Apparently it's this one: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2018-September/053482.html

By the way, regardless of this single case, I would like people to think of the broader issue we're having. It's more than a single contentious decision.

Regards

Antoine.

Le 20/09/2018 à 22:33, Alex Gaynor a écrit :

Is there a copy of the original email? (I'm not a regular python-ideas reader)

Based on Brett's description though, the content sounds very far over the line, and I wouldn't want to interfere with the WG's decision.

Alex

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

Hi,

I'm choosing to forward this to python-committers because I don't think
python-ideas is a reasonable place to discuss CoC decisions.

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

- a definitive ban is an extremely strong decision that should only be
taken if nothing else works.  May I remind that Anatoly was able to post
prolifically and unconstructively for several years, being warned
several times, before being finally banned?  Comparatively, this one ban
seems expeditive.

- the reasons given, to me, don't make sense at all.  The word "n-----"
is not a forbidden word if you want to describe, precisely, linguistics
and the relativity of meanings (instead of actually *qualifying* someone
or a groupe of people), which is what the OP claimed to do.  The other
reasons look like a similar kind of over-reaction.  Even if something
there looks inappropriate to you, it's still enough of a grey area that
a ban is absolutely the wrong answer.

I deduce that it's ok to say "slave" in a discussion instead of using an
expression such as "the s-word".  Why one term is allowed and the other,
not, may be clear to Americans (or, perhaps, a large fraction thereof),
but hey, it's not clear to other people around the world.  Banning a
(apparently) Dutch person because he doesn't understand American
standards of offense is not only unfair, but it makes our community
*not* inclusive of other cultures.

As a French person myself, I could not, even if I wanted to, turn myself
into an authentic American: what is obvious to you is not obvious to me
and it would be extremely brutal and humiliating to ban me for having
the wrong nationality and the wrong culture.  I will ask: please
consider the work and effort that it *already* takes for other people to
adapt to standards of discussion that are, obviously, those of a
particular culture.  Otherwise you're raising barriers even more, not
lowering them.


At the end of it, it looks like we have a real moderation problem.
python-ideas threads frequently veer out into unconstructive
back-and-forths (and, well, that's not *only* the ethically-sensitive
threads).  The CoC is being applied erratically, sometimes
precipitately, by apparently overworked and emotionally exhausted
moderators, with bad consequences on the quality of the decisions.

Moderators should not become emotionally exhausted (which means we need
a more adequate discussion system *and* a more collegial, spread out,
team of moderators); and, if they become so, I would humbly suggest it's
a better idea - even if not always easy to follow - to step back and
take some rest than make decisions in such a state.  We also need real
guidelines to the moderators as to which decision on the scale of
possible decisions to apply, depending on severity of the offense /
violation and on the "offendor"'s past behaviour.

In the end, I hope we can set ourselves better moderation standards.  As
for me, I find the current situation very worrying, including for my
ability to contribute constructively to Python.  If I have to fear
banning for every word that I say and that might be deemed inappropriate
in the moderators' culture, I might just as well leave instead of
feeling stressed and anguished everytime I post something.  I would not
want to live this in paid work: why would I endure it as a volunteer,
while my main gratification should be the pleasure taken in
contributing?

Regards

Antoine.



----- Message Transféré -----

Date : Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:56:05 -0700
De : Brett Cannon <brett-+ZN9ApsXKcEdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
<mailto:brett-%2BZN9ApsXKcEdnm%2ByROfE0A@public.gmane.org>>
À : Jacco van Dorp
<j.van.dorp-i74+SDIRvn1mR6Xm/wNWPw@public.gmane.org
<mailto:wNWPw@public.gmane.org>>
Cc : python-ideas
<python-ideas-+ZN9ApsXKcEdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
<mailto:python-ideas-%2BZN9ApsXKcEdnm%2ByROfE0A@public.gmane.org>>
Groupe de discussion : gmane.comp.python.ideas
Sujet : CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better
than ugly" Zen clause)


The below email was reported to the PSF board for code of conduct
violations and then passed on to the conduct working group to decide on
an appropriate response.

Based on the WG's recommendation and after discussing it with Titus, the
decision has been made to ban Jacco from python-ideas. Trivializing
assault, using the n-word, and making inappropriate comments about
someone's mental stability are all uncalled for and entirely
unnecessary to carry on a reasonable discourse of conversation that
remains welcoming to others.
_______________________________________________
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org <mailto:python-committers@python.org>
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

-- All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 21:37, Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:

Apparently it's this one: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2018-September/053482.html

By the way, regardless of this single case, I would like people to think of the broader issue we're having. It's more than a single contentious decision.

Before I say anything else, I want to point out that (a) I'm not objecting to the ban, or the process that took place to impose it, and (b) I'm extremely appreciative of the work our moderators put into trying to police things in an increasingly difficult environment. So please take anything I say in that context - as perspective from someone who is concerned about the direction that certain of our groups are taking, but understands that it's not an easy problem to solve.

But in the interest of looking at the broader issue (which I agree with Antoine is something we should be concerned about)...

I understand that the taboo in question is a strong one in American culture, and as such violating that is inconsiderate and insensitive. Doing so deliberately is both unacceptable, and a cheap form of debate (if giving offense is the only way you have to make your point, maybe your point's not good enough?) But it is still very much one culture's position, and American sensibilities often seem to be very clear and present in a lot of the debates we see that "get out of hand" in one way or another. I'm British (and my age may also be relevant - I grew up in the 1960s and 70s), and from my perspective, it feels like a lot of people are over-sensitive, and very quick to perceive offense - to the extent that entirely natural (to many British people) and accepted tones, like sarcasm and irony, are almost impossible to express without having to completely obscure meaning by adding clarifications and explanations.

I'll also comment on the point made here, can anyone point to a non-American taboo that has been violated and hasn't been dealt with the same way? Not really, but in my case that's because I don't think the British *have* strong taboos like that (and Antoine indicates that the same is true of the French). The only thing I can think of is religious taboos, such as Muslim concerns about taking the name of the Prophet in vain, but I don't think I've ever seen that sort of violation (and I would expect that to be dealt with just as swiftly). Personally, as a Catholic, arguing religious taboos on a list about a language based on Monty Python feels ironic anyway - but for the record, please don't ban references to the Spanish Inquisition or the Holy Grail on my account :-)

Openness needs to be a two way street, in my view. Certainly people from cultures that have a more "robust" (shall we say) natural form of expression need to be aware that other cultures and people may not be able to deal with that - but conversely, people from cultures with a strong sense of certain words and expressions being unacceptable need to be open to the fact that others don't have that sense, and expect thicker skins in debate. That's not how I see the Python community going at the moment - rather we're moving towards a "lowest common denominator" approach, where *everyone* needs to skirt around all possible forms of offense, and the person claiming to be offended is in effect always in the right. That, to me, is taking the easy option, and I think that the Python community should aspire to do something better than that, even if it's hard.

The internet in general is a hugely beneficial technology, allowing us to interact with people in radically different cultures and situations than we were ever able to in the past. That's a massive step forward for humanity as a whole in understanding each other - and we shouldn't undermine it by putting up barriers to communication in the form of preventing people from making (and learning from) dumb social mistakes.

As things stand, everyone is living in fear of giving offense. As an example, some time ago, I was participating in a discussion where some participant made a comment that I thought was a bit out of line with the list's policy,. It didn't bother me, personally, at all (as I say, I'm British :-)) but rather than let it lie, I felt that I should mention this, rather than leave it to someone else. However, what ended up happening was that I got a lot of criticism for "taking offense unnecessarily". (I don't have a link, and I don't want to provide one - it's an example, not something I feel the need to analyze further). So rather than *helping*, I ended up being the bad guy simply from trying to channel other people's views and getting it wrong. And I ended up with a strong sense that everyone viewed me as the sort of over-sensitive complainer that I try very, very hard not to be.

When I write mails for the lists, it's an exhausting process. The technical content is easy, but policing my own tone against an increasingly complex and restrictive set of standards that I don't personally subscribe to, nor do I really understand, is becoming a burden that puts me off contributing. That is *not* to say that I have any problem with the CoC - I certainly wouldn't consider myself to be anything other than "Open, Considerate and Respectful" - but I constantly feel that I have to word my contributions in a way that's unnatural to me, simply because I have to take the view that people reading my words have no sense of who I am, and cannot get any such sense because if I were to "loosen up", there's too much of a risk that someone would take offense. (As an example, people who know me in real life would be used to me referring to things as "stupid" and "idiotic" and wouldn't worry or take offense - because I call *myself* "stupid" and "idiotic" far more often than I use the terms about anything else - but how would I ever get to the point where I could do that in a list conversation? So I have to find alternative words which convey the same sense that I get when I say "stupid" - and that basically means a 5 or 6 word phrase with a couple of footnotes saying "no, I don't mean you personally" or similar. Which destroys the readability of my comment. Much like my having to over-expand this parenthetical note has done ;-))

We have to take care. There are no visual or body language cues when writing emails. I'm not arguing that people should be given license to say whatever they want. But nor should people be made to live in fear of making a genuine mistake.

Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Le 21/09/2018 à 00:35, Ethan Furman a écrit :

And I have to argue against his use of the n-word* as being part of the reason -- he wasn't calling anybody that, he was using the word as an example of a taboo in one culture that is not in others. Using that as part of the reason to ban him helps me understand the sentiment voiced at the sprints of the feeling that the CoC is a weapon waiting to shoot us down.

Is there a summary of the sprints somewhere or is it planned to post one somewhere? It would be more to read a bit more about the discussions that took place.

Regards

Antoine.

Le 21/09/2018 à 00:35, Ethan Furman a écrit :

On 09/20/2018 02:17 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

...

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

One thing missing from the ban notification is the length of time? If this is the first offense it should only be two months, right?

Note: in the few online discussion forums that I have seen, the ban duration for a first offense would be more on the order of a couple days, perhaps a week. Two months is, arguably, very long already.

Just my 2 cents, though. There *should* be a ban duration in any case.

Regards

Antoine.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:

And I have to argue against his use of the n-word* as being part of the reason -- he wasn't calling anybody that, he was using the word as an example of a taboo in one culture that is not in others. Using that as part of the reason to ban him helps me understand the sentiment voiced at the sprints of the feeling that the CoC is a weapon waiting to shoot us down.

But using that word, even with quote marks around it, *is* a serious taboo in American culture. And partly this is because "white person who finds convoluted excuse to use the n-word" is such a cliche that the affected folks have given up with arguing about it and just don't want to hear it anywhere, in or out of quotes, with or without an excuse attached. There's no reservoir of good-faith left to fall back on.

Now sure, that taboo is an American thing, and I wouldn't support automatically banning someone who used it in genuine ignorance, was repentant when they realized what they'd done, etc. Context absolutely matters. But in context here it's clear that Jacco knew perfectly well that he was violating a taboo, and I can't read his usage as anything but an intentional provocation. Especially when combined with all the other things in his email.

-n

-- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org

Le 21/09/2018 à 02:06, Nathaniel Smith a écrit :

Now sure, that taboo is an American thing, and I wouldn't support automatically banning someone who used it in genuine ignorance, was repentant when they realized what they'd done, etc.

So why are American taboos specifically forbidden, and not other taboos? Is there anything special about Americans that deserves this? Does it mean that Python is a community for Americans foremost, and others are just second-class participants? The more this is going on, the more it is the impression I get, and things have become distinctly *worse* recently.

Regards

Antoine.

On Sep 21, 2018, at 6:55 AM, Christian Heimes <christian@python.org> wrote:

I don't understand why you are drawing the reverse conclusion here. Can you give me one concrete example, in which a French, German, or any other non-US American taboo was violated and not counteracted with swift reaction?

Right, I would assume that if someone knowingly posted a similar post, but using say a French taboo, the same would have happened. The key thing is that the author obviously *knew* it was a taboo, it wasn’t an accident. If someone accidentally posted something like that, then I presume the outcome would be something more like a warning and telling them not to do it again— for any culture’s taboo.

On Sep 21, 2018, at 7:07 AM, Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:

Le 21/09/2018 à 12:55, Christian Heimes a écrit :

...

On 21/09/2018 12.46, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

...

Le 21/09/2018 à 02:06, Nathaniel Smith a écrit :

...

Now sure, that taboo is an American thing, and I wouldn't support automatically banning someone who used it in genuine ignorance, was repentant when they realized what they'd done, etc.

So why are American taboos specifically forbidden, and not other taboos? Is there anything special about Americans that deserves this? Does it mean that Python is a community for Americans foremost, and others are just second-class participants? The more this is going on, the more it is the impression I get, and things have become distinctly *worse* recently.

I don't understand why you are drawing the reverse conclusion here. Can you give me one concrete example, in which a French, German, or any other non-US American taboo was violated and not counteracted with swift reaction?

I don't know of specifically French linguistic taboos, so I'm unable to answer this. French culture generally doesn't ban words wholesale, even when used in quotes. The very idea that you can't *quote* something despicable is foreign here.

But, were it to exist, I have a hard time imagining it would face immediate permanent banning on python-XXX. And I would be against such immediate permanent banning, because that's inappropriately strong and definitive.

Much of the discussion here has focused on the use of a few words.

IMHO, discussing violence, assault, and implying that its okay to accept and trivialize this violence do not belong in posts about the Python language.

From the original post:

Being triggered by a word this simple is not exactly a sign of mental stability. I know a girl who's been raped more than she can count - but the word doesn't trigger her like this(only makes her want to beat up rapists). If people can do that, then surely a playground insult wont reduce you to tears, right ?

Regards

Antoine.

---

python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Hi Paul,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Fear of speaking or fear of reading - both are not ideal. The balance of respectful discourse likely falls somewhere between the two.

Context is important. I wonder though if the author's intent was constructive comment...

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018, 8:01 AM Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 12:38, Carol Willing <willingc@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Much of the discussion here has focused on the use of a few words.

IMHO, discussing violence, assault, and implying that its okay to accept and trivialize this violence do not belong in posts about the Python language.

From the original post:

Being triggered by a word this simple is not exactly a sign of mental stability. I know a girl who's been raped more than she can count - but the word doesn't trigger her like this(only makes her want to beat up rapists). If people can do that, then surely a playground insult wont reduce you to tears, right ?

I agree - *but* there's a whole lot more I wish I could say, about context, and looking at how the conversation reached that point.

But I won't, because frankly I'm scared to do so. I don't trust myself to explain my feelings without doing so in a way that people find offensive, and suffering a backlash that I didn't intend to trigger, and which won't help the discussion.

I'm not sure that "I'm too scared to participate in this discussion" is where we want to be, though... Paul

Le 21/09/2018 à 14:45, Paul Moore a écrit :

It's not likely to be a practical option on a mailing list, but in primary school (which the whole conversation felt like) a likely response would have been to put *everyone* involved in a time-out for a period of cooling off, to think about how their behaviour was unacceptable. Think for example of a group of kids taunting each other until one of them snaps and hits someone.

With a forum system, the thread would just have been locked.

However, you may not physically lock a mailing-list thread, but you can post a moderator's announcement asking everyone to stop posting to that thread, and warning that failing to comply would get the offender e.g. a 7-day ban (regardless of the contents of their post).

Regards

Antoine.

On 09/21/2018 07:51 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

Le 21/09/2018 à 14:45, Paul Moore a écrit :

...

It's not likely to be a practical option on a mailing list, but in primary school (which the whole conversation felt like) a likely response would have been to put *everyone* involved in a time-out for a period of cooling off, to think about how their behaviour was unacceptable. Think for example of a group of kids taunting each other until one of them snaps and hits someone.

With a forum system, the thread would just have been locked.

It is certainly not as convenient, but with the current system we can set a spam filter on subject lines and stop threads that way. It is still a pretty rough tool (whole thread, not sub-thread) and a bit awkward to use, but doable.

Of course, we still have the problem of speed -- some threads blow up in a matter of hours.

-- ~Ethan~

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 13:30, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:

So part of being and open and welcoming community, is knowing and understanding that words, images, etc like that can make people feel like we’re either a group that will directly engage in those attacks that have been associated with them in the past, or at least won’t come to their aid if someone does initiate those kinds of attack.

I'm going to take this one comment and respond to it out of context. But generally, I agree with everything you said.

My biggest concern is that we're starting to build a community where people feel exposed to attack for "CoC violation" accusations over simple misunderstandings, or careless wordings. Or, for that matter, using terminology that they weren't aware was unacceptable. Not "being called out (by the offended party), apologising and moving on", but going straight to policy complaints by people (maybe even people not directly upset) assuming offense could be claimed. That's clearly nothing like the sort of problems people with real reason for sensitivity have to live under, but nevertheless it's not a comfortable place for people to learn how to interact.

Balance, forgiveness, and a mature level of empathy are what's *really* needed ("among the things that are needed...":-)). Not policies. Policies should be weapons of last resort.

Paul

On 21.09.2018 14:59, Paul Moore wrote:

Balance, forgiveness, and a mature level of empathy are what's *really* needed ("among the things that are needed...":-)). Not policies. Policies should be weapons of last resort.

Agreed.

I guess we'll also have to learn that flamebait as we had it in the old days is now often launched as cocbait.

It'll take some time to get used to this, but we'll have to try not to fall for it.

-- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Sep 25 2018)

...

...

Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ... http://www.egenix.com/ Python Database Interfaces ... http://products.egenix.com/ Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ... http://zope.egenix.com/

::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs :::

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/ http://www.malemburg.com/

On 9/21/2018 6:55 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:

I don't understand why you are drawing the reverse conclusion here. Can you give me one concrete example, in which a French, German, or any other non-US American taboo was violated and not counteracted with swift reaction?

Are you talking about someone posting a non-American 'taboo' word in the native language or an English translation thereof?

On 09/20/2018 05:47 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

Which is why I'm hoping we can eventually get a clear enforcement guide written for all the mailing lists and then have a specific group of people manage all of these incident reports and deciding how to handle them for consistency. Otherwise we have our current situation where every list admin has to figure this out for themselves and do the best they can on their own.

conduct-wg at python.org.

I'll start running issues from -list by them to get advice/counsel. No reason we can't opt-in to consistency. :)

-- ~Ethan~

Le 21/09/2018 à 13:06, Christian Heimes a écrit :

In my opinion it's both wrong and unfair to compare the ban with Anatoly's ban. For one we didn't have a process and general consent for bans.

AFAIK we still don't. I don't know where such a procedure is written out, and I don't remember my opinion being asked or considered on the matter. I certainly don't remember consenting to immediate permanent bans as a response to use of culture-specific taboos (rather than actual insults or racist discourse).

As it is, the current "process" is vague and privately decided. That's not an acceptable standard on a mature project.

It took us a while to agree on the procedure. Also Anatoly wasn't

flat out hostile and insulting. He was mentally draining and exhausting on a more subtle level.

Yeah... no, not so subtle. You're painting things in a rosy colour here. He had been a problem for months or years. It was obvious something had to be done. But apparently the "key people" were reluctant to take a decision, even though there was frequent outrage at Anatoly's contributions. Now we're facing the inverse problem: the "key people" feel like they have to take overhanded decisions extremely quickly, as if it was going to make the atmosphere more peaceful (which, by construction, it won't).

Participation on these mailing lists is a privilege, not a right. We grant the privilege to everybody, but also reserve the right to remove the privilege.

"Privilege" is a weird way to describe volunteer labour.

Regards

Antoine.