fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk
Wed Sep 22 17:16:15 CEST 2010
On 22/09/2010 15:33, darren at ontrenet.com wrote:
> If you guys continue to make a public jury of this, no one else will want
> to step into that role....
One of the perhaps-downsides of projects with an open community and open
development processes is that any dirty-laundry there might be tends to
get washed in public. Difficult decisions will always be accompanied by
a measure of soul-searching and disagreement. I guess this is what you
mean by "public jury". I think reaching decisions like this in private,
without public discussion, would be worse (decisions could only be made
by a 'secret cabal' with much less accountability and opportunity to
I don't think this kind of process can ever be easy (unless we eliminate
the involvement of humans in Python development altogether), but we do
have a process. Particularly bearing in mind the comments of Guido on
the topic we can further improve the process.
I too found Mark's contributions to issues I'm involved in helpful, but
I understand the decision entirely. We all need to be able to work
together and despite best efforts that just wasn't working out. I also
wish Mark the best for the future and hope that he is still able to find
some way to contribute to Python.
All the best,
>> 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
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk
READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
More information about the Python-Dev