Anatoly has been warned about his behaviour potentially leading to his loss of tracker privileges
I just want to make sure others know that Georg has warned Anatoly that if he continues to re-open a specific issue he will lose his tracker privileges (http://bugs.python.org/issue19822#msg204696). I stand behind his warning and will support anyone who enforces it. I would suggest that if he does this to *any* other issue that he be warned that flipping *any *fields after a core dev has made a decision and without discussing it first will also lead to his loss of privileges.
I would also like to point out his attitude is still horrible at times; being accused of spreading "ill FUD policies in favor of creating [a] collaborative environment" is not exactly polite ( http://bugs.python.org/issue19826#msg204693).
Am 29.11.2013 16:04, schrieb Brett Cannon:
I just want to make sure others know that Georg has warned Anatoly that if he continues to re-open a specific issue he will lose his tracker privileges (http://bugs.python.org/issue19822#msg204696). I stand behind his warning and will support anyone who enforces it. I would suggest that if he does this to *any* other issue that he be warned that flipping *any *fields after a core dev has made a decision and without discussing it first will also lead to his loss of privileges.
I second the motion!
Brett, +1 from me. But I suggest we wait for Guido to express his opinion before taking any action. In a recent private correspondence with Christian (and myself CCd) Guido expressed reluctance to act against Anatoly at this time.
Eli
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
I just want to make sure others know that Georg has warned Anatoly that if he continues to re-open a specific issue he will lose his tracker privileges (http://bugs.python.org/issue19822#msg204696). I stand behind his warning and will support anyone who enforces it. I would suggest that if he does this to *any* other issue that he be warned that flipping *any *fields after a core dev has made a decision and without discussing it first will also lead to his loss of privileges.
I would also like to point out his attitude is still horrible at times; being accused of spreading "ill FUD policies in favor of creating [a] collaborative environment" is not exactly polite ( http://bugs.python.org/issue19826#msg204693).
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Have you read the latest on the python-dev thread? Several other people are now also complaining. The only thing that makes sense to me is nothing -- banning Anatoly now is just going to cause a PR disaster. Not responding at all will most likely cause it to blow over (surely they will collectively make fools of themselves, and Anatoly's post is the closest to trolling from him yet). I'll add some pointers to the peps repo README file so we can close that issue properly as well.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Eli Bendersky <eliben@gmail.com> wrote:
Brett, +1 from me. But I suggest we wait for Guido to express his opinion before taking any action. In a recent private correspondence with Christian (and myself CCd) Guido expressed reluctance to act against Anatoly at this time.
Eli
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
I just want to make sure others know that Georg has warned Anatoly that if he continues to re-open a specific issue he will lose his tracker privileges (http://bugs.python.org/issue19822#msg204696). I stand behind his warning and will support anyone who enforces it. I would suggest that if he does this to *any* other issue that he be warned that flipping *any *fields after a core dev has made a decision and without discussing it first will also lead to his loss of privileges.
I would also like to point out his attitude is still horrible at times; being accused of spreading "ill FUD policies in favor of creating [a] collaborative environment" is not exactly polite ( http://bugs.python.org/issue19826#msg204693).
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl@gmx.net> wrote:
Am 29.11.2013 19:22, schrieb Tim Peters:
I pretty much ignore Anatoly, and that works really well for me - try it ;-)
It's a nice option, I agree -- but someone has to triage his issues, or they will rot in the tracker for eternity.
Plenty of issues do rot there, it doesn't bother me much. If you don't want to triage Anatoly's issues, don't; maybe someone else (Mark Lawrence? :-) will.
The key thing to understand here is that you can't win an argument with Anatoly. You can only avoid *getting* into one.
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
On ven., 2013-11-29 at 10:56 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl@gmx.net> wrote: Am 29.11.2013 19:22, schrieb Tim Peters: > I pretty much ignore Anatoly, and that works really well for me - try it ;-) It's a nice option, I agree -- but someone has to triage his issues, or they will rot in the tracker for eternity.
Plenty of issues do rot there, it doesn't bother me much. If you don't want to triage Anatoly's issues, don't; maybe someone else (Mark Lawrence? :-) will.
The real problem with trolls in an open community is that there'll always be new people to fall in their traps. We may not pay attention anymore, but other people will.
Here's a small recap:
Anatoly has repeatably hostile rhetorics towards core development and the contribution process
he refuses to abide by some of our (rather lax, IMHO) contribution rules (e.g. CLA)
he continuously veers into meta-discourse (complaining about the development process)
he always rehashes the same obsessions
he was warned about his behaviour and acknowledges that his interaction is not satisfactory
he nevertheless refuses to change his behaviour
his behaviour has spawned several distinct threads over the time here at python-committers, purely about him and nothing else (i.e. it's not a hidden systemic issue)
his behaviour has been going on for years
Regards
Antoine.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
On ven., 2013-11-29 at 10:56 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl@gmx.net> wrote: Am 29.11.2013 19:22, schrieb Tim Peters: > I pretty much ignore Anatoly, and that works really well for me - try it ;-)
It's a nice option, I agree -- but someone has to triage his issues, or they will rot in the tracker for eternity.Plenty of issues do rot there, it doesn't bother me much. If you don't want to triage Anatoly's issues, don't; maybe someone else (Mark Lawrence? :-) will.
The real problem with trolls in an open community is that there'll always be new people to fall in their traps. We may not pay attention anymore, but other people will.
Here's a small recap:
Anatoly has repeatably hostile rhetorics towards core development and the contribution process
he refuses to abide by some of our (rather lax, IMHO) contribution rules (e.g. CLA)
he continuously veers into meta-discourse (complaining about the development process)
he always rehashes the same obsessions
he was warned about his behaviour and acknowledges that his interaction is not satisfactory
he nevertheless refuses to change his behaviour
his behaviour has spawned several distinct threads over the time here at python-committers, purely about him and nothing else (i.e. it's not a hidden systemic issue)
his behaviour has been going on for years
I would add to this list that he is a really bad communicator. His English grammar is so random that I often can't figure out what he is saying (*), and he is either extremely terse or extremely verbose.
If you can get a majority of the committers to vote to ban him we should do it -- but that's a high bar (many committers probably don't care enough to vote).
(*) The PEP process bug was an example -- I couldn't tell if he was asking "what is the process" or suggesting "please add a pointer to a description of the process to the peps repo README.txt" or trying to propose an alternative process.
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
On ven., 2013-11-29 at 11:40 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
If you can get a majority of the committers to vote to ban him we should do it -- but that's a high bar (many committers probably don't care enough to vote).
Well, many are probably inactive enough to not even notice this discussion :-) I'm not sure about the authoritative source, but the SSH keys repository shows 178 people with access rights. The majority of them isn't probably active nowadays.
Then I don't know where his behaviour is most problematic: on the tracker or the MLs? If we only ban him from the tracker, I'm afraid he'll start making "here's an issue I can't post on the tracker because I'm banned" posts on the mailing-list...
Perhaps a temporary ban? There does need to be a signal sent to him. (apparently, he stopped reopening the issue when Georg told him reopening the issue would lead to loss of posting rights, which implies he is sensitive to this kind of signals)
Regards
Antoine.
Here's another idea. Ban him temporarily from the tracker and the lists(*) and tell him that to be unbanned he has to talk to me, and to me only. I will then negotiate a cool-off period and posting guidelines with him. If he violate those he will automatically be banned permanently (or at least for a year).
(*) Which lists? I'd say python-dev and python-idea -- are there any other lists where he hangs out? Or perhaps all lists on mail python.org just so he won't take his complaints to other lists.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
On ven., 2013-11-29 at 11:40 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
If you can get a majority of the committers to vote to ban him we should do it -- but that's a high bar (many committers probably don't care enough to vote).
Well, many are probably inactive enough to not even notice this discussion :-) I'm not sure about the authoritative source, but the SSH keys repository shows 178 people with access rights. The majority of them isn't probably active nowadays.
Then I don't know where his behaviour is most problematic: on the tracker or the MLs? If we only ban him from the tracker, I'm afraid he'll start making "here's an issue I can't post on the tracker because I'm banned" posts on the mailing-list...
Perhaps a temporary ban? There does need to be a signal sent to him. (apparently, he stopped reopening the issue when Georg told him reopening the issue would lead to loss of posting rights, which implies he is sensitive to this kind of signals)
Regards
Antoine.
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
Am 29.11.2013 21:05, schrieb Guido van Rossum:
Here's another idea. Ban him temporarily from the tracker and the lists(*) and tell him that to be unbanned he has to talk to me, and to me only. I will then negotiate a cool-off period and posting guidelines with him. If he violate those he will automatically be banned permanently (or at least for a year).
Thanks a lot for your mediating role. :)
(*) Which lists? I'd say python-dev and python-idea -- are there any other lists where he hangs out? Or perhaps all lists on mail python.org <http://python.org> just so he won't take his complaints to other lists.
python-legal and python-infrastructure, too.
Christian
On ven., 2013-11-29 at 21:07 +0100, Christian Heimes wrote:
Am 29.11.2013 21:05, schrieb Guido van Rossum:
Here's another idea. Ban him temporarily from the tracker and the lists(*) and tell him that to be unbanned he has to talk to me, and to me only. I will then negotiate a cool-off period and posting guidelines with him. If he violate those he will automatically be banned permanently (or at least for a year).
Thanks a lot for your mediating role. :)
(*) Which lists? I'd say python-dev and python-idea -- are there any other lists where he hangs out? Or perhaps all lists on mail python.org <http://python.org> just so he won't take his complaints to other lists.
python-legal and python-infrastructure, too.
+1 from me. This sounds like a good solution (except for giving you more work, Guido :-)).
Regards
Antoine.
On 11/29/2013 12:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Here's another idea. Ban him temporarily from the tracker and the lists(*) and tell him that to be unbanned he has to talk to me, and to me only. I will then negotiate a cool-off period and posting guidelines with him. If he violate those he will automatically be banned permanently (or at least for a year).
(*) Which lists? I'd say python-dev and python-idea -- are there any other lists where he hangs out? Or perhaps all lists on mail python.org <http://python.org> just so he won't take his complaints to other lists.
+1 for the temp ban, then one year if he doesn't cool off.
+1 for all Python lists.
Thanks, Guido.
-- ~Ethan~
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
Here's another idea. Ban him temporarily from the tracker and the lists(*) and tell him that to be unbanned he has to talk to me, and to me only. I will then negotiate a cool-off period and posting guidelines with him. If he violate those he will automatically be banned permanently (or at least for a year).
(*) Which lists? I'd say python-dev and python-idea -- are there any other lists where he hangs out? Or perhaps all lists on mail python.org just so he won't take his complaints to other lists.
This idea sounds good to me. If you don't mind the extra work, Guido, +1
Eli
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>wrote:
On ven., 2013-11-29 at 11:40 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
If you can get a majority of the committers to vote to ban him we should do it -- but that's a high bar (many committers probably don't care enough to vote).
Well, many are probably inactive enough to not even notice this discussion :-) I'm not sure about the authoritative source, but the SSH keys repository shows 178 people with access rights. The majority of them isn't probably active nowadays.
Then I don't know where his behaviour is most problematic: on the tracker or the MLs? If we only ban him from the tracker, I'm afraid he'll start making "here's an issue I can't post on the tracker because I'm banned" posts on the mailing-list...
Perhaps a temporary ban? There does need to be a signal sent to him. (apparently, he stopped reopening the issue when Georg told him reopening the issue would lead to loss of posting rights, which implies he is sensitive to this kind of signals)
Regards
Antoine.
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org>wrote:
Here's another idea. Ban him temporarily from the tracker and the lists(*) and tell him that to be unbanned he has to talk to me, and to me only. I will then negotiate a cool-off period and posting guidelines with him. If he violate those he will automatically be banned permanently (or at least for a year).
(*) Which lists? I'd say python-dev and python-idea -- are there any other lists where he hangs out? Or perhaps all lists on mail python.orgjust so he won't take his complaints to other lists.
This idea sounds good to me. If you don't mind the extra work, Guido, +1
Oh, I forgot to add that if Anatoly's contacted off-lists about this and the conditions (per Guido's outline) are clearly explained, I don't see how this can become a PR disaster. FWIW, python-committers is a list with publicly visible archives - it's very easy to see this whole discussion and how much though the core devs have put into this (including previous discussions mentioning Anatoly).
Eli
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>wrote:
On ven., 2013-11-29 at 11:40 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
If you can get a majority of the committers to vote to ban him we should do it -- but that's a high bar (many committers probably don't care enough to vote).
Well, many are probably inactive enough to not even notice this discussion :-) I'm not sure about the authoritative source, but the SSH keys repository shows 178 people with access rights. The majority of them isn't probably active nowadays.
Then I don't know where his behaviour is most problematic: on the tracker or the MLs? If we only ban him from the tracker, I'm afraid he'll start making "here's an issue I can't post on the tracker because I'm banned" posts on the mailing-list...
Perhaps a temporary ban? There does need to be a signal sent to him. (apparently, he stopped reopening the issue when Georg told him reopening the issue would lead to loss of posting rights, which implies he is sensitive to this kind of signals)
Regards
Antoine.
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
On 11/29/2013 2:59 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Then I don't know where his behaviour is most problematic: on the tracker or the MLs? If we only ban him from the tracker, I'm afraid he'll start making "here's an issue I can't post on the tracker because I'm banned" posts on the mailing-list...
Perhaps a temporary ban? There does need to be a signal sent to him. (apparently, he stopped reopening the issue when Georg told him
I think an appropriate first signal would be to make it so he cannot change headers. Either a general rule (committer or cla signer) or specific to him. "You do not have permission to perform this action." To me, re-opening issues is about the most directly obnoxious thing he does. It would remove what seems to be an irresistible temtation for him and in that sense, would be doing him a favor.
reopening the issue would lead to loss of posting rights, which implies he is sensitive to this kind of signals)
Terry
On ven., 2013-11-29 at 18:11 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 11/29/2013 2:59 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Then I don't know where his behaviour is most problematic: on the tracker or the MLs? If we only ban him from the tracker, I'm afraid he'll start making "here's an issue I can't post on the tracker because I'm banned" posts on the mailing-list...
Perhaps a temporary ban? There does need to be a signal sent to him. (apparently, he stopped reopening the issue when Georg told him
I think an appropriate first signal would be to make it so he cannot change headers.
I wasn't thinking only about the bug tracker, but also the MLs.
Regards
Antoine.
On 11/29/2013 7:17 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On ven., 2013-11-29 at 18:11 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 11/29/2013 2:59 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Then I don't know where his behaviour is most problematic: on the tracker or the MLs? If we only ban him from the tracker, I'm afraid he'll start making "here's an issue I can't post on the tracker because I'm banned" posts on the mailing-list.
I would not be surprised if he did exactly that, which is why I (and a couple of other people) are suggesting something less than a ban.
Perhaps a temporary ban? There does need to be a signal sent to him. (apparently, he stopped reopening the issue when Georg told him
He stopped reopening other issues before, but then there was this new issue ... and it is reasonable to think there will be again as things stand now.
I think an appropriate first signal would be to make it so he cannot change headers.
I wasn't thinking only about the bug tracker, but also the MLs.
Right, you are worried about retaliation on the MLs if he were *banned* from the tracker.
My belief and point is that removing header editing privileges (permanently, by the way) is
- a minimal action that we should be able to mostly agree on;
- not something that most people would consider to be a 'right';
- an *action*, not a *warning* (of which there have been many), which would demonstrate that we *are* collectively capable of action (which at some level I suspect he doubts), and which would make the possibility of more severe action more credible;
- not a 'ban', which is a more contentious action;
- not something that would preclude more severe action.
Terry
On ven., 2013-11-29 at 20:01 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
I think an appropriate first signal would be to make it so he cannot change headers.
I wasn't thinking only about the bug tracker, but also the MLs.
Right, you are worried about retaliation on the MLs if he were *banned* from the tracker.
No, I'm saying that his behaviour on the MLs warrants the same kind of action as on the tracker.
Regards
Antoine.
On 11/29/2013 9:56 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On ven., 2013-11-29 at 20:01 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
I think an appropriate first signal would be to make it so he cannot change headers.
I wasn't thinking only about the bug tracker, but also the MLs.
Right, you are worried about retaliation on the MLs if he were *banned* from the tracker.
No, I'm saying that his behaviour on the MLs warrants the same kind of action as on the tracker.
A non-ban action would be to turn his moderate bit on, where it is used. That has been done for someone else on python-list. But I do not know about pydev, python-ideas, and others.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl@gmx.net> wrote:
Am 29.11.2013 19:22, schrieb Tim Peters:
I pretty much ignore Anatoly, and that works really well for me - try it ;-)
It's a nice option, I agree -- but someone has to triage his issues, or they will rot in the tracker for eternity.
Plenty of issues do rot there, it doesn't bother me much. If you don't want to triage Anatoly's issues, don't; maybe someone else (Mark Lawrence? :-) will.
Maybe, but not the issues for stuff some of us are heavily invested in. If he starts to file importlib bugs I am going to triage them because I try to close all importlib bugs. I try to at least triage the ast issues as well which is where I have been bumping up against him as of late. The idea of having to change how I and others triage bugs because of one individual seems like the wrong cost/benefit ratio for dealing with the problem.
The key thing to understand here is that you can't win an argument with Anatoly. You can only avoid *getting* into one.
I'm sure you have developed skills at ignoring people based on the amount of unsolicited communication sent your way as BDFL. But the rest of us really only have to put up with this consistently with a single individual. I know you're worried about some PR problem, but this isn't some knee jerk reaction but a multi-year issue that everyone has sustained. And this slowly leaks into everything because new people come, try to participate with him, and then get the negative consequences of that which becomes a low, simmering PR problem of its own that we are not more welcoming and tolerate rude individuals.
If someone turns away from the community because we decided we didn't want someone who is rude participating and ruining the experience for others then I'm fine with losing that person's participation just like anyone who chooses not to come to PyCon because we have a CoC (they can still use Python, they can just choose to not participate in the community). But if we lose a single individual because they didn't like someone being rude to them or others then that is a loss I don't want to see. Once again, the cost/benefit ratio of everyone as a group having to ignore a single troublemaker does not seem like the best solution.
If you want to go with ignoring him, then that's fine. But to go along with that, I think it's reasonable to actively tell others who are new to not engage him if they start to in order to spare them the stress and aggravation and potentially losing their participation, otherwise how are they to know that this is not normal community behaviour and that he holds no sway? I do not want to continue to feel sorry for people who happen to reply to one person's emails knowing full well there was something I could do about it.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org>wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl@gmx.net> wrote:
Am 29.11.2013 19:22, schrieb Tim Peters:
I pretty much ignore Anatoly, and that works really well for me - try it ;-)
It's a nice option, I agree -- but someone has to triage his issues, or they will rot in the tracker for eternity.
Plenty of issues do rot there, it doesn't bother me much. If you don't want to triage Anatoly's issues, don't; maybe someone else (Mark Lawrence? :-) will.
Maybe, but not the issues for stuff some of us are heavily invested in. If he starts to file importlib bugs I am going to triage them because I try to close all importlib bugs. I try to at least triage the ast issues as well which is where I have been bumping up against him as of late. The idea of having to change how I and others triage bugs because of one individual seems like the wrong cost/benefit ratio for dealing with the problem.
The question is, how effective will the alternative solution (banning him) be? I worry that it's just going to make things worse.
The key thing to understand here is that you can't win an argument with Anatoly. You can only avoid *getting* into one.
I'm sure you have developed skills at ignoring people based on the amount of unsolicited communication sent your way as BDFL. But the rest of us really only have to put up with this consistently with a single individual. I know you're worried about some PR problem, but this isn't some knee jerk reaction but a multi-year issue that everyone has sustained. And this slowly leaks into everything because new people come, try to participate with him, and then get the negative consequences of that which becomes a low, simmering PR problem of its own that we are not more welcoming and tolerate rude individuals.
Do you have examples of new people engaging him? I mostly see him engaged by old-timers or other known "difficult" users (Kristjan, Mark Lawrence).
I guess I haven't managed to teach you all well enough how to do this. Honestly it's not easy. :-(
If someone turns away from the community because we decided we didn't want someone who is rude participating and ruining the experience for others then I'm fine with losing that person's participation just like anyone who chooses not to come to PyCon because we have a CoC (they can still use Python, they can just choose to not participate in the community). But if we lose a single individual because they didn't like someone being rude to them or others then that is a loss I don't want to see. Once again, the cost/benefit ratio of everyone as a group having to ignore a single troublemaker does not seem like the best solution.
Again, I haven't seen Anatoly interfere with others. I imagine that most people seeing his posts will recognize him as the nutcase he is.
If you want to go with ignoring him, then that's fine. But to go along with that, I think it's reasonable to actively tell others who are new to not engage him if they start to in order to spare them the stress and aggravation and potentially losing their participation, otherwise how are they to know that this is not normal community behaviour and that he holds no sway? I do not want to continue to feel sorry for people who happen to reply to one person's emails knowing full well there was something I could do about it.
When I see this kind of thing happen to people who have already contributed positively but haven't been around long enough to recognize specific trolls I usually send them an off-line message suggesting to ignore the troll. This happens a few times a year, and it's not just Anatoly.
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
On Nov 29, 2013, at 12:12 , Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
The question is, how effective will the alternative solution (banning him) be? I worry that it's just going to make things worse.
I think that is a legitimate concern and likely outcome.
The key thing to understand here is that you can't win an argument with Anatoly. You can only avoid *getting* into one.
Right. We can't change other people's behavior. We can at best encourage change. In this case, I'm doubtful that banning would serve as an encouragement. I understand the many of us get annoyed and frustrated by his comments and the multiple re-opening of the tracker issue thing the other day was certainly uncalled-for behavior on his part. But it was likely fueled in part by people's reaction to his comments. I think the more important issue here is not his behavior but our behavior in how we react to behavior like this. *That* is something we can reasonably try to change. Why is it that we find him so annoying, enough to advocate fairly drastic measures like banning? There have been and will be others who behave similarly. I don't propose to try to answer that question: it's one that each of us will have our own answer to.
But taking the active step of banning could become additional fuel. Since he has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to ignore the advice and admonitions of others in our communities, it seems to me that a quite reasonable response is to, in turn, ignore him and just not engage with him. Comparing his behavior to some of the recent, on-going cases of wildly inappropriate behavior on python-list (not involving Anatoly), I think it would be hard to justify to the world banning Anatoly for his relatively minor annoyances when it took so long to do something about one help vampire whose behavior and the community's reaction severely damaged its atmosphere and really did scare new people away. (Yes, there are other important differences but this is about perceptions.)
I guess I haven't managed to teach you all well enough how to do this. Honestly it's not easy. :-(
It's not but it is an important skill.
When I see this kind of thing happen to people who have already contributed positively but haven't been around long enough to recognize specific trolls I usually send them an off-line message suggesting to ignore the troll. This happens a few times a year, and it's not just Anatoly.
Sound like exactly the right thing to do.
-- Ned Deily nad@acm.org -- []
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> wrote: [bunch of stuff I agree with :-)]
I think it would be hard to justify to the world banning Anatoly for his relatively minor annoyances when it took so long to do something about one help vampire whose behavior and the community's reaction severely damaged its atmosphere and really did scare new people away.
This led me to look up "help vampire" which led me to a wiki on the topic of community management. Here's a sample link: http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/RTFM
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
On 29.11.2013 22:37, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> wrote: [bunch of stuff I agree with :-)]
I think it would be hard to justify to the world banning Anatoly for his relatively minor annoyances when it took so long to do something about one help vampire whose behavior and the community's reaction severely damaged its atmosphere and really did scare new people away.
This led me to look up "help vampire" which led me to a wiki on the topic of community management. Here's a sample link: http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/RTFM
Nice one :-)
BTW: Rather than actually ban Anatoly from the various mailing lists, I think setting his moderation flag would be a better approach. He'd get a note that his emails are being held for moderation and the moderators could then screen the emails for possibly problems.
This would likely mean more work for the moderators and thus we'd need more moderators. Should be a fixable, though.
-- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com
Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Nov 29 2013)
Python Projects, Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ mxODBC.Zope/Plone.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/
::::: Try our mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::::
eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
On Nov 29, 2013, at 11:38 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
BTW: Rather than actually ban Anatoly from the various mailing lists, I think setting his moderation flag would be a better approach. He'd get a note that his emails are being held for moderation and the moderators could then screen the emails for possibly problems.
Remember that new python-dev members automatically get their moderation flag turned on. A moderator has to take an explicit action to unset a member's flag so that they can post to the list unhindered. By default, members with a set moderation flag have their postings held for approval.
A member's moderation flag can easily be turned back on if necessary, and the normal moderation procedure can be to accept, reject (with a message), discard (throw it away), or defer for later. Python mailing lists are governed by the Code of Conduct, so if a member is violating that code, it seems like a measured, reasonable response would be to re-moderate their postings until their conduct complies again.
The question of course is: who gets to decide? So far, we've operated pretty well on rough consensus, and I think we could probably do the same here, with the python-dev moderators having ultimate say. Other communities have democratically elected councils with set terms, to which such decisions can be referred. Perhaps it's time for Python to have such a community council?
This would likely mean more work for the moderators and thus we'd need more moderators. Should be a fixable, though.
python-dev has 2 owners and 5 moderators, with varying degrees of active participation. More help would surely be accepted.
Cheers, -Barry
On 30.11.2013 01:14, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 29, 2013, at 11:38 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
BTW: Rather than actually ban Anatoly from the various mailing lists, I think setting his moderation flag would be a better approach. He'd get a note that his emails are being held for moderation and the moderators could then screen the emails for possibly problems.
Remember that new python-dev members automatically get their moderation flag turned on. A moderator has to take an explicit action to unset a member's flag so that they can post to the list unhindered. By default, members with a set moderation flag have their postings held for approval.
A member's moderation flag can easily be turned back on if necessary, and the normal moderation procedure can be to accept, reject (with a message), discard (throw it away), or defer for later. Python mailing lists are governed by the Code of Conduct, so if a member is violating that code, it seems like a measured, reasonable response would be to re-moderate their postings until their conduct complies again.
I don't think a CoC will help in this case (I'm not even sure which CoC you are referring to :-)).
Anatoly is basically just being ignorant, not explicitly rude or offensive; or at least not to the level where any such code would trigger sanctions. Of course, ignorance makes people angry.
In my experience the best option is to fight ignorance with ignorance (if you are lucky enough to be able to use that option).
If a moderator rejects a message with say "Please rephrase in a more productive way." or "Your message is difficult to understand. Please send an updated version." this may result in an improvement without actually enforcing some kind of ban.
The question of course is: who gets to decide? So far, we've operated pretty well on rough consensus, and I think we could probably do the same here, with the python-dev moderators having ultimate say. Other communities have democratically elected councils with set terms, to which such decisions can be referred. Perhaps it's time for Python to have such a community council?
I'd wait with that until the ratio between subjects in need of intensive care and members needed for such a council reaches a value higher than 10 ;-)
This would likely mean more work for the moderators and thus we'd need more moderators. Should be a fixable, though.
python-dev has 2 owners and 5 moderators, with varying degrees of active participation. More help would surely be accepted.
Feel free to sign me up as moderator. More moderators means less work for everyone.
Cheers,
Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com
Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Nov 30 2013)
Python Projects, Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ mxODBC.Zope/Plone.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/
::::: Try our mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::::
eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
On ven., 2013-11-29 at 13:16 -0800, Ned Deily wrote:
Right. We can't change other people's behavior. We can at best encourage change. In this case, I'm doubtful that banning would serve as an encouragement.
Personally, I don't see it as an encouragement, rather a solution. The "temporary" part is in case he actually wants to start behaving better, but I'm not holding my breath.
You can't fix people, but you can prevent them from actually being harmful.
Why is it that we find him so annoying, enough to advocate fairly drastic measures like banning? There have been and will be others who behave similarly.
I've only been here since 2006 or so, but I can't remember someone behaving like that on such a frequent and long-lived basis. He does stand out.
Comparing his behavior to some of the recent, on-going cases of wildly inappropriate behavior on python-list (not involving Anatoly),
If python-list is a troll magnet, that's a pity, but how is that relevant to the *development community*?
Have you noticed that many of us hardly ever participate in python-list? I personally hate reading python-list because so much of it is misguided wishful-thinking people trying to help and reason trolls, and making python-list a frankly annoying place :-(
Regards
Antoine.
On Nov 29, 2013, at 13:51 , Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
On ven., 2013-11-29 at 13:16 -0800, Ned Deily wrote:
Right. We can't change other people's behavior. We can at best encourage change. In this case, I'm doubtful that banning would serve as an encouragement.
Personally, I don't see it as an encouragement, rather a solution. The "temporary" part is in case he actually wants to start behaving better, but I'm not holding my breath.
You can't fix people, but you can prevent them from actually being harmful.
The thing is it's a technical solution to a social problem. I don't the former tend to be all that effective for the latter. And I think reasonable people can disagree about the degree of harmfulness. I personally don't see his behavior, in and of itself, as all that harmful. I *do* see the negative reaction it provokes as being harmful. Clearly, it bothers people and that is disruptive. But it would be a whole lot less disruptive if we didn't let it be, e.g. by just letting it go and ignoring it.
I'm very sympathetic to Alex's argument earlier and the link he provided to Karl Fogel's book. I think the case study provided there from the svn project is not all that comparable to the situation here. It's not the case that the mailing list(s) here is/are being swamped by one disruptive person. If we all just agreed to ignore him and try not to feel compelled to respond, I believe we would soon find there is no longer an issue and we wouldn't need to be discussing potentially damaging solutions like formally banning.
Why is it that we find him so annoying, enough to advocate fairly drastic measures like banning? There have been and will be others who behave similarly. I've only been here since 2006 or so, but I can't remember someone behaving like that on such a frequent and long-lived basis. He does stand out.
I think he stands out in part because we've spotlighted him.
Comparing his behavior to some of the recent, on-going cases of wildly inappropriate behavior on python-list (not involving Anatoly),
If python-list is a troll magnet, that's a pity, but how is that relevant to the *development community*?
It's relevant because python-list is yet another forum hosted by the PSF via python.org mailing lists and is viewed as part of the broader Python community as a whole. If we propose to ban someone from python-list, along with other lists, that raises the question of what standards are being used. There is, in fact, a published suggested CoC for python-list (http://www.python.org/community/lists/). In the help vampire case, I think most reasonable people would agree that the CoC is reasonable, was clearly being violated, and that banning was a drastic, but ultimately, necessary step as people were not willing to just ignore the misbehavior. If the same CoC were applied to python-dev (and python-ideas et al), I think many people would disagree that the behavior in this case violates a similar CoC seriously enough to warrant a ban.
Have you noticed that many of us hardly ever participate in python-list? I personally hate reading python-list because so much of it is misguided wishful-thinking people trying to help and reason trolls, and making python-list a frankly annoying place :-(
It is a problem. And choosing to not participate is a perfectly rational and legitimate response. But it doesn't necessarily follow that banning someone is a better response. Trying to encourage different behavior can help if someone wants to take on that generally thankless effort. I applaud people like the other Ned who has lately been trying to do so there with some success. But it's not for everyone.
-- Ned Deily nad@acm.org -- []
On 30 November 2013 08:41, Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> wrote:
On Nov 29, 2013, at 13:51 , Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
On ven., 2013-11-29 at 13:16 -0800, Ned Deily wrote:
Right. We can't change other people's behavior. We can at best encourage change. In this case, I'm doubtful that banning would serve as an encouragement.
Personally, I don't see it as an encouragement, rather a solution. The "temporary" part is in case he actually wants to start behaving better, but I'm not holding my breath.
You can't fix people, but you can prevent them from actually being harmful.
The thing is it's a technical solution to a social problem. I don't the former tend to be all that effective for the latter. And I think reasonable people can disagree about the degree of harmfulness. I personally don't see his behavior, in and of itself, as all that harmful. I *do* see the negative reaction it provokes as being harmful. Clearly, it bothers people and that is disruptive. But it would be a whole lot less disruptive if we didn't let it be, e.g. by just letting it go and ignoring it.
Nonsense. We shouldn't have to put up with Anatoly's constant disrespect for everyone else's time and energy.
I'm very sympathetic to Alex's argument earlier and the link he provided to Karl Fogel's book. I think the case study provided there from the svn project is not all that comparable to the situation here. It's not the case that the mailing list(s) here is/are being swamped by one disruptive person. If we all just agreed to ignore him and try not to feel compelled to respond, I believe we would soon find there is no longer an issue and we wouldn't need to be discussing potentially damaging solutions like formally banning.
Also nonsense. We've tried this for years, and he's still here and still a problem. It *hasn't worked* and it isn't going to magically start working now.
Why is it that we find him so annoying, enough to advocate fairly drastic measures like banning? There have been and will be others who behave similarly. I've only been here since 2006 or so, but I can't remember someone behaving like that on such a frequent and long-lived basis. He does stand out.
I think he stands out in part because we've spotlighted him.
More nonsense. He stands out, because everyone else that has behaved even remotely like him has been around for a few threads, realised people have started ignoring them, and then left again.
Anatoly's passion and persistence initially garnered him positive attention, since that kind of energy is worth trying to channel in positive directions. But that hasn't worked out, and it remains the case that he barges in to areas he doesn't understand and demands that everyone else stop what they are doing until they have explained it in simple enough terms for him to understand (and when he still doesn't get it, that's clearly *their* fault, rather than his).
Comparing his behavior to some of the recent, on-going cases of wildly inappropriate behavior on python-list (not involving Anatoly),
If python-list is a troll magnet, that's a pity, but how is that relevant to the *development community*?
It's relevant because python-list is yet another forum hosted by the PSF via python.org mailing lists and is viewed as part of the broader Python community as a whole. If we propose to ban someone from python-list, along with other lists, that raises the question of what standards are being used. There is, in fact, a published suggested CoC for python-list (http://www.python.org/community/lists/). In the help vampire case, I think most reasonable people would agree that the CoC is reasonable, was clearly being violated, and that banning was a drastic, but ultimately, necessary step as people were not willing to just ignore the misbehavior. If the same CoC were applied to python-dev (and python-ideas et al), I think many people would disagree that the behavior in this case violates a similar CoC seriously enough to warrant a ban.
Anatoly is *absolutely* in violation of the python-ideas CoC:
- Open? Nope - Anatoly is right, and there's no possible way he could ever be wrong
- Considerate? Not once - everything should be the way Anatoly demands, screw the interests of everyone else
- Respectful? Not in the least - nobody else's concerns are relevant, we should revamp everything to be convenient for Anatoly
It's one thing for newcomers to behave that way, since we have to assume they don't know any better, and try to guide them in the direction of more productive collaboration. We've already sunk inordinate amounts of time into trying to help Anatoly, and have almost exactly nothing to show for it (certainly nothing that even remotely justifies the cost in time and emotional energy).
It is a problem. And choosing to not participate is a perfectly rational and legitimate response. But it doesn't necessarily follow that banning someone is a better response. Trying to encourage different behavior can help if someone wants to take on that generally thankless effort. I applaud people like the other Ned who has lately been trying to do so there with some success. But it's not for everyone.
Please, I spent *years* trying to help Anatoly. It didn't work, so it's time to switch to the harm minimisation option and at least get him out of everyone's hair.
We tried to get him to be a productive contributor, it's time to admit we failed, and stop him being a drag on everyone else.
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Nick,
I think we've seen the issue from every possible side now. I trust your judgment that he has pulled this trick once too many times. So please implement the ban. Or wait until the next infraction -- that's up to you. Either way, since the archives of this list are public, our deliberations will stand up to scrutiny.
My offer to mediate (*after* he's been banned) stands, but it's up to you if and how you want to mention that to Anatoly.
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
On 30 November 2013 15:23, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
Nick,
I think we've seen the issue from every possible side now. I trust your judgment that he has pulled this trick once too many times. So please implement the ban. Or wait until the next infraction -- that's up to you. Either way, since the archives of this list are public, our deliberations will stand up to scrutiny.
My offer to mediate (*after* he's been banned) stands, but it's up to you if and how you want to mention that to Anatoly.
OK, moving on to mechanics, here's what I would like to propose:
flip his moderation bit on the mailing lists, at least for python-dev, python-ideas and distutils-sig (are there any other lists where his presence is considered disruptive?).
revoke his tracker privileges. If he would like something done on the tracker, he can ask Guido or Ezio to make the change on his behalf.
I'm willing to be the bearer of bad news, and let Anatoly know this is being done, and cc' Guido and Ezio (as I'll also pass along their offers of assistance).
Regards, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
These steps sound right to me. Make the notification a private email, not a public one -- this doesn't have to be a big deal. It's not a warning shot to other people, this is one isolated individual, and we should treat it as such.
Alex
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30 November 2013 15:23, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
Nick,
I think we've seen the issue from every possible side now. I trust your judgment that he has pulled this trick once too many times. So please implement the ban. Or wait until the next infraction -- that's up to you. Either way, since the archives of this list are public, our deliberations will stand up to scrutiny.
My offer to mediate (*after* he's been banned) stands, but it's up to you if and how you want to mention that to Anatoly.
OK, moving on to mechanics, here's what I would like to propose:
flip his moderation bit on the mailing lists, at least for python-dev, python-ideas and distutils-sig (are there any other lists where his presence is considered disruptive?).
revoke his tracker privileges. If he would like something done on the tracker, he can ask Guido or Ezio to make the change on his behalf.
I'm willing to be the bearer of bad news, and let Anatoly know this is being done, and cc' Guido and Ezio (as I'll also pass along their offers of assistance).
Regards, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
-- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire) "The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero GPG Key fingerprint: 125F 5C67 DFE9 4084
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30 November 2013 15:23, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
Nick,
I think we've seen the issue from every possible side now. I trust your judgment that he has pulled this trick once too many times. So please implement the ban. Or wait until the next infraction -- that's up to you. Either way, since the archives of this list are public, our deliberations will stand up to scrutiny.
My offer to mediate (*after* he's been banned) stands, but it's up to you if and how you want to mention that to Anatoly.
OK, moving on to mechanics, here's what I would like to propose:
flip his moderation bit on the mailing lists, at least for python-dev, python-ideas and distutils-sig (are there any other lists where his presence is considered disruptive?).
revoke his tracker privileges. If he would like something done on the tracker, he can ask Guido or Ezio to make the change on his behalf.
I'm willing to be the bearer of bad news, and let Anatoly know this is being done, and cc' Guido and Ezio (as I'll also pass along their offers of assistance).
This plan sounds good. I agree with Alex that the initial email has to be private. There's no need here for a public humiliation that will harm both Anatoly and Python.
One thing that's not clear from the above is the duration of the ban. Guido was mentioning some minimal cool-off period before Anatoly can discuss his reinstatement with Guido.
Eli
On 1 Dec 2013 01:49, "Eli Bendersky" <eliben@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30 November 2013 15:23, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
Nick,
I think we've seen the issue from every possible side now. I trust your judgment that he has pulled this trick once too many times. So please implement the ban. Or wait until the next infraction -- that's up to
Either way, since the archives of this list are public, our deliberations will stand up to scrutiny.
My offer to mediate (*after* he's been banned) stands, but it's up to you if and how you want to mention that to Anatoly.
OK, moving on to mechanics, here's what I would like to propose:
flip his moderation bit on the mailing lists, at least for python-dev, python-ideas and distutils-sig (are there any other lists where his presence is considered disruptive?).
revoke his tracker privileges. If he would like something done on the tracker, he can ask Guido or Ezio to make the change on his behalf.
I'm willing to be the bearer of bad news, and let Anatoly know this is being done, and cc' Guido and Ezio (as I'll also pass along their offers of assistance).
This plan sounds good. I agree with Alex that the initial email has to be
you. private. There's no need here for a public humiliation that will harm both Anatoly and Python.
One thing that's not clear from the above is the duration of the ban.
Guido was mentioning some minimal cool-off period before Anatoly can discuss his reinstatement with Guido.
I'm thinking at least 12 months, and then Guido and Ezio can decide whether or not to propose that the suspension be lifted.
Regards, Nick.
Eli
On 1 December 2013 01:49, Eli Bendersky <eliben@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
OK, moving on to mechanics, here's what I would like to propose:
flip his moderation bit on the mailing lists, at least for python-dev, python-ideas and distutils-sig (are there any other lists where his presence is considered disruptive?).
revoke his tracker privileges. If he would like something done on the tracker, he can ask Guido or Ezio to make the change on his behalf.
I'm willing to be the bearer of bad news, and let Anatoly know this is being done, and cc' Guido and Ezio (as I'll also pass along their offers of assistance).
This plan sounds good. I agree with Alex that the initial email has to be private. There's no need here for a public humiliation that will harm both Anatoly and Python.
OK, I've sent the notification to Anatoly. I cc'ed Guido and Ezio (since I included their offer to mediate tracker access) and also bcc'ed the list admins for the three currently affected lists (so they know why his posts start appearing in the moderation queue).
I don't appear to have the necessary tracker access to actually move his account to read-only status, though (this change should be made on the meta-tracker as well).
Regards, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Nick,
Thanks for doing this emotionally grueling task.
--Guido
On Saturday, November 30, 2013, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 1 December 2013 01:49, Eli Bendersky <eliben@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com<javascript:;>> wrote:
OK, moving on to mechanics, here's what I would like to propose:
flip his moderation bit on the mailing lists, at least for python-dev, python-ideas and distutils-sig (are there any other lists where his presence is considered disruptive?).
revoke his tracker privileges. If he would like something done on the tracker, he can ask Guido or Ezio to make the change on his behalf.
I'm willing to be the bearer of bad news, and let Anatoly know this is being done, and cc' Guido and Ezio (as I'll also pass along their offers of assistance).
This plan sounds good. I agree with Alex that the initial email has to be private. There's no need here for a public humiliation that will harm both Anatoly and Python.
OK, I've sent the notification to Anatoly. I cc'ed Guido and Ezio (since I included their offer to mediate tracker access) and also bcc'ed the list admins for the three currently affected lists (so they know why his posts start appearing in the moderation queue).
I don't appear to have the necessary tracker access to actually move his account to read-only status, though (this change should be made on the meta-tracker as well).
Regards, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com <javascript:;> | Brisbane, Australia
-- --Guido van Rossum (on iPad)
On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 12:12:08 +1000, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't appear to have the necessary tracker access to actually move his account to read-only status, though (this change should be made on the meta-tracker as well).
You should have the necessary privileges on the tracker now, since I think you ought to. (I don't have them on the meta-tracker, so Martin will need to handle that one.)
On the other hand, I'm not actually sure what kind of access is left when you remove all the roles from a user. I did notice the other day that email to the tracker still seems to work for new issues (I think it was a new issue, I don't remember the sequence of events for sure), so we may in fact still need to create a new role for this situation.
--David
On 1 December 2013 15:55, R. David Murray <rdmurray@bitdance.com> wrote:
You should have the necessary privileges on the tracker now, since I think you ought to. (I don't have them on the meta-tracker, so Martin will need to handle that one.)
Thanks - I've now removed his User role access on the main tracker.
On the other hand, I'm not actually sure what kind of access is left when you remove all the roles from a user. I did notice the other day that email to the tracker still seems to work for new issues (I think it was a new issue, I don't remember the sequence of events for sure), so we may in fact still need to create a new role for this situation.
We'll try "no roles assigned" for now. I don't expect Anatoly to be actively malicious about this - I still believe he's genuinely trying to help. Unfortunately, his getting obsessed with things that are either tedious to fix or just incredibly hard to change and then refusing to take "no" for an answer is so incredibly draining for other community members that it seemed necessary to send a much stronger "please stop trying to help, as you're doing more harm than good" message. It's a terrible thing to have to say to someone, but at this point I'm more worried about the effect on everyone else (including me) of his continued participation than I am about the impact explicit exclusion will have on him :(
Regards, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Quoting "R. David Murray" <rdmurray@bitdance.com>:
On the other hand, I'm not actually sure what kind of access is left when you remove all the roles from a user. I did notice the other day that email to the tracker still seems to work for new issues (I think it was a new issue, I don't remember the sequence of events for sure), so we may in fact still need to create a new role for this situation.
I just experimented with this a bit. Removing the User role will also mean that you lose the ability to log in ("You are not allowed to login"); I think it might be better to give the "Anonymous" role (meaning that it makes no difference whether you are logged in or not).
Regards, Martin
On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 18:11:47 +0100, martin@v.loewis.de wrote:
Quoting "R. David Murray" <rdmurray@bitdance.com>:
On the other hand, I'm not actually sure what kind of access is left when you remove all the roles from a user. I did notice the other day that email to the tracker still seems to work for new issues (I think it was a new issue, I don't remember the sequence of events for sure), so we may in fact still need to create a new role for this situation.
I just experimented with this a bit. Removing the User role will also mean that you lose the ability to log in ("You are not allowed to login"); I think it might be better to give the "Anonymous" role (meaning that it makes no difference whether you are logged in or not).
That makes sense to me. Done.
--David
Quoting "R. David Murray" <rdmurray@bitdance.com>:
You should have the necessary privileges on the tracker now, since I think you ought to. (I don't have them on the meta-tracker, so Martin will need to handle that one.)
I've restricted anatoly's access there; I've also given you the Admin role on that tracker.
Regards, Martin
On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 19:29:25 +0100, martin@v.loewis.de wrote:
Quoting "R. David Murray" <rdmurray@bitdance.com>:
You should have the necessary privileges on the tracker now, since I think you ought to. (I don't have them on the meta-tracker, so Martin will need to handle that one.)
I've restricted anatoly's access there; I've also given you the Admin role on that tracker.
Thanks.
--David
Am 01.12.2013 03:12, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
On 1 December 2013 01:49, Eli Bendersky <eliben@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
OK, moving on to mechanics, here's what I would like to propose:
flip his moderation bit on the mailing lists, at least for python-dev, python-ideas and distutils-sig (are there any other lists where his presence is considered disruptive?).
revoke his tracker privileges. If he would like something done on the tracker, he can ask Guido or Ezio to make the change on his behalf.
I'm willing to be the bearer of bad news, and let Anatoly know this is being done, and cc' Guido and Ezio (as I'll also pass along their offers of assistance).
This plan sounds good. I agree with Alex that the initial email has to be private. There's no need here for a public humiliation that will harm both Anatoly and Python.
OK, I've sent the notification to Anatoly. I cc'ed Guido and Ezio (since I included their offer to mediate tracker access) and also bcc'ed the list admins for the three currently affected lists (so they know why his posts start appearing in the moderation queue).
Thanks! I'm sorry to have spawned such a long and draining discussion, but I'm convinced it had to be done at some point.
cheers, Georg
On Nov 30, 2013, at 23:52 , Georg Brandl <g.brandl@gmx.net> wrote:
Am 01.12.2013 03:12, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
OK, I've sent the notification to Anatoly. I cc'ed Guido and Ezio (since I included their offer to mediate tracker access) and also bcc'ed the list admins for the three currently affected lists (so they know why his posts start appearing in the moderation queue). Thanks! I'm sorry to have spawned such a long and draining discussion, but I'm convinced it had to be done at some point.
And I'm sorry to have prolonged the discussion although I do appreciate the comments on what I wrote.
While it has been painful, I think the way this decision was reached is praiseworthy. The discussion was open, serious, deeply-felt, yet respectful to all - in other words, in the best traditions of the Python community. Thank you all and a particular thank you to Nick.
--Ned
-- Ned Deily nad@acm.org -- []
On Nov 30, 2013, at 05:44 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
- flip his moderation bit on the mailing lists, at least for python-dev, python-ideas and distutils-sig (are there any other lists where his presence is considered disruptive?).
Done, for techtonik@gmail.com on all three lists.
-Barry
On sam., 2013-11-30 at 11:10 -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 30, 2013, at 05:44 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
- flip his moderation bit on the mailing lists, at least for python-dev, python-ideas and distutils-sig (are there any other lists where his presence is considered disruptive?).
Done, for techtonik@gmail.com on all three lists.
Thank you very much for stepping up, Barry and Nick.
cheers
Antoine.
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
On sam., 2013-11-30 at 11:10 -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 30, 2013, at 05:44 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
- flip his moderation bit on the mailing lists, at least for python-dev, python-ideas and distutils-sig (are there any other lists where his presence is considered disruptive?).
Done, for techtonik@gmail.com on all three lists.
Thank you very much for stepping up, Barry and Nick.
Thanks from me as well.
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
On Nov 30, 2013, at 05:44 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
- flip his moderation bit on the mailing lists, at least for python-dev, python-ideas and distutils-sig (are there any other lists where his presence is considered disruptive?).
Done, for techtonik@gmail.com on all three lists.
For python-ideas, if someone wants to allow Anatoly's posts through then I will happily make them an admin of the list, but I have to just admit I can't be trusted to do it objectively and I don't want Anatoly to receive unjust treatment; there's just too much history after I tried to point out how he was being rude years ago and ended up with him attacking the PSF which I took personally. I'll ask Titus if he thinks he's up for it but I don't want to force him to shoulder the entire burden if doesn't think he can do it objectively either.
On 11/30/2013 04:16 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
For python-ideas, if someone wants to allow Anatoly's posts through then I will happily make them an admin of the list, but I have to just admit I can't be trusted to do it objectively and I don't want Anatoly to receive unjust treatment; there's just too much history after I tried to point out how he was being rude years ago and ended up with him attacking the PSF which I took personally. I'll ask Titus if he thinks he's up for it but I don't want to force him to shoulder the entire burden if doesn't think he can do it objectively either.
I can do it.
-- ~Ethan~
I concur that it is time to make a decision and move one. I will support whatever we decide.
I want to apologize for not being clear in my earlier reply. FTR, a few clarifications:
On Nov 29, 2013, at 20:25 , Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30 November 2013 08:41, Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> wrote:
It is a problem. And choosing to not participate is a perfectly rational and legitimate response. But it doesn't necessarily follow that banning someone is a better response. Trying to encourage different behavior can help if someone wants to take on that generally thankless effort. I applaud people like the other Ned who has lately been trying to do so there with some success. But it's not for everyone.
Please, I spent *years* trying to help Anatoly. It didn't work, so it's time to switch to the harm minimisation option and at least get him out of everyone's hair.
I should have been clearer that I was not referring to Anatoly here but to the "Help Vampire" in python-list. I am under no illusion that Anatoly's behavior is going to change substantially. That was really a point I was trying to make earlier. And I can see that some of what I wrote could be read as if I were trying to absolve him of responsibility for his actions and for the current negative situation. I didn't intend to imply that.
We tried to get him to be a productive contributor, it's time to admit we failed, and stop him being a drag on everyone else.
Agreed.
--Ned
-- Ned Deily nad@acm.org -- []
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:41:22 -0800, Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> wrote:
On Nov 29, 2013, at 13:51 , Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
On ven., 2013-11-29 at 13:16 -0800, Ned Deily wrote:
Why is it that we find him so annoying, enough to advocate fairly drastic measures like banning? There have been and will be others who behave similarly. I've only been here since 2006 or so, but I can't remember someone behaving like that on such a frequent and long-lived basis. He does stand out.
I think he stands out in part because we've spotlighted him.
I don't. There is *no one* else whose name on an email or bug tracker issue makes my stomach clench up right away(*). This is based on my personal interactions with him, not anything I've heard from others.
The most telling thing is that there are times when he is perfectly reasonable and pleasant. So it's not like he doesn't know how. He chooses not to be.
--David
(*) I've gotten better at dealing with this; the negative reaction doesn't last nearly as long as it used to. That doesn't make it any more fun when he's being unpleasant, though.
Hi, as I already mentioned in a message on a previous thread, I'm -1 on banning him. Last time this issue came up I contacted him and we discussed about these problems several times. For a while things got better and hhis behavior got a bit better and his posts less frequent, but lately he got "active" again.
If you try to get in his shoes, you can see how his behavior kind of makes sense -- even thought results are far from ideal: passive-aggressiveness -- likely because he thinks this is the most
- he wants to improve Python and fix problems that affect or might affect him -- this is completely understandable and reasonable;
- however, he read the CLA and disagrees with/doesn't understand a few things -- this also is somewhat reasonable and shared by a few other persons; the fact that most of the others don't care / trust it and just sign it without even reading doesn't mean that he's wrong;
- without a signed CLA he is unable to contribute code (even if he's otherwise willing and able to do so), and this places him in a very frustrating position where he his not able to fix things himself and has to rely on others;
- in an attempt to catch the attention of others he relies on
effective tool he has available;
His behavior does catch our attention (giving the impression of (short-term) effectiveness), but in a negative way. There's also a vicious circle where our behavior towards him increases his frustration and leads him to complain louder in an attempt to compensate; the fact that we already start with a negative bias against him doesn't help either.
I also agree with Ned when he says:
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> wrote:
[...] I personally don't see his behavior, in and of itself, as all that harmful. I *do* see the negative reaction it provokes as being harmful. [...]
That said, I think a ban will make him even more frustrated, and that might lead to two outcomes:
- he will eventually gave up (and make some people happy);
- he will likely still face problems with Python that he wants to fix and he will have to find other ways to report them, since the regular ways have been precluded to him, thus perpetuating the aforementioned vicious circle.
I personally don't have problems talking with him, and, if we decided not to ban him, I'm available to spend more time talking with him and being a mediator. I'm not very active on the mailing lists, but I don't mind taking actions on the bug tracker (so feel free to add me to the issues he reports -- especially if he causes problems).
I also agree that if people don't want to discuss with him on the MLs they should just ignore his messages, and especially they should avoid replying with "attacks" against him or his behavior, rather than "attacks" against his proposals. I've already seen a few of his threads that got ignored for a few weeks before he pinged the thread only to be ignored again, so this method seems somewhat effective. (And FTR I don't think I'm wasting my time -- if anything I'm sharpening my already nearly-limitless patience ;).
Best Regards, Ezio Melotti
On 30 November 2013 16:58, Ezio Melotti <ezio.melotti@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, as I already mentioned in a message on a previous thread, I'm -1 on banning him. Last time this issue came up I contacted him and we discussed about these problems several times. For a while things got better and hhis behavior got a bit better and his posts less frequent, but lately he got "active" again.
If you try to get in his shoes, you can see how his behavior kind of makes sense -- even thought results are far from ideal:
- he wants to improve Python and fix problems that affect or might affect him -- this is completely understandable and reasonable;
Yes, but passion is not enough, one also has to be willing *and able* to collaborate with others.
- however, he read the CLA and disagrees with/doesn't understand a few things -- this also is somewhat reasonable and shared by a few other persons; the fact that most of the others don't care / trust it and just sign it without even reading doesn't mean that he's wrong;
PSF board members have sat down with at PyCon to explain it in person. If he is still uncomfortable it, and is not willing to pay a lawyer to explain it to him, that's his problem, not ours.
- without a signed CLA he is unable to contribute code (even if he's otherwise willing and able to do so), and this places him in a very frustrating position where he his not able to fix things himself and has to rely on others;
That's his fault, not ours. He can choose not to sign the CLA. He can't use that as an excuse to be disrespectful to others.
- in an attempt to catch the attention of others he relies on passive-aggressiveness -- likely because he thinks this is the most effective tool he has available;
So he should seek professional help for his obsession then. This is harassment level behaviour - he refuses to contribute productively for reasons he cannot articulate to anyone else, and chooses to be actively destructive instead.
At that point, we need to stop enabling him and just say "enough is enough".
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> wrote:
[...] I personally don't see his behavior, in and of itself, as all that harmful. I *do* see the negative reaction it provokes as being harmful. [...]
That said, I think a ban will make him even more frustrated, and that might lead to two outcomes:
- he will eventually gave up (and make some people happy);
- he will likely still face problems with Python that he wants to fix and he will have to find other ways to report them, since the regular ways have been precluded to him, thus perpetuating the aforementioned vicious circle.
I personally don't have problems talking with him, and, if we decided not to ban him, I'm available to spend more time talking with him and being a mediator. I'm not very active on the mailing lists, but I don't mind taking actions on the bug tracker (so feel free to add me to the issues he reports -- especially if he causes problems).
If you and Guido are willing to act as a buffer between him and everyone else, I am fine with flipping his moderation bit rather than banning him entirely. Valuing Anatoly's experience of the community over the experience of everyone else, on the other hand, *needs to stop*.
I also agree that if people don't want to discuss with him on the MLs they should just ignore his messages, and especially they should avoid replying with "attacks" against him or his behavior, rather than "attacks" against his proposals. I've already seen a few of his threads that got ignored for a few weeks before he pinged the thread only to be ignored again, so this method seems somewhat effective.
That's avoiding the problem rather than addressing it though, as it gives the impression we're in the habit of ignoring threads in general, when we're really just in the habit of ignoring Anatoly.
(And FTR I don't think I'm wasting my time -- if anything I'm sharpening my already nearly-limitless patience ;).
It took about three years of actively trying to help him for Anatoly to exhaust mine :P
Regards, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On sam., 2013-11-30 at 08:58 +0200, Ezio Melotti wrote:
I personally don't have problems talking with him, and, if we decided not to ban him, I'm available to spend more time talking with him and being a mediator.
And the end result is that the community spends time "mediating" with a jerk instead of actually caring about the decent people who report issues or try to contribute. This is completely ridiculous and destructive.
Regards
Antoine.
Quoting Ned Deily <nad@acm.org>:
You can't fix people, but you can prevent them from actually being harmful.
The thing is it's a technical solution to a social problem.
No, that's not true. The ban itself is a social reaction to a social problem. The technical reaction is only to actually enforce the ban.
I have personally banned two people so far from "python-dev", and at least in one case, the ban wasn't actually enforced, but honored nevertheless.
It *would* be a technical solution if the ban wasn't actually communicated, but only implemented (something which is quite common in RL, e.g. when people change the locks on their doors to lock out their former partners)
the former tend to be all that effective for the latter. And I
think reasonable people can disagree about the degree of
harmfulness. I personally don't see his behavior, in and of itself,
as all that harmful. I *do* see the negative reaction it provokes
as being harmful. Clearly, it bothers people and that is
disruptive. But it would be a whole lot less disruptive if we
didn't let it be, e.g. by just letting it go and ignoring it.
Since nobody mentioned it this time (or since I missed if somebody did), I'll mention the "poisonous people" talk from Collins-Sussman/Fitzpatrick):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q52kFL8zVoM
I said this several years ago, and I still believe that anatoly is a poisonous person, in the sense of this talk.
Several strategies just don't work here, e.g. trying to win an argument with anatoly. A strategy that I believe that *also* doesn't work is to let "the community" ignore him. In a free software project, fluctuation is just too high to make this work.
It takes several years (for some of us) to recognize that ignoring him entirely is the only reasonable personal reaction. If we wanted to effectively make it work, we would have to educate every single contributor "don't talk to anatoly, and don't respond if he is talking to you". This can't work in the large scale.
If python-list is a troll magnet, that's a pity, but how is that relevant to the *development community*?
It's relevant because python-list is yet another forum hosted by the
PSF via python.org mailing lists and is viewed as part of the
broader Python community as a whole. If we propose to ban someone
from python-list, along with other lists, that raises the question
of what standards are being used.
I don't think anybody should be banned from python-list; I think talk is just about "python-dev" (including all core cpython infrastructure).
It is a problem. And choosing to not participate is a perfectly
rational and legitimate response. But it doesn't necessarily follow
that banning someone is a better response.
I think it is. Based on past experience, it would be temporarily anyway, and it may buy us a year or so of mental peace.
Regards, Martin
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:16:32 -0800, Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> wrote:
On Nov 29, 2013, at 12:12 , Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
The question is, how effective will the alternative solution (banning him) be? I worry that it's just going to make things worse.
I think that is a legitimate concern and likely outcome.
The key thing to understand here is that you can't win an argument with Anatoly. You can only avoid *getting* into one.
Right. We can't change other people's behavior. We can at best encourage change. In this case, I'm doubtful that banning would serve as an encouragement. I understand the many of us get annoyed and frustrated by his comments and the multiple re-opening of the tracker issue thing the other day was certainly uncalled-for behavior on his part. But it was likely fueled in part by people's reaction to his
Since his multiple re-openings really are a trigger for us, one possible mitigation (*not* solution) would be to set up a special tracker account type just for Anatoly that does not have authorization to edit any tracker fields once the issue is created.
This is a half-joking suggestion, but only half.
comments. I think the more important issue here is not his behavior but our behavior in how we react to behavior like this. *That* is something we can reasonably try to change. Why is it that we find him so annoying, enough to advocate fairly drastic measures like banning?
He does not evidence any respect for the community, and so we not only get defensive, we want to attack back.
There have been and will be others who behave similarly. I don't propose to try to answer that question: it's one that each of us will have our own answer to.
I think that if he is not banned it is important to call him out on his actions *politely* when his tone is insulting instead of polite, to indicate to the rest of the community that we value a polite environment. Other people have changed their behavior when we have done this. Anatoly has not. But the message to the rest of the community makes it worth doing even when Anatoly himself doesn't change.
However...ignoring him can be tough. Engaging his *valid* points without letting emotion color the interaction is tougher. Calling him out on his bad behavior without letting the emotion in is the toughest.
So yeah, he's a problem no matter which way you slice it. As Ned says maybe doing our best to set a good example is the best course.
I'm not against banning him myself, but I'm not particularly for it, either. I don't know *what* the best course is here.
--David
PS: Maybe we could set up some mailing list software that, every time Anatoly starts a new thread, and periodically during it, it posts an "Anatoly FAQ"?
Yes, that one *is* 100% a joke. Or at least 99%.
On 11/29/2013 02:17 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
PS: Maybe we could set up some mailing list software that, every time Anatoly starts a new thread, and periodically during it, it posts an "Anatoly FAQ"?
Heh, there's a couple other names we could add to that list, too! ;)
-- ~Ethan~
On 30 November 2013 06:12, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
If someone turns away from the community because we decided we didn't want someone who is rude participating and ruining the experience for others then I'm fine with losing that person's participation just like anyone who chooses not to come to PyCon because we have a CoC (they can still use Python, they can just choose to not participate in the community). But if we lose a single individual because they didn't like someone being rude to them or others then that is a loss I don't want to see. Once again, the cost/benefit ratio of everyone as a group having to ignore a single troublemaker does not seem like the best solution.
Again, I haven't seen Anatoly interfere with others. I imagine that most people seeing his posts will recognize him as the nutcase he is.
Noah Kantrowitz and I recently had to warn him off harassing the PyPI 2 developers (Richard Jones and Donald Stufft).
Them I had to post on distutils-sig to explain why we were being so abrupt, since many of the folks there hadn't had the "pleasure" of experiencing Anatoly's antics before: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2013-November/023051.html
The problem with someone like Anatoly isn't just that he's an energy drain, it's the fact that the way we deal with him reflects our knowledge of that fact, and then other people go "hang on, that's a bit rude", because they don't know we've already been putting up with him for years, and long ago ran out of patience for his antics.
I have him killfiled, Brett has him killfiled, most of the other core developers already have him killfiled, but silently ignoring him isn't a solution, since that has it's own damaging effects on the lists.
I've gone on record before in favour of banning him permanently:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail//python-committers/2012-December/002287.htmlAnd I just did so again today:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail//python-dev/2013-November/130646.htmlWe have plenty of documented evidence of his antics to back us up if anyone wants to make a big deal of it. At his point, it's a matter of "we care about Anatoly more than we do about the people he is pissing off", and that's taking inclusiveness to ridiculous extremes.
Every resource on OSS community management says the same thing: there are some people where trying to continue to include them will do the community more harm than good. Many people will leave of their own accord if they're consistently ignored, but if they can't take the hint, then we need to be more forceful in showing them the door.
This piece on Geek Social Fallacies is also relevant, since I think we're falling into the "Ostracizers are Evil" trap in refusing to ban Anatoly despite on ongoing pattern of detrimental behaviour that has persisted over years: http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html
Regards, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Tim Peters <tim.peters@gmail.com> wrote:
I pretty much ignore Anatoly, and that works really well for me - try it ;-)
I've filtered his emails to the trash for close to two years now so I'm only aware of him when issues like this come up. He doesn't get to come in here and act how he does, and openly say he's being disrespectful on purpose, and then say that he can't be nice if we don't make him happy.
I doubt he would walk into a restaurant, complain about the process they used to create their menu, then complain when they don't make food the way he likes, then be mean to the waiters and waitresses because they're not seeing to it that he is comforted. If he did, they'd just call the police and he'd be escorted out.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Brian Curtin <brian@python.org> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Tim Peters <tim.peters@gmail.com> wrote:
I pretty much ignore Anatoly, and that works really well for me - try it ;-)
I've filtered his emails to the trash for close to two years now so I'm only aware of him when issues like this come up. He doesn't get to come in here and act how he does, and openly say he's being disrespectful on purpose, and then say that he can't be nice if we don't make him happy.
I doubt he would walk into a restaurant, complain about the process they used to create their menu, then complain when they don't make food the way he likes, then be mean to the waiters and waitresses because they're not seeing to it that he is comforted. If he did, they'd just call the police and he'd be escorted out.
This analogy feels flawed -- Python users who are unhappy with the community's process for change can't just switch to Ruby, because they have all this software that's already written in Python.
I'm still thinking about whether there's something we committers should do besides staying calm and staying out of the discussion despite the offensive criticism, but nothing comes to mind.
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
Am 29.11.2013 19:14, schrieb Guido van Rossum:
Have you read the latest on the python-dev thread? Several other people are now also complaining. The only thing that makes sense to me is nothing -- banning Anatoly now is just going to cause a PR disaster. Not responding at all will most likely cause it to blow over (surely they will collectively make fools of themselves, and Anatoly's post is the closest to trolling from him yet). I'll add some pointers to the peps repo README file so we can close that issue properly as well.
"Several people" is an exaggeration. Only Kristjan is complaining and he sure hasn't dealt with Anatoly before. Let's not forget that four core devs have agreed to close the ticket.
Perhaps it's time to try a more technical approach and restrict modifications of status, resolution, version and priority to core devs or CLA signers. That could stop his rampage without further discussion.
Am 29.11.2013 19:14, schrieb Guido van Rossum:
Have you read the latest on the python-dev thread? Several other people are now also complaining. The only thing that makes sense to me is nothing -- banning Anatoly now is just going to cause a PR disaster.
There's no reason for banning - he has not touched the issue again.
Also, I think that for an open source project the sanity of the contributors is as important as PR, if not more.
Georg
On 11/29/2013 10:04 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I just want to make sure others know that Georg has warned Anatoly that if he continues to re-open a specific issue he will lose his tracker privileges (http://bugs.python.org/issue19822#msg204696). I stand behind his warning and will support anyone who enforces it. I would suggest that if he does this to *any* other issue that he be warned that flipping *any *fields after a core dev has made a decision and without discussing it first will also lead to his loss of privileges.
He did this a couple of months ago on another issue and I told him directly to stop. Enough warnings.
I would also like to point out his attitude is still horrible at times; being accused of spreading "ill FUD policies in favor of creating [a] collaborative environment" is not exactly polite (http://bugs.python.org/issue19826#msg204693).
participants (18)
-
Alex Gaynor -
Antoine Pitrou -
Barry Warsaw -
Brett Cannon -
Brian Curtin -
Christian Heimes -
Eli Bendersky -
Ethan Furman -
Ezio Melotti -
Georg Brandl -
Guido van Rossum -
M.-A. Lemburg -
martin＠v.loewis.de -
Ned Deily -
Nick Coghlan -
R. David Murray -
Terry Reedy -
Tim Peters