I have blocked Wes Turner from the Python org on GitHub
In the (long) discussion of https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/6, Wes Turner began to do his usual posting of lists. People pointed out he was stepping out of line by being somewhat off-topic and seemingly lecturing folks. He posted some of his lists again and then I warned him that if he did it again I would block him for a CoC violation since he did not want to respect anyone's time by taking the time to edit what amount to dumping his personal notes on GitHub. (This is a long-standing issue, BTW, with Wes where he has been warned in other settings like distutils-sig about his posting behaviour.)
Unfortunately he did it again for https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/66. Since GitHub only has organization-level blocks I have blocked him at that level (I've also already received some +1s from core devs while writing this email for my move, so I know others who have interacted with him also support this decision).
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
In the (long) discussion of https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/6, Wes Turner began to do his usual posting of lists. People pointed out he was stepping out of line by being somewhat off-topic and seemingly lecturing folks. He posted some of his lists again and then I warned him that if he did it again I would block him for a CoC violation since he did not want to respect anyone's time by taking the time to edit what amount to dumping his personal notes on GitHub. (This is a long-standing issue, BTW, with Wes where he has been warned in other settings like distutils-sig about his posting behaviour.)
Unfortunately he did it again for https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/66. Since GitHub only has organization-level blocks I have blocked him at that level (I've also already received some +1s from core devs while writing this email for my move, so I know others who have interacted with him also support this decision).
Thanks, Brett! I have set a filter to mark all of his emails as read on several Python lists for a while.
--Berker
On Mar 31, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
In the (long) discussion of https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/6, Wes Turner began to do his usual posting of lists. People pointed out he was stepping out of line by being somewhat off-topic and seemingly lecturing folks. He posted some of his lists again and then I warned him that if he did it again I would block him for a CoC violation since he did not want to respect anyone's time by taking the time to edit what amount to dumping his personal notes on GitHub. (This is a long-standing issue, BTW, with Wes where he has been warned in other settings like distutils-sig about his posting behaviour.)
FWIW, this may just be his communication style that reflects his tooling (probably emacs org-mode or some such) and his way of thinking about problems. Even his personal web page looks like all of his posts: https://westurner.org/pages/resume So I don't think he was trolling, it is possible that this is just who he is and may not be something he can easily switch-off.
I don't want to second guess the decision, but we've had a lot worse issues than "being somewhat off-topic and seemingly lecturing folks" or "not taking time to edit". To me, blocking him seems a bit extreme especially for someone who has been a part of the Python community for a number of years.
I haven't followed many of his posts (which do seem somewhat odd and not entirely coherent), so I don't possess all the facts, so perhaps this was the right thing to do.
That said, I would like to remind everyone that when the diversity statement and code-of-conduct were approved, it was done with the understanding that the primary goal was to be an open and welcoming community that emphasized tolerance of just about everything from gender identity to neuro-diversity and Aspergers. IIRC, both the diversity statement and CoC were toned down prior to approval, as a compromise with those who were concerned about them being turned into weapons of exclusion rather than tools for inclusion.
I did look at the referenced stream of posts, https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/6 . The contributions from Wes Turner did seem somewhat incoherent, disjointed, not useful, and perhaps a little annoying. I didn't see anything overtly hateful or trolling that would rise to the level of a CoC issue (i.e. it hasn't created an environment that makes others feel unwelcome).
So, if Wes is to be blocked for a while, it should be on the basis of "adding too much noise to an important communication channel" rather than CoC which should be sparingly used for only egregious issues. Also, if a real CoC issue does arise, I think any actions taken need to have multiple assents from a group of decision makers rather than having one person become a de-facto CoC czar with the power to banish people.
my-two-cents-ly yours,
Raymond Hettinger
Le 01/04/2017 à 05:44, Raymond Hettinger a écrit :
FWIW, this may just be his communication style that reflects his
tooling (probably emacs org-mode or some such) and his way of thinking about problems.
It is most probably his communication style, as I have seen him act this way on other mailing-lists. I would add that IMHO it is not an effective communication style: even though he posts lots of "content" from a quantitative POV, the content is never exploitable as is as it doesn't seem to ever come with an actual reasoning about the issue at hand.
I have sometimes been mildly annoyed by his posting style on MLs, and I can imagine how it can become very annoying on a GitHub PR.
Also, if a real CoC issue does arise, I think any actions taken need to have multiple assents from a group of decision makers rather than having one person become a de-facto CoC czar with the power to banish people.
A big +1 to that. Thanks for saying it.
Regards
Antoine.
On 1 April 2017 at 09:17, Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
I have sometimes been mildly annoyed by his posting style on MLs, and I can imagine how it can become very annoying on a GitHub PR.
Agreed. I don't feel that Wes' contributions are productive, and I generally ignore them. I support banning him if he refuses to (or is incapable of) improving his style - he's certainly been told often enough in various lists. But it did surprise me that it was addressed as a CoC issue. I'd hope we have alternative means of dealing with non-productive behaviours that don't have the implications of a CoC violation.
As has been noted, Wes' style may be more about how he thinks and behaves, and may well be something he can't "fix". It's very dangerous to judge people based on limited interactions, and it's entirely possible that the code of conduct has more to say about how we treat Wes than the other way around. But even if that *is* the case, there comes a point where treating all participants equally does mean we're OK to say "sorry, you're being unproductive and that won't change, so we can't work with you" regardless of who they are or their circumstances. I'd prefer to view what's happened here as a case where we have to say "we've done our best to be welcoming and work with you, but it's not going to work out".
If we don't have a good way to do that, let's get one.
Paul
On 04/01/2017 02:16 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 1 April 2017 at 09:17, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
But even if that *is* the case, there comes a point where treating all participants equally does mean we're OK to say "sorry, you're being unproductive and that won't change, so we can't work with you" regardless of who they are or their circumstances. I'd prefer to view what's happened here as a case where we have to say "we've done our best to be welcoming and work with you, but it's not going to work out".
If we don't have a good way to do that, let's get one.
+1
Whatever the reason, his posts are effectively noise, and he produces a lot.
-- ~Ethan~
On 1 April 2017 at 19:16, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 April 2017 at 09:17, Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
I have sometimes been mildly annoyed by his posting style on MLs, and I can imagine how it can become very annoying on a GitHub PR.
Agreed. I don't feel that Wes' contributions are productive, and I generally ignore them. I support banning him if he refuses to (or is incapable of) improving his style - he's certainly been told often enough in various lists. But it did surprise me that it was addressed as a CoC issue. I'd hope we have alternative means of dealing with non-productive behaviours that don't have the implications of a CoC violation.
The CoC is the only mechanism that's written down, since it defines the terms of the deal for ongoing participation: we're each expected to be open, considerate, and respectful of others, and that "open by default" status can be withdrawn given persistent and repeated failures to be considerate and respectful even in the face of personal coaching.
Outside that, mailing list moderation decisions are entirely in the hands of the moderators of any given list, while bugs.python.org is collectively managed by the current core developers, and the Python GitHub org is managed by the folks with the "owner" role for that group (covering both python-dev and the PSF, since that org is used for more than just CPython)
As has been noted, Wes' style may be more about how he thinks and behaves, and may well be something he can't "fix". It's very dangerous to judge people based on limited interactions, and it's entirely possible that the code of conduct has more to say about how we treat Wes than the other way around.
But even if that *is* the case, there comes a point where treating all participants equally does mean we're OK to say "sorry, you're being unproductive and that won't change, so we can't work with you" regardless of who they are or their circumstances. I'd prefer to view what's happened here as a case where we have to say "we've done our best to be welcoming and work with you, but it's not going to work out".
If we don't have a good way to do that, let's get one.
Short of cases that are escalated to the PSF Board (for blanket bans from PSF provided infrastructure, which has still only been deemed necessary once), the steps typically taken by mailing list moderators and issue tracker administrators are:
- giving folks guidance on specific behaviors that are causing problems for other people (in this case, random info dumps on distutils-sig, python-ideas, and most recently, core-workflow GitHub issues)
- if nothing changes, or the problematic behaviours return, this may escalate to an enforced suspension (for the issue trackers), or mandatory moderation (for mailing lists)
- only if step 2 proves inadequate are other options (like permabans with no chance for future review) considered, and that currently means escalating matters to the PSF (since they're the ones with ultimate responsibility for the management of all of our communication channels)
In this particular case, we're only at step 2 - self-moderation based on previously provided guidance has proven inadequate, so an enforced break specifically from the Python org on GitHub makes sense (mainly because the tools for dealing with non-productive noise on GitHub issues aren't anywhere near as well developed as those for email). If there was finer granularity available on GitHub, the suspension would presumably have only been from the core-workflow repo specifically, but that's not currently an available option.
Regards, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On 1 April 2017 at 18:59, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
In this particular case, we're only at step 2 - self-moderation based on previously provided guidance has proven inadequate, so an enforced break specifically from the Python org on GitHub makes sense (mainly because the tools for dealing with non-productive noise on GitHub issues aren't anywhere near as well developed as those for email). If there was finer granularity available on GitHub, the suspension would presumably have only been from the core-workflow repo specifically, but that's not currently an available option.
That seems entirely sensible. As does the entire process you describe.
Paul
On 01.04.2017 05:44, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Mar 31, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
In the (long) discussion of https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/6, Wes Turner began to do his usual posting of lists. People pointed out he was stepping out of line by being somewhat off-topic and seemingly lecturing folks. He posted some of his lists again and then I warned him that if he did it again I would block him for a CoC violation since he did not want to respect anyone's time by taking the time to edit what amount to dumping his personal notes on GitHub. (This is a long-standing issue, BTW, with Wes where he has been warned in other settings like distutils-sig about his posting behaviour.)
... So, if Wes is to be blocked for a while, it should be on the basis of "adding too much noise to an important communication channel" rather than CoC which should be sparingly used for only egregious issues. Also, if a real CoC issue does arise, I think any actions taken need to have multiple assents from a group of decision makers rather than having one person become a de-facto CoC czar with the power to banish people.
It's definitely a requirement of any CoC management to have at least two people decide on this, since CoCs in general are always open to interpretation and need to take multiple views into account. Wes's comments are nowhere near a CoC violation, IMO.
I agree with Raymond that CoCs are not meant as a tool to silence people with different ideas or communication styles out of convenience.
It's the ultimate tool, not the first to consider. If Wes were continuously offensive that would be a reason to start discussing CoC related actions.
-- Marc-Andre Lemburg
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 at 09:27 M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
On 01.04.2017 05:44, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Mar 31, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
In the (long) discussion of
https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/6, Wes Turner began to do his usual posting of lists. People pointed out he was stepping out of line by being somewhat off-topic and seemingly lecturing folks. He posted some of his lists again and then I warned him that if he did it again I would block him for a CoC violation since he did not want to respect anyone's time by taking the time to edit what amount to dumping his personal notes on GitHub. (This is a long-standing issue, BTW, with Wes where he has been warned in other settings like distutils-sig about his posting behaviour.)
... So, if Wes is to be blocked for a while, it should be on the basis of
"adding too much noise to an important communication channel" rather than CoC which should be sparingly used for only egregious issues. Also, if a real CoC issue does arise, I think any actions taken need to have multiple assents from a group of decision makers rather than having one person become a de-facto CoC czar with the power to banish people.
It's definitely a requirement of any CoC management to have at least two people decide on this, since CoCs in general are always open to interpretation and need to take multiple views into account.
OK, but who is the second person supposed to be? Since this was the core-workflow issue tracker for the core-workflow mailing list I figured it fell on to my shoulders to deal with (I actually had to check the mailing list this morning to see if I even had co-owners on it since I actually didn't remember explicitly having any). Am I to ask just any core dev for a gut check to make sure this is a reasonable action to take?
I guess my point is that we don't have any form of policy or practices in place for this sort of thing. An action of this level has (fortunately) only occurred with Anatoly and we took so long to deal with it that no one questioned my actions when I first used the CoC on python-ideas.
Wes's comments are nowhere near a CoC violation, IMO.
There's also extensive history spanning multiple mailing lists for Wes' behaviour. This isn't isolated to just what I linked to, it just happens to be what finally pushed me to take action. If I could block him at my personal account level and have his posts not show up for me I would, or if I could just block him for the core-workflow issue tracker I would, but we just don't have that level of blocking on GitHub and the finest grain available is organization level.
I agree with Raymond that CoCs are not meant as a tool to silence people with different ideas or communication styles out of convenience.
Now we're getting into a philosophical discussion as to whether the CoC covers people who choose to continually communicate in an unproductive way even after it has been pointed out to them that they are not contributing constructively to the conversation (as Paul more eloquently stated). To me the CoC covers that as part of requiring people to be respectful of others. Time is one of those things that I can't get back and which we all have a limited supply of to spend on this project, so having someone suck it away in small doses regularly even after they have been told by multiple people that they are not contributing seems like a CoC violation to me.
It's the ultimate tool, not the first to consider.
It wasn't my first anything. As I have said, this isn't some isolated incident in the Python community with Wes. And I didn't do this on a whim. I literally felt like crap for about an hour after hitting the red "Block" button because I realize the ramifications of what I did, so please don't think I just had a bad day and decided to take it out on someone or did this just because I didn't like someone's four messages on GitHub.
If Wes were continuously offensive that would be a reason to start discussing CoC related actions.
As I said, this spans at least distutils-sig and python-ideas for years (to the point that I have had his emails being marked as read for a few months and I know multiple other people who have done the same).
From what people have said in opposition to what I did, I think we need to have a discussion about two things:
Is it a CoC violation if someone chooses to ignore repeated warnings that their communication style is unproductive and thus a waste of people's time? And if people don't view it as an explicit CoC violation, do we still view it as enough reason to block someone but under a different name? (I obviously view it as a CoC violation.)
What is the exact procedure someone has to follow to instigate a ban (and this policy should probably cover GitHub, mailing lists, and anywhere else someone can be banned)? Is it having two core devs agree to the ban and it being publicly stated here (as MAL suggested)? Whatever approach we choose we should write it down in the devguide somewhere.
As for Wes himself, I'm fine with the ban lasting only a couple months (say the end of May?). Based on the positive feedback I received on the ban I don't want to just drop it without at least some time passing to get the point across that something needs to change, but I also don't expect the ban to be permanent since there wasn't any malicious intent.
I'll be another voice saying that the CoC isn't the right mechanism -- the CoC is for harassment and abuse (at least, most community's CoCs are, the Python one is pretty vague).
That said, I have no problem with the action taken, banning people who are extremely unproductive is a necessary step for open source communities, and one I think we are all extremely reticent to take, so much so that it got it's own chapter in the excellent book, Producing Open Source Software: http://producingoss.com/en/difficult-people.html
Back to lurking'ly yours, Alex
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 at 09:27 M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
On 01.04.2017 05:44, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Mar 31, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
In the (long) discussion of https://github.com/python/
core-workflow/issues/6, Wes Turner began to do his usual posting of lists. People pointed out he was stepping out of line by being somewhat off-topic and seemingly lecturing folks. He posted some of his lists again and then I warned him that if he did it again I would block him for a CoC violation since he did not want to respect anyone's time by taking the time to edit what amount to dumping his personal notes on GitHub. (This is a long-standing issue, BTW, with Wes where he has been warned in other settings like distutils-sig about his posting behaviour.)
... So, if Wes is to be blocked for a while, it should be on the basis of
"adding too much noise to an important communication channel" rather than CoC which should be sparingly used for only egregious issues. Also, if a real CoC issue does arise, I think any actions taken need to have multiple assents from a group of decision makers rather than having one person become a de-facto CoC czar with the power to banish people.
It's definitely a requirement of any CoC management to have at least two people decide on this, since CoCs in general are always open to interpretation and need to take multiple views into account.
OK, but who is the second person supposed to be? Since this was the core-workflow issue tracker for the core-workflow mailing list I figured it fell on to my shoulders to deal with (I actually had to check the mailing list this morning to see if I even had co-owners on it since I actually didn't remember explicitly having any). Am I to ask just any core dev for a gut check to make sure this is a reasonable action to take?
I guess my point is that we don't have any form of policy or practices in place for this sort of thing. An action of this level has (fortunately) only occurred with Anatoly and we took so long to deal with it that no one questioned my actions when I first used the CoC on python-ideas.
Wes's comments are nowhere near a CoC violation, IMO.
There's also extensive history spanning multiple mailing lists for Wes' behaviour. This isn't isolated to just what I linked to, it just happens to be what finally pushed me to take action. If I could block him at my personal account level and have his posts not show up for me I would, or if I could just block him for the core-workflow issue tracker I would, but we just don't have that level of blocking on GitHub and the finest grain available is organization level.
I agree with Raymond that CoCs are not meant as a tool to silence people with different ideas or communication styles out of convenience.
Now we're getting into a philosophical discussion as to whether the CoC covers people who choose to continually communicate in an unproductive way even after it has been pointed out to them that they are not contributing constructively to the conversation (as Paul more eloquently stated). To me the CoC covers that as part of requiring people to be respectful of others. Time is one of those things that I can't get back and which we all have a limited supply of to spend on this project, so having someone suck it away in small doses regularly even after they have been told by multiple people that they are not contributing seems like a CoC violation to me.
It's the ultimate tool, not the first to consider.
It wasn't my first anything. As I have said, this isn't some isolated incident in the Python community with Wes. And I didn't do this on a whim. I literally felt like crap for about an hour after hitting the red "Block" button because I realize the ramifications of what I did, so please don't think I just had a bad day and decided to take it out on someone or did this just because I didn't like someone's four messages on GitHub.
If Wes were continuously offensive that would be a reason to start discussing CoC related actions.
As I said, this spans at least distutils-sig and python-ideas for years (to the point that I have had his emails being marked as read for a few months and I know multiple other people who have done the same).
From what people have said in opposition to what I did, I think we need to have a discussion about two things:
Is it a CoC violation if someone chooses to ignore repeated warnings that their communication style is unproductive and thus a waste of people's time? And if people don't view it as an explicit CoC violation, do we still view it as enough reason to block someone but under a different name? (I obviously view it as a CoC violation.)
What is the exact procedure someone has to follow to instigate a ban (and this policy should probably cover GitHub, mailing lists, and anywhere else someone can be banned)? Is it having two core devs agree to the ban and it being publicly stated here (as MAL suggested)? Whatever approach we choose we should write it down in the devguide somewhere.
As for Wes himself, I'm fine with the ban lasting only a couple months (say the end of May?). Based on the positive feedback I received on the ban I don't want to just drop it without at least some time passing to get the point across that something needs to change, but I also don't expect the ban to be permanent since there wasn't any malicious intent.
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/
-- "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: D1B3 ADC0 E023 8CA6
On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 15:08:27 -0400, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll be another voice saying that the CoC isn't the right mechanism -- the CoC is for harassment and abuse (at least, most community's CoCs are, the Python one is pretty vague).
That said, I have no problem with the action taken, banning people who are extremely unproductive is a necessary step for open source communities, and one I think we are all extremely reticent to take, so much so that it got it's own chapter in the excellent book, Producing Open Source Software: http://producingoss.com/en/difficult-people.html
Add my voice to this set. I agree especially with Alex's second paragraph above, so I really appreciate Brett being willing to take this on.
Regardless of whether or not Python's CoC technically covers this case (I'm not going to argue that one way or another), as Alex observed: in the world we currently live in that term has way to much freight attached to be appropriate for the issue we have with Wes. That's sad, because it means it doesn't actually matter all that much what the CoC actually *says* :(.
--David
On 1 April 2017 at 19:35, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
From what people have said in opposition to what I did, I think we need to have a discussion about two things:
- Is it a CoC violation if someone chooses to ignore repeated warnings that their communication style is unproductive and thus a waste of people's time? And if people don't view it as an explicit CoC violation, do we still view it as enough reason to block someone but under a different name? (I obviously view it as a CoC violation.)
In my view, it would be better described as a "moderation action" (or something similar). There's a lot of implication when codes of conduct get involved - the high profile cases tend to be about genuinely unacceptable behaviour such as harassment, and so it's easy for people who only hear about what happened second hand, to read more into the situation than is maybe present.
- What is the exact procedure someone has to follow to instigate a ban (and this policy should probably cover GitHub, mailing lists, and anywhere else someone can be banned)? Is it having two core devs agree to the ban and it being publicly stated here (as MAL suggested)? Whatever approach we choose we should write it down in the devguide somewhere.
I agree we should write the process down. My suggestion would be that the process as described by Nick (which is what you actually followed) be described as how we deal with people who have demonstrated an inability to work effectively with the community ("Moderation" is the best term I can come up with for this process, but I don't think it's ideal). The Code of Conduct process should (IMO) be reserved for immediate exclusion of people who have demonstrated inappropriate behaviour, and it should be very much a last resort action, and require consensus between a number of core devs to institute.
As for Wes himself, I'm fine with the ban lasting only a couple months (say the end of May?). Based on the positive feedback I received on the ban I don't want to just drop it without at least some time passing to get the point across that something needs to change, but I also don't expect the ban to be permanent since there wasn't any malicious intent.
Just to be clear, I'm completely fine with the action you took with regard to Wes. I can confirm that it's something that's been coming for some time (I've interacted with Wes on a number of lists), and I appreciate the fact that you took the hard decision and actually did something. I'm just uncomfortable with describing it as a Code of Conduct issue (which as Alex says, is typically associated more with harassment and abuse).
Paul
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 9:27 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
It's the ultimate tool, not the first to consider.
I am with this approach too. Defining a process and gradually enforcing CoC through a well-defined process seems to be way to go. Reading Brett's first email, it appears that it was followed in the context of the issue/discussion, but due to Github limitations, it happens to be org-wide.
- If Wes recognizes his mistake and is willing to correct, I am in for removing the block.
- I also think, sharing upfront (in this or a relevant list) before enforcing CoC would have gotten others onboard too.
-- Senthil
I just wanted to quickly let people know I lifted Wes' two-month ban and emailed him to notify him of the lifting.
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 at 14:40 Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
In the (long) discussion of https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/6, Wes Turner began to do his usual posting of lists. People pointed out he was stepping out of line by being somewhat off-topic and seemingly lecturing folks. He posted some of his lists again and then I warned him that if he did it again I would block him for a CoC violation since he did not want to respect anyone's time by taking the time to edit what amount to dumping his personal notes on GitHub. (This is a long-standing issue, BTW, with Wes where he has been warned in other settings like distutils-sig about his posting behaviour.)
Unfortunately he did it again for https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/66. Since GitHub only has organization-level blocks I have blocked him at that level (I've also already received some +1s from core devs while writing this email for my move, so I know others who have interacted with him also support this decision).
How did he react to the whole thing? Did he give signs of wanting to improve his behaviour?
Regards
Antoine.
Le 02/06/2017 à 18:47, Brett Cannon a écrit :
I just wanted to quickly let people know I lifted Wes' two-month ban and emailed him to notify him of the lifting.
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 at 14:40 Brett Cannon <brett@python.org <mailto:brett@python.org>> wrote:
In the (long) discussion of https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/6, Wes Turner began to do his usual posting of lists. People pointed out he was stepping out of line by being somewhat off-topic and seemingly lecturing folks. He posted some of his lists again and then I warned him that if he did it again I would block him for a CoC violation since he did not want to respect anyone's time by taking the time to edit what amount to dumping his personal notes on GitHub. (This is a long-standing issue, BTW, with Wes where he has been warned in other settings like distutils-sig about his posting behaviour.) Unfortunately he did it again for https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/66. Since GitHub only has organization-level blocks I have blocked him at that level (I've also already received some +1s from core devs while writing this email for my move, so I know others who have interacted with him also support this decision).
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/
I just sent the email an hour ago and have not heard anything from him as of yet.
On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 at 09:55 Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
How did he react to the whole thing? Did he give signs of wanting to improve his behaviour?
Regards
Antoine.
Le 02/06/2017 à 18:47, Brett Cannon a écrit :
I just wanted to quickly let people know I lifted Wes' two-month ban and emailed him to notify him of the lifting.
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 at 14:40 Brett Cannon <brett@python.org <mailto:brett@python.org>> wrote:
In the (long) discussion of https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/6, Wes Turner began to do his usual posting of lists. People pointed out he was stepping out of line by being somewhat off-topic and seemingly lecturing folks. He posted some of his lists again and then I warned him that if he did it again I would block him for a CoC violation since he did not want to respect anyone's time by taking the time to edit what amount to dumping his personal notes on GitHub. (This is a long-standing issue, BTW, with Wes where he has been warned in other settings like distutils-sig about his posting behaviour.) Unfortunately he did it again for https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/66. Since GitHub only has organization-level blocks I have blocked him at that level (I've also already received some +1s from core devs while writing this email for my move, so I know others who have interacted with him also support this decision).
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/
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/
participants (11)
-
Alex Gaynor -
Antoine Pitrou -
Berker Peksağ -
Brett Cannon -
Ethan Furman -
M.-A. Lemburg -
Nick Coghlan -
Paul Moore -
R. David Murray -
Raymond Hettinger -
Senthil Kumaran