Original comment:
I don’t know much about voting systems, but I know someone who does. Unfortunately he’s currently banned. Maybe we can wait until his 3-month ban expires and ask him for advice?
Imagine running Guido out of his own fucking project
It looks like one comment was temporarily hidden, by an automod I’m guessing. That hardly qualifies as “running someone out”. He even continues to engage in the discussion a few comments later.
He’s not being run out of the project… yet. This is not a good direction, though. This comes across as the first link that’ll show up in a github gist of “What happened to Python?” in a few years. Hopefully not and it’s all just an automod mixup, but after the Tim Peters btfo, I know what I’d put my money on.
He’s not being run out of the project… yet.
To be honest, to me this all sounds like sociopath behavior to throw politically-inconvenient people under the bus in desperate self-preservation, and hoping this would intimidate anyone falling out of line.
Everyone in that group should present their immediate resignation. Shameful.
The time an automod hid a comment and then it was restored will be the first item in the list? Really?
I know that people like to get in a tizzy anytime anyone talks about codes of conduct in a programming environment, but this is such and absolute nothing to get hung up on.
Regardless of your feelings about the direction community organization is heading, save the energy for something actually impactful rather than just trying to stir up drama.
Sorry, I should clarify I mean first chronologically, not in importance. As in, “here were the warning signs”. Also I’ll concede that this won’t be first chronologically either, it’ll be Guido stepping down as BDFL, and then the Tim Peters thing, then things like this.
To be fair, the comment had been moderated for like 4 days, and was only restored recently after people noticed. Hopefully somebody realized that it wasn’t a good look.
Imagine running Guido out of his own fucking project
Imagine running Guido out of Python and still have the gall to argue they are acting on Python’s best interests.
What a bunch of self-serving fools.
Well, in fairness imagine if Guido did become a racist sexist arsehole. I don’t think he should be immune.
But clearly this situation is not right.
I may be too far from Python to tell, but it looks kind of incorrect to equate the author and their product. What if Guido decides to stop contributing, will Python end then? Creators of Rust spoken about the fact that Rust went very much not the way they wanted it to, this doesn’t make them not creators, nor does it make Rust not Rust
Searching some of these Python Community discussions separately and reading how they handled these bumps in the road as a group has actually increased my confidence in that group as a whole:
https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250
https://discuss.python.org/t/calling-for-a-vote-of-no-confidence/61557
On the other hand, the three month suspension of Tim Peters that started it all and how that was handled sounds problematic (the second half of the essay addresses each point from the original banning rationale in detail):
https://chrismcdonough.substack.com/p/the-shameful-defenestration-of-tim
Finally, Chris McDonough (the author of the above article) drawing attention to valid criticism of his own defense of Tim Peters is a blueberry on top of the cherry on the cake:
https://chattingdarkly.org/@chrism/113020098915125686
I hope the community ends up stronger as a result of this.
valid criticism of his own defense
To be clear that post makes a valid point (don’t defend people just because they seem nice or dedicated or whatever), but it isn’t a valid criticism of Chris’s post because he didn’t do that.
He did say Tim is nice and dedicated etc. etc. but he also went through the specific crimes that Tim was supposed to have committed and refuted them.
I read a load of Tim’s comments and this was definitely a case of the CoC people getting annoyed with someone who disagreed with them and wouldn’t give up. There wasn’t anything remotely ban-worthy.
"Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a ‘neurodivergent’ trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment.
I’ll show you how difficult it is to work with neurodivergent people!
/* SLAMS BAN HAMMER /*
this was definitely a case of the CoC people getting annoyed with someone who disagreed with them and wouldn’t give up
People suck. If someone is disagreeing with you and won’t give up, it’s time to reevaluate why you’re defending your position so vehemently.
From what I could tell it’s just because he cared about things a lot, and maybe is a little on the spectrum. He definitely wasn’t wrong, and maybe other people would have just given up and gone on with their lives but I don’t think that’s necessarily a trait to encourage.
To put it another way, sometimes when people kick up a fuss it’s because they are obstinate naysayers, and sometimes it’s because they’re doggedly holding decision makers to account. This seemed more like the latter from what I read.
Exactly, which is why as a decision-maker, if you’re getting a lot of pushback, it’s important to take a step back and rethink your decision. It could be that you’re absolutely right, or it could be that you’re being obstinate just because you don’t like having your authority challenged.
That’s basically my day job. I make decisions all the time, and when I get pushback, I take a step back and try to look at the decision with fresh eyes. I would expect anyone in a position like this to do the same.
Ah yeah I misread your comment. 100% agree.
Boy, does that group sound like the ultimate bunch of social climbers trying to make a living out of someone else’s work.
I think that’s a little too simplistic. I definitely agree that “we can’t show you the evidence of why we made this decision but trust us” isn’t going to instill confidence in the community, but it’s not like the steering council is some unrelated board of executives. They’re all core developers, theoretically chosen for their dedication and contributions to Python as a whole, and it seems their granted power has made them anxious about showing favoritism among the most seasoned at the expense of upholding the community guidelines that keep the Python community a positive and welcoming place.
I think a flawed decision was made, or at least the way it was presented was flawed, and that should be considered for the next election. Maybe the council does need to be totally overhauled, that’s a valid position. But this is their work, too, and imply they have no skin in the game is disingenuous.
Interesting perspective. It implies that:
- The value of their policy work is significantly below the technical community’s contributions value
- There is perceived status to be gained by climbing this particular social ladder.
I neither agree or disagree fully, but I believe there is value in good governance of large and diverse projects.
Whether their governance is good is what this whole kerfuffle is all about.
It implies that the value of their policy work is significantly below…
It’s always safe to assume that value to be negative unless proven otherwise actually.
The post is still there.
The Wayback Machine shows it was missing at one point.
Hard to say why exactly it was hidden, but it’s a bad look for sure.
Probably an automod or something. It mentioned a banned user, which sounds like something an automoderator would auto-remove (i.e. people making alts or something to complain about bans).
At this rate in a month there’s gonna be a python fork, with blackjack, and hookers
(Futurama reference)
Shoulda stayed BDFL lol. Who tf are these nerds banning everyone?
Banning/hiding that is ridiculous and a quick way to lose any credibility the community rules might have left.
Lol, first Tim Peters and now Guido.
Edit: oh LOL2, now I see Guido’s comment at the top of this thread, and in case it went past anyone, it was a reference to Tim Peters.
Can someone pls explain for us normies
The Python steering committee bans Tim Peters, a Python core developer, for 3 months. In an unrelated discussion, someone proposed a new election system for the steering committee. Then the creator of Python insinuated through a comment in the post suggesting why not we ask for an opinion from an expert that he knows, but we need to wait a bit as he’s been banned. OP claims this comment has been removed, but may be it’s been reinstated as it’s still there last time I check.
edited: some grammar typos, and edit some words for clearer context.
The simplest explanation is that an automod action was triggered on the word “banned,” and then a mod manually reinstated it. Until I hear further, that’s what I’m going to assume happened.
The bureaucrats have taken control!
This is real Soviet style reality denial.
guess its time for Guido to make a new software project, maybe call it Monty.
With blackjack, and hook…
