" label when they run afoul of those labels in how they communicate then I can live with that.

 P.S. I have removed the mention of the CoC from GitHub so that other than the thread discussing this situation there isn't any disconnected record of Wes violating the CoC.