[python-committers] Proposal for procedures regarding CoC actions

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 09:39:36PM -0400, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:

> Luckily, in the Python community, episodes that require repressive actions
> are rare enough that they can be dealt on a case by case basis without
> causing much distraction.  There is no need to over-formalize the process.

"Over" formalize, of course not. We don't want an excess of bureaucracy, 
but who is to say that Raymond's suggestion is an excess?

Let me preface this by saying that 9 times out of 10, I read the first 
few lines of Wes' emails and hit delete. And the other time I just hit 
delete. I find his posting style annoying and pointless: if there's 
anything of value in them, I can't see it because he doesn't leave 
enough or any context. And frankly, I support Brett's decision to give 
him a temporary ban for (apparently) using the Python/Github 
infrastructure as a personal notepad, wasting people's time.

If that were all Brett had done, I would think "Job well done" and move 
on.

But he didn't. He labelled Wes a CoC violator, both privately and in 
public, for something which is a violation of the CoC only by *really* 
stretching the definition. I mean, come on now, insufficiently 
respectful of people's time? How Orwellian can you get?

I think that's a mistake. A small mistake, to be sure, and I don't 
intend to crucify Brett over it. Brett generally does a great job. But 
small mistakes grow to big mistakes, and I think that this demonstrates 
that Raymond is right, we do need *some* oversight and process before 
labelling people a CoC violator and kicking them out on that basis.

I am concerned about the scope-creep and over-use of the CoC nuclear 
option. This is not the first time either: in my opinion, the proponents 
of the CoC have consistently promised not to do certain things, then 
done so. They promised not to unilaterally add the CoC to mailing lists 
without consultation, then did so. They promised not to use the CoC to 
ban people for trivial offenses, and have done so.

I shouldn't need to say this, but for the avoidance of doubt I DON'T see 
this as part of some disastardly plot by the forces of multi-culturalism 
to suppress dissent. I don't think Brett and others are bad people 
intentionally excluding different viewpoints. I think that their 
intentions are good.

So please don't read this as a total condemnation or censure of Brett. I 
think he was well within his authority as admin to apply a temporary ban 
to Wes. Where I think he overstepped the boundary was by labelling it a 
CoC violation. Words do matter, and while I appreciate this is not the 
same sort of harm as labelling somebody a paedophile or sex offender, 
"banned for violating the CoC" is not something we should say lightly.

Over on Python-Ideas, I've just responded negatively to a technical 
suggestion by Ram Rachum. In my opinion, Ram has a habit of making 
poorly thought-out, superficially-useful suggestions which are 
invariably rejected. Should we hit him with the hammer of "Code of 
Conduct violation" for being insufficiently respectful of people's time? 

A lot of people probably think that *my* posts are excessively pedantic, 
detailed and verbose. Including this one. I've been told off (off-list) 
by at least one senior developer for being too long-winded. Is that a 
CoC violation?

Based on the precedent now set by Wes' ban, the answer could be Yes. Is 
that what the community wants? Is that a good way to encourage a 
diversity of viewpoints and people?

I don't think so.

I don't see any malice in Brett's actions, I think it was just a 
miscalculation. But it normalises the use of CoC for a trivial offense 
that could be handled another way. It really should be a big deal to ban 
somebody for persistent violations of community standards, something we 
only apply to persist griefers, trolls, racists or sexists who insist on 
using the Python mailing lists etc to promote their hateful ideology, 
not just somebody who is apparently just socially awkward.

In a way, what Brett did is a bit like using anti-terrorism legislation 
against Wes for littering. You see, when he tossed that empty packet out 
of the car window, people might have thought it was hiding a grenade, 
and that makes it terrorism.

So I support Raymond's suggestion. I think this demonstrates that good 
intentions alone are not enough, we need a formal process to prevent CoC 
from being (unintentionally) abused, to prevent people being labelled as 
"CoC violators" for merely being a little *too* diverse.



-- 
Steve