darren at ontrenet.com
darren at ontrenet.com
Wed Sep 22 16:33:39 CEST 2010
If you guys continue to make a public jury of this, no one else will want
to step into that role....
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>
>>> Simply, situations like the above (Mark closing a bug just because
>>> nobody would answer his message on a short delay) have happened
>>> multiple times - despite people opposing, obviously -, and we decided
>>> that it was better to remove his tracker privileges since his
>>> contribution has not really been productive for us.
>>> There was a whole python-dev thread some time (weeks? months?) ago
> I think it was the thread "No response to posts" started (by Mark) on July
>>> several of us already tried to suggest more fruitful ways of
>>> contributing, suggestions which weren't received very welcomingly
> Yup. In that thread (and others) I see lots of evidence where Mark
> responded very negatively (from "I disagree entirely" to "I find this
> response quite pathetic") when people explained how we treat the
> tracker, and stuck to his guns no matter how many people tried to
> explain that he should stop.
> His attitude can be summarized by his "Fly back at me if you like. I
> don't care about me. I don't care about you. I do care about
> Which to me sounds defiant and passive-aggressive. I don't want to go
> into analyzing, but I expect that Mark has issues that are beyond what
> this community can deal with.
>>> Now I understand that opinions over this may vary and involve multiple
>>> factors, but I would suggest that at least a bit of mentoring is needed
>>> if we want to give privileges early on.
>>> (and the amount of mentoring needed can vary wildly from one person to
>> I still prefer the "trust but monitor" approach over excessively high
>> barriers to entry, but we do need to recognise that one consequence of
>> that approach is that we *will* get into situations where we need to
>> tell people "thank you for your contributions, but we think, on
>> balance, we will be better off if you don't contribute in this way any
>> Mark *did* do quite a bit of good in his time with tracker privileges.
> Right, that was my impression from the issues he touched on which I
> happened to be subscribed.
>> A number of lingering issues that would have otherwise continued
>> lingering did indeed get closed. That work is still appreciated, even
>> if it was ultimately deemed by the other tracker admins not to be
>> sufficient to balance out the hassles created by his aggressive stance
>> towards closing older issues (which, while unloved, are not
>> automatically invalid).
> How and how often was Mark reminded about this?
>> If this had happened *without* the prior discussion regarding more
>> appropriate handling of tracker issues, then I would have an issue
>> with it. However, given that the first reaction was to provide
>> additional mentoring, with revocation of privileges only happening
>> when the problems continued, that seems to me like the way this
>> process is *meant* to work.
> Where was the decision to revoke privileges discussed? Not on any
> mailing list that I am subscribed to. Was Mark given an ultimatum?
> Given that this came out rather unfortunately (even if the end result
> is the best that could have happened) I would recommend that in the
> future more attention is paid to "documenting" publicly that someone's
> being booted out was inevitable, by an exchange of messages on
> python-dev (or python-committers if we want to limit distribution).
> And no, I don't think that IRC (where I suspect this happened) is
> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
More information about the Python-Dev