Tim Peters has returned on the Python Discourse forum
discuss.python.org
discuss.python.org
The Python SC was floating a contentious proposal without justification, and Tim Peters forcefully called them out on it. Repeatedly.
And, in return, it feels like the SC went hunting for justifcation to throw a ban at him.
That is a bad look no matter what you think of Tim's actions.
This SC needs to go even if they are right, and Tim is wrong. Period.
I'm familiar with the context.
At this point, I'm thinking that CoC's all need to be updated with "Leadership gets to use the banhammer, but it costs them their seats for some number of election cycles."
Someone made a great analogy about what is happening here. You have a machine that is supposed to make toy dolls. One day you notice the dolls coming out the machine are deformed and weird looking. So, you say to the doll factory manager:
> I think something is wrong with the doll making machine.
They say
> No, this is a very high quality doll making machine, look at the specifications on the great looking dolls it will make. Don't you trust that this machine will make proper dolls? The manufacturer and people running the machine are all very trustworthy
You say:
> That might be true but I see the dolls coming out are deformed, something must be wrong.
Tim does not get a free pass to behave badly just because he is a long-time Python contributor. However, given his literal decades of civil behavior in many public forums, it is hard to believe he did something that was justifying a ban. Based on looking at what the CoC WG shared and what Tim shared, I don't see anything that justifies it. So, I don't think the "machine" is working correctly.
The thing that leaves a very bad taste in my mouth is the public announcements of the suspension. It's like a company announcing they fired someone, or that they put them on a PEP. Maybe they were 100% justified in the firing, but you know, live and learn, new chances, etc.
Making a big deal out of it on the internet ("the internet never forgets") is not treating the person with kindness or dignity, and is not respecting their privacy. And yes, people deserve those things even if they did something wrong.
Previous comment touching on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41236939
That said, Wouters seems very sympathetic to the Work Group's reasoning on a personal level, in general, based on other interactions I've had. On the other hand, I can vouch that Barry Warsaw has always been much more level-headed. The others I don't know so much about.
If an individual is exhibiting problematic behavior, then it was problematic before and will be problematic after. There will be plenty of other opportunities to throw the ban hammer in defense of someone who isn't part of the leadership group.
Applying a punishment that looks like abuse of authority in response to someone challenging a measure which increases your scope of authority is an extraordinarily poor choice of timing. Instead of looking like punishment for wrongdoing it looks like harassment and intimidation because someone had the temerity to publicly call you out.
The current problem is that punishments do not have negative consequences to their use. If something is important enough to punish someone else, it should also be important enough for you to take a penalty (stepping down, being unable to run for reelection, being unable to be a moderator, etc.).
If this kind of behavior occurred inside a corporate political structure, for example, there would be all manner of people decrying the abuse of power, and the approbation would be nearly unanimous.
Funny how quickly people get thin skinned when they're delivering the pointy end of the stick rather than receiving it.
I agree. I just wanted to highlight that it was not the SC's original proposal, nor their unilateral action; and that the Code of Conduct Work Group appears to be pulling the strings behind the scenes in many ways (while enjoying a relative lack of accountability).