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

[Brett Cannon]

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 at 18:01 Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 03:11:25PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > On 28 February 2016 at 12:27, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info>
> wrote:
> > > Nobody *has* to tolerate jerks, especially on an email forum. Just
> > > filter their emails into the trash.
> >
> > This approach means every *future* participant in that community then
> > has to encounter the person that's behaving like a jerk, realise they
> > consistently behave that way, and add them to their own filters.
> [...]
>
> It also means they get to decide for themselves what is and isn't
> unacceptable behaviour *to them*, without imposing those values on those
> who don't share them.
>
> Look, I get it. I'm outvoted, and the community -- at least those who
> are willing to speak up publicly -- agree with the CoC. I'm obviously in
> a minority here, and I accept that.
>
> But that's not the point. The point is that if we're actually going to
> be "open, respectful and considerate" as the CoC requires, then we
> actually have to make time to listen to those diverse viewpoints we say
> we want to listen to. If we're serious about the CoC, then we should
> treat it seriously and not just give lip-service to it.
>
> How can we say we're in favour of diversity if we don't give those
> diverse voices and viewpoints a chance to speak up before making
> decisions? Community values come from the entire community, not just
> from a couple of guys with admin powers on the mailing list software.
>
> Being open, respectful and considerate means that, even if you have the
> de facto power to apply whatever rules you want, you *ask first* and
> listen to what the community has to say. Maybe you'll be surprised by
> what they say. Maybe you won't. But you won't know unless you ask.
>
> Even if the community is overwhelmingly in favour of the change, at
> least those with a different opinion will have had the chance to be
> heard. And that is critical for a healthy community. "You never listen"
> is deadly for relationships, whether they are family, business or
> community. There is a reason why members of minorities are often
> described as "voiceless", and why we should *listen to them*.
>
> Even if, after due consideration, we choose to dismiss their point of
> view. We're all adults here, and I trust that none of us expect to "win"
> all the time. So long as we get a fair chance to have our say and have
> it honestly considered with an open mind. I don't ask for anything more
> than that.
>
> The most frustrating thing is that we've been through this before. In
> 2013, Brett and Titus did exactly the same thing on the Python-Ideas
> list:
>
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2013-June/021087.html
>
> So let me make it clear: Brett, and the other list maintainers, you're
> not listening. Even if I'm a minority of one out of the whole community,
> your words say "of course we care what you think" but your actions say
> "actually no, we couldn't care less". You might not have intended it
> that way, but nevertheless that's the way it is.
>

I see where the issue came in: I simply considered the discussion on the
CoC already settled. As you pointed out in your second paragraph, the
community has decided that they like the idea of a CoC (for instance, I was
applauded at PyCon US 2014 when I gave the opening address and pointed out
that there was a CoC in effect). I also went through these points with
python-ideas years ago (and you're right, it wasn't a discussion as much as
an edict of new rules on python-ideas, but I felt that was necessary to
deal with the situation). I wasn't trying to silence dissent, I just
considered it a settled point.

And the key word for me is "settled". It's like people wanting a Python 2.8
release: at some point we decided the key points were made and that our
decision had been settled. I feel the same way about the CoC, so I didn't
view it as silencing the anti-CoC side before they could argue as much as
the argument had been had and the CoC side had won.


>
> Imagine an alternate universe where Brett had said, "I'm the dictator of
> this mailing list and I don't care what anyone thinks. From now on, I'm
> going to ban 'jerk' behaviour, and if you don't like it, tough." How
> exactly is that alternate universe different from what actually took
> place?
>

Two ways. One, the CoC is at least written down so it isn't quite so
arbitrary as "Brett says so!" The other is that I considered it "... tough,
because we have already had this discussion as a community and decided
having a CoC is a good thing".


>
> When this happened on Python-Ideas, people wrote to me defending the
> change on exactly that basis: Brett's the dictator and can do what he
> likes, he doesn't have to listen, if I don't like it, I should leave.
> This was coming from people who were vigourously supporting the CoC and
> the need to be welcoming to all. If there is a way to reconcile those
> two seemingly contradictory positions, I don't know what it is.
>

In that instance I think it's because when you come down on the anti-CoC
side, the pro side tend to view it as you're putting the worry of silencing
dissenting voices over protecting those who feel they can't speak up
without a CoC. And since the pro side views the CoC as enough to prevent
dissenting voices from being silenced in the first place then that makes
the anti-CoC as censoring more implicitly and the possible explicit
censoring of the anti- side.


>
> I'm not accusing Brett or anyone else of being a moustache-twirling
> villain who is out to ruin this group, or of acting maliciously. I truly
> believe that he is trying to act in the best interests of the community.
> But I think he is failing. It takes actual effort to listen to minority
> views, really listen, not just say "we're listening", and in this case I
> feel that Brett didn't even bother with the "we're listening" part, he
> just went straight to the "we know what's best".
>
> Having your voice heard goes a long way to making people feel welcome.
> Having rules applied by fiat with no opportunity to be heard is not
> open, respectful or considerate, but it is a good way to build
> resentment and make people feel like outsiders. Which is exactly how I
> feel now.
>
> (Although the measured and reasonable responses to my earlier email have
> gone a long way towards mitigating that. Thank you to all those who
> replied respectfully, and thankfully this time I wasn't told to GTFO if
> I didn't like it.)
>
> I have worked in a team where managers would apply policy changes that
> affected the entire team (including other managers) without a period of
> consultation, and it is toxic behaviour. It breeds resentment and a
> feeling of being pushed into the outer. The feeling of voicelessness can
> break work-places, families and entire communities, and one of the most
> important parts of social justice is to give people a voice.
>

Right, but as I said earlier in this email, this was not some knee-jerk
decision where opposing voices had not been listened to previously. To me
the CoC debate spanned years and has been settled at this point. So it
isn't like a manager walking into a meeting and saying "we're switching to
Java because I say so", it's more like "the rest of the company has
standardized on Python and we're the lone hold-outs, so we're finally going
to align with the rest of the company".

-Brett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20160301/f00b3a97/attachment-0001.html>