[python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers

[Brett Cannon]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 at 04:10 Stefan Krah <stefan at bytereef.org> wrote:

> Brett Cannon <brett <at> python.org> writes:
>
> > I noticed that the devguide didn't explicitly mention that core
> developers
> were expected to follow the PSF CoC
> (https://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html and
> https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/, respectively). I have
> opened http://bugs.python.org/issue26446 to make sure it gets documented.
> > Since this is technically a modification of the requirements of getting
> commit privileges I wanted to mention it here before I (or anyone else)
> made
> the change.
>
> When I started here, the PSF and python-dev were considered disjoint
> entities (quoting MvL from memory). Looking at
>
>   https://www.python.org/psf/records/board/history/ ,
>
> half of the current directors have never appeared anywhere on the
> python-dev
> infrastructure, most notably on python-checkins.
>

They are separate organizations. The PSF isn't mandating any of this. After
a rather rude email on python-dev I realized we had never clearly stated
anywhere that we expect people to be civil on various mailing lists or that
we expect all core devs to represent Python by being civil in their
interactions with the community.


>
> Contrast this with e.g. the period of 2003-2004, where I still know all of
> the directors even though I did not know Python at that time!
>
> Some very prolific contributors do not appear in the list of PSF members
> at all.
>
>
> This particular CoC specifically addresses conference misbehavior, which is
> fine.  No CoC short of an 800 page volume can address the many forms of
> human shortcomings in more complex situations.  I'm not going to go into
> detail here, but "suaviter in modo, fortiter in re", even though usually
> depicted as desirable behavior, can easily lead to more stagnation and
> friction than occasional superficial impoliteness.
>
>
> I think python-dev should remain an entity where interested people can just
> come and "hack on something" instead of being overburdened by regulations.
>

Python-ideas has been under the same CoC for a while now and it has been
nothing but positive. When people know they are expected to behave in a
civil manner and others know they are allowed to call someone out for being
uncivil it typically is enough to make people behave.

So there is no issue of people "being overburdened by regulations". The CoC
only comes up when someone is being so rude that they need to be talked to
about their attitude  problem, so as long as we try and keep people from
being rude  it won't come up. Quite frankly, the CoC is really just meant
as a way for people to feel comfortable in knowing they don't have to
tolerate jerks. And I would hope none of us are jerks to people in the
community, so saying as much shouldn't change anything for any of us. This
also lets the community know that we don't view ourselves as some elite
group of people whose attitudes must be tolerated no matter what; we hold
ourselves to the same standards as the rest of the community does and it
should be pointed out as such to make people feel comfortable.


>
>
> As for the devguide, briefly mentioning the categorical imperative should
> suffice. ;)
>

As long as we don't require them to actually read Kant, it probably would
make a decent CoC. :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20160227/edc50768/attachment.html>