Code of Conduct violations include allegations that posts created 'atmosphere of FUD'

The Python Steering Council has decided to suspend a core Python developer for three months for alleged Code of Conduct violations.

Citing the recommendation of the Code of Conduct Working Group, Python developer Thomas Wouters revealed on behalf of the Steering Council that the unidentified developer was deemed to have repeatedly violated the Python Software Foundation (PSF) Code of Conduct.

The suspended developer is Tim Peters, who told The Register it was fine to name him but declined to comment – beyond observing that one of his objections to the governance process is the secrecy involved.

  • moomoomoo309@programming.devEnglish
    132·
    3 months ago

    The problem with this situation is everything that was said was said publicly, and yet, not a single thing said was linked. Some of the claims they made are blatant misrepresentations of what was said, too, which is fun. If they have nothing to hide, quote or link what he said, don’t paraphrase it.

    • zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
      213·
      3 months ago

      Nah, they don’t have to repeat slurs, discussions of sexual assault, or other things that they don’t want in their community in the first place.

      Do you have any examples of his stance on reverse racism, the sexual assault discussions, or his use of slurs that were “misrepresented”?

      • moomoomoo309@programming.devEnglish
        12·
        3 months ago

        That’s fair, they needn’t quote it, you’re right, they can just link it, context included.

        I do not have examples of those, nor did I claim to.

        What was misrepresented was a quote about SNL, where an offensive clip from old SNL was posted, and he said it was from when SNL was still funny. He didn’t even comment on the clip except for the era in which it came out. (I think there was a second one, but I don’t recall the other offhand, so I’m not gonna try to pull it out of my ass here)

        What I disliked is that by not linking the originals, we have to trust their judgment entirely and have to infer which incidents they’re referring to and what was said. That’s stupid. Just link the damn discussions, they were public. If it was bad, it will be obvious. I should not have to make my judgment based on their view of what was said, I want to make my judgment based on what was actually said. I don’t agree with what Tim said, but I also feel like they’re not being as transparent as they should be.