On 09/10/2020 04.04, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
> I don't see the point of requiring to "write an apology", especially
> *before a 12-month ban*. If they understand that their behavior is
> wrong, there's no need for a ban, at least not such a long one; if they
> don't, they clearly aren't going to write it, at least not now (they
> might later, after a few weeks or months, having cooled down and thought
> it over). So all it would achieve is public shaming AFAICS. Same issue
> with the threat of "zero tolerance policy" -- it's completely
> unnecessary and only serves to humiliate and alienate the recipient.
I have been the victim of Stefan's CoC violations on more than one
occasion. He added me to nosy list of a ticket just to offend and
humiliate me. For this reason I personally asked the SC to make a
sincere apology a mandatory requirement for Stefan's reinstatement as a
core dev.
I would have been fine with a private apology. However Stefan has also
verbally attacked non-core contributors. In one case another core dev
and I contacted the contribute in private to apologize and ensure that
the contributor was not alienated by Stefan's attitude. Therefore it
makes sense that the SC has requested a public, general apology.
Why are you more concerned with the reputation of a repeated offender
and not with the feelings of multiple victims of harassment? As a victim
of Stefan's behavior I feel that an apology is the first step to
reconcile and rebuild trust.
At the risk of putting my nose in where it doesn't belong... I think that Ivan has some good general points. And i think that they could be distilled as this: if you are looking to correct bad behavior but allow a contributor to learn about proper behavior and then return to the community, the steps taken here seen counter-productive (1). I would add a second piece to that: If, on the other hand, the goal is to remove a toxic person from the community whoneeds to go through major personality shifting changes before they can be allowed back, then this may be appropriate (2).
For (1), what I'm getting from Ivan's post is that these measures are at a level that few (if any) people would be willing to fulfill them and then come back to be a non-bitter contributor. When the requirements are too costly for the violator to pay, they won't be able to learn and then pay those costs until they can disavow their former selves. "i'm sorry i acted like that; i was a *different person* back then. I'm sorry that *past me* felt the need to hurt you."
I would think that in general, not necessarily this specific case, the steering committee would want to try taking steps to get people to learn proper behavior first and only resort to something which amounts to a de facto permanent ban when it becomes apparent that the person has to go through some major personality changes before their behavior will change.
For (2), the steering committee is charged with protecting the community at large. A toxic person can cause great havoc by themselves and set the tone of a community such that other people feel that engaging in bad behavior is the proper thing to do in this community. With that in mind, at some point, this kind of action has to be on the table. It is great that pep-13 lists banning as a possibility so that people know where their actions can lead.
One thing i would suggest, though, is documenting and, in general, following a sequence of progressively more strict interventions by the steering committee. I think that just as it is harmful to the community to let bad behavior slide, it is also harmful to the community to not know that the steering committee's enforcement is in measured steps which will telegraph the committee's intentions and the member's responsibilities well in advance.
This specific case may already have been out of hand by the time it came to the committee, the steering committee is relatively new and problems could have festered before they formed and started governing, but a new member of the community should know that if they step out of line, the committee will make it apparent to them what the expectations are and whether their ongoing behavior is putting them onto a disciplinary track well before that discipline gets to the point of a one year ban and a public apology.
Thanks for reading,
-Toshio