[python-committers] Proposal for procedures regarding CoC actions

[Brett Cannon]

Here's a step-by-step guide of how things would be handled with Raymond's
proposal -- which seems reasonable to me, BTW -- and can act as an initial
draft of what we can put in the devguide:

   1. A person is warned that they are violating the CoC by the moderator
   of the resource being used and it is explained to them how they are
   violating it in hopes that they change their behaviour
   2. Depending on the severity of the violation, the person in question
   may receive multiple warnings until they are told that one more violation
   will lead to a temporary ban
   3. If the person violates again after their final warning, the moderator
   of the resource being used has the right to temporarily ban the violator
   from the resource for a length of time of their choosing, but no more than
   3 months
      1. XXX or some length of time we all are comfortable with that
      doesn't require creating a panel like permanent banishment does;
      2. XXX and who can the person who is temporarily banned appeal to if
      they disagree? PSF board?
   4. When the person who was violating the CoC is allowed back into the
   resource, if they violate the CoC I permanent ban may be considered by
   convening a panel of three people to decide if a permanent ban is necessary
      1. If banishment occurs, it will be followed with an email to
      python-committers recording that the banishment has occurred and
who formed
      the panel in making that decision
      2. The person who has been banned may appeal to the PSF board if they
      disagree with the ban
   5. The moderator of the resource reserves the right to request from the
   PSF board a ban from all PSF-controlled resources if the violations of the
   CoC are deemed severe enough
      1. Banishment from two separate resources will automatically trigger
      a request of the PSF board to ban the violator from all PSF-controlled
      resources


On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 at 04:34 Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2 April 2017 at 06:59, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > And from the point of view of the impact on folks suspended and/or
> > banned, "I got suspended/banned from <channel> due to my inability to
> > follow explicit directions regarding my communications style" doesn't
> > seem to me all that different from "I got suspended/banned from
> > <channel> due to my inability to be respectful and kind towards my
> > fellow participants".
> [...]
>
> In principle, I agree with pretty much all of what you said. However,
> the one point I disagree on is that describing someone as having
> violated the code of conduct is no big deal. In your quote above, you
> avoid the term "Code of Conduct", and I think that's pertinent.
>
> While the Python community is the focus here, I think it's naive to
> ignore what other parts of the technical community, and even wider
> observers of that community, think. From what I can tell, people in
> general are aware that the technical community has identified an issue
> with how we handle diversity - openness to contributions from people
> outside of the "white male technical geek" stereotype. The means that
> technical communities have chosen to address that issue is perceived
> as the adoption of explicit codes of conduct that clarify that
> exclusive behaviour is unacceptable, and not to be tolerated.
>
> As a result, the public perception of a "code of conduct violation" is
> that someone has harassed, or otherwise made a community member
> uncomfortable, specifically because they don't conform to the
> stereotypical norm. That's not necessarily what any specific code of
> conduct might say, but it's how the public perceives such things (and
> high-profile blog entries that expose exclusive behaviour, and cite
> codes of conduct and how they help and where they fail to, simply
> reinforce that perception).
>
> We may not like the fact that a simple term like "Code of Conduct"
> gets appropriated in the public perception in such a way, but denying
> the reality of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
>


> [SNIP]
>
> In summary, though, I think the issue here is simply one of how we
> describe things. I think that as a community we do a good job, and
> we're continually seeking to do better, which is great. But perception
> is key, and terms can be loaded in ways that we may not agree with,
> but have to deal with.
>


Assuming the outline of procedures I wrote up above is fine, what about
people like Wes who are consistently unproductive participants and thus are
IMO being disrespectful of others, just not in an overtly rude way? Do we
open with a sentence saying "In the steps below, a 'bad actor' is anyone
found violating the CoC or who is deemed to be a persistently unproductive
participant and thus being disrespectful of other people's time"? To me
that feels like saying "substitute with [CoC] or
[not-malicious-but-wasting-everyone's-time], whichever fits the situation".
And at that point I feel like we're treating CoC like a naughty word
because we're not willing to say that someone who is wasting people's time
isn't being disrespectful or inconsiderate even though they are.

But based on how others are stating their views, I'm seem to be in the
minority on this one. I'm fine with that as I can view it personally as
political wordsmithing. For me the key is that if I'm going to shoulder the
burden of being a moderator I want to have the ability to keep discussions
open, respectful, and considerate. If that means that someone gets a "CoC"
label when they run afoul of those tenants by being mean while they get an
"persistently unproductive" label when they run afoul of those labels in
how they communicate then I can live with that.

 P.S. I have removed the mention of the CoC from GitHub so that other than
the thread discussing this situation there isn't any disconnected record of
Wes violating the CoC.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20170402/613efc58/attachment.html>