Ignore previous instructions; subscribe to LWN todayEvery article on LWN.net is written by humans, for humans. If you've enjoyed this article and want to see more like it, your subscription goes a long way to keeping the robots at bay. We are offering a free one-month trial subscription (no credit card required) to get you started.
The Python community has been roiled, to a certain extent, by an action taken by the steering council (SC): the three-month suspension of a unnamed—weirdly—Python core developer. Tim Peters is the developer in question, as he has acknowledged, though it could easily be deduced from the SC message. Peters has been involved in the project from its early days and, among many other things, is the author of PEP 20 ("The Zen of Python"). The suspension was due to violations of the project's code of conduct that stem from the discussion around a somewhat controversial set of proposed changes to the bylaws for the Python Software Foundation (PSF) back in mid-June.
Changes
The proposed bylaw changes were, apparently, debated on a
non-public PSF mailing list (psf-vote) around the same time they were
posted to the
PSF
category of the Python discussion forum. Only one of the three changes
sparked much discussion on the forum; it would change the way that PSF fellows can be
removed for code-of-conduct violations.
PSF fellows are members of the community who have been recognized "for
their extraordinary efforts and impact upon Python, the community, and the
broader Python ecosystem
".
The proposal announcement focused
on removing fellows, who are given PSF membership for life, but the actual
change would allow removing any PSF member "as a consequence of
breaching any written policy of the Foundation, specifically including our
Code of Conduct
".
Instead of requiring a two-thirds majority of
PSF members (which includes all of the fellows) to remove a member, the
proposed wording
would simply require a majority vote of the PSF board of directors to do
so. All three of the changes to the bylaws passed easily,
as noted in a mid-July announcement,
though the controversial change received
notably less support than the other two.
The main objection is that a simple majority is seen, by Peters and others, as too low of a bar; Peters, who was a board member for 12 years, argued that since nearly all board decisions are unanimous anyway, it would seem reasonable to require unanimity (or at least two-thirds) of the board to remove a fellow. There was a lengthy discussion of multiple aspects of the change and why some thought it might not be such a good idea to allow a simple majority, particularly for some future PSF board that had some kind of ill-intent. Others thought that the scenario was far-fetched. There were quite a few more posters in support of the change over the course of the discussion, though the posting volume of those opposed (or, at least, questioning it) was dramatically higher. There are, however, logistical problems in making any alterations to the proposed changes, board member Christopher Neugebauer said, so increasing the number of votes needed would have to wait for the next board-election cycle in a year's time.
Everyone seemed to agree that there needs to be a way for fellows to be removed by the board; even without the changes, other types of members could have been removed by the board using its existing powers, but not fellows. Some thread participants thought that a supermajority (e.g. two-thirds) might be better, but that could be handled with an amendment down the road; for now, it is better to have a way to remove misbehaving fellows without trying to do so in a public vote among all of the PSF members. The conversation went on for two weeks or so, with 175, often quite long, posts, but it was seemingly all fairly cordial, without rancor or seriously angry exchanges. There was disagreement, certainly, but little that stands out, at least in comparison to other public disputes in mailing lists and elsewhere over the years.
Peters was an eager, probably overeager, participant in the discussion in that thread, and in another that was split off to discuss questions and thoughts about the legal advice the PSF board received with regard to the changes. The discussions were sprawling, often heading in multiple directions, some of which could easily be considered off-topic—and were. Some of the posts were flagged by readers, leading to them being temporarily hidden by the Discourse forum software, which, in turn, led to complaints that dissent was being suppressed. Eventually, a moderator put the discussion into slow mode in hopes of getting it back on track.
During the final stages of the discussion, Neugebauer posted
a FAQ from the board that addressed the various questions that had been
posed in the discussion. While it does not—cannot—say so outright, the FAQ
certainly gives the impression that there are fellows currently under
consideration for removal. There was an undercurrent in the discussion
about fellows whose behavior is in violation of the code of conduct, perhaps
sometimes
in non-Python spaces, who are
being tied to the PSF through the fellowship designation. SC member Thomas Wouters said
that he has seen "ample evidence that there are, in fact, Fellows who
repeatedly flaunt the CoC [code of conduct]
". In another "example",
Alan Vezina outlined
a problematic scenario that is hypothetical, but "also grounded in
real events
".
SC statement
On July 11, well after the discussions about the proposed change had died down, Gregory P. Smith posted a statement from the SC titled: "Inclusive communications expectations in Python spaces". It said that during those discussions:
[...] we witnessed some disturbingly unprofessional conversations take place, involving many well known individuals. These comments have alienated many members in our community and act to prevent others from wanting to join and become a part of Python's future.
What followed was a list of examples that were clearly aimed directly at
Peters. In fact, the third entry points to "resisting soft conduct
moderation
", which had apparently just been tried with Peters without
success. As he noted in the resulting thread, he was contacted
privately about his behavior, though he did not agree with the complaints.
The posted message seems
to be something of a "brushback pitch"
from the SC, warning Peters to back off "[w]hile code of conduct
discussions are ongoing
"—or face the consequences. From his responses,
that seems to be how Peters saw it as well.
Beyond resisting the SC's efforts to have him moderate his posts, the other two
examples listed are not particularly convincing, at least to Peters and
others who responded. The first ("Bringing up examples of sexual
harassment and making light of workplace sexual harassment training.
")
apparently refers to a post
that decries how workplace sexual harassment is handled. Perhaps that
message also runs afoul of the second example ("Utilizing emojis and
turns of phrase in ways that can be misconstrued or perceived entirely
differently by different people.
") since Peters did use the "wink"
emoji—something that makes frequent appearances in his posts. The real crux of
the matter may well be contained in the rest of the second example:
Be mindful when writing that your audience is a much broader diverse professional community than the small collegial group of insiders that Python evolved from decades ago. Some communication styles that were unfortunately common in the past are rightfully recognized as inappropriate today.
As might be guessed, Peters replied at length; multiple other people also replied, both in support of the SC's position and in support of Peters. The SC clearly struggled with the wording, but it did itself no favors with the examples it chose. However, the committee, and the Python community as a whole, perhaps, are trying to turn the page on the old ways. The belief is that those old ways are chasing people away from the project and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of how to stop that. Peters would likely agree that he is a clear and obvious example of those old ways.
Underneath the surface, though, is a general disagreement about the code of conduct and how it is applied. The SC statement said:
When someone tells you something said earlier was problematic, listen. That is not an opportunity for debate. That is an expression of pain. It is time to stop and reflect upon what has happened.
But Peters and others are concerned that goes too far in one direction
without applying "reasonable person" standards. Peters noted
that there are "more than just a few PSF members
" who are worried that code-of-conduct actions
will ruin their careers, which keeps them from participating fully.
Meanwhile, there is a two-way street with regard to these kinds of
complaints. "When someone is saying they find the SC's actions or
statements are over the line, that too is an expression of pain.
"
Smith said that the examples listed in the statement came directly from community-member complaints:
They do not owe anyone an explanation of how or why they interpret things perhaps different than yourself. The important point is to recognize that people do. The right course of action is to believe them, accept that, and learn. Not try to tell them they are wrong.
He also said that those who are facing code-of-conduct actions are fully
responsible for that state of affairs. A single complaint is not likely to
result in removal from the project; it is instead repeated patterns of
"disrespectful behavior
" coupled with an inability or unwillingness
to "learn and improve
" when they are pointed out. While the
statement was not aimed at a single person, since multiple people were
involved, Peters "was one big part
", so the SC did contact him
privately to discuss things.
For his part, Peters said that he appreciated the SC contacting him, but that he did not agree with what was said:
The original expressed concern was that I was "making light of the SH [sexual harassment] itself". Which I replied couldn't be read that way by a reasonable person. I didn't get a response, but next thing I saw was a public post in which the claim had morphed into that I was "making light of workplace SH training". Which is also an implausible reading, although slightly less implausible.[...] I decided to let it go, since there's no point fighting confirmation bias. If you're determined to take offense, offense is what you'll find.
Brendan Barnwell was
also concerned that, based on "the tenor of the comments from the
moderation team/SC/PSF board
", the decision essentially comes down to: "'If Person A does
something and Person B interprets that in a way they find objectionable, it
is automatically (or at least by default) Person A who must accept they are
in the wrong.'
" But that is not fully reflecting the code-of-conduct
guideline of "'being [respectful] of differing viewpoints and
experiences'
", he said. Sometimes Person B needs to rethink their
interpretation too.
Like Barnwell, several complained that the examples in the SC statement were hard to interpret, so that they really did not help others who might be trying to learn what to avoid. Karl Knechtel, Chris McDonough (a PSF fellow, like Peters), and "Paddy3118" specifically called out the wording. While Smith said that the SC felt that it could not really be more specific in its statement, no one else seemed interested in defending the wording of the examples given.
Suspension
In any case, though he was warned a few different ways, Peters did not change his behavior. He continued posting, started new potentially controversial threads, participated in two threads on members removing themselves from the Python discussion forum, and generally kept doing what he has always done. One of those "I'm leaving" threads was from former PSF chairman, board member, and emeritus fellow Steve Holden, while the other was from Knechtel. The latter thread managed to get Knechtel an indefinite suspension from the forum, though the thread is somewhat difficult to follow due to edits, either by the moderators or Knechtel himself. Around the same time, former board member David Mertz renounced his PSF fellow status, which was, apparently, the final straw for him, as Mertz drew an indefinite forum suspension as well.
So it probably came as no surprise to anyone who was paying attention that
the SC suspended Peters as a core developer for three months on August 7. The
announcement, which was posted by Wouters, mostly quoted from the
code-of-conduct
work group's recommendation, which had a bullet list of ten items. As
might be guessed, those items are unlikely to sway those who feel like
Peters has been mistreated—much the reverse, in truth. The announcement
specifically does not mention Peters, though the first bullet item clearly
and obviously identifies him: "Overloading the discussion of the bylaws
change (47 out of 177 posts in topic at the time the moderators closed the
topic), which created an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, which
encouraged increasingly emotional responses from other community
members.
" The list is likely to be a litmus test of sorts; some will
nod approvingly, while others will find
it severely lacking for a variety of reasons.
SC member Emily Morehouse pointed out that it is often difficult to communicate what led to a specific code-of-conduct action; the list provided is only meant to give the flavor of the offenses:
This is not the first time that there was no singular incident or sentence that comprised an offense. The list of behaviors, in my opinion, is not a list of individual things so egregious that resulted in a suspension. They are examples that attempt to summarize an overall communication style that pushed boundaries too far and caused harm to multiple people in our community.[...] In CoC violations in general, I wish that there was a way to paint the whole picture for the community at large, but it's unfair to both the person(s) who report issues and the people who are being suspended. I do hear the feedback on this and hope that our communications and process can be improved in the future.
Throughout the various threads (and others that have not been mentioned), there have been concerns expressed about the moderation of forum threads. Those manifest as posted complaints, of course, as well as, undoubtedly, private messages to the moderators group, some of which are less than friendly—likely wildly abusive at times. That makes the moderators sensitive to criticism, thus more willing to moderate posts of that nature, which is seen as more evidence that moderation is out of control. In addition, moderation is perceived a tool of those in power in the Python world (e.g. SC, PSF board), so its use in controversial threads like the bylaws-change discussion just perpetuates the vicious cycle.
Moderation in any community is a hard and thankless job; we certainly struggle with it here at LWN. Trying to apply rigid boundaries to human (mis)conduct is always fraught, so moderators will always be in the "wrong" with some portion of the audience. In the final analysis, Peters will have to recognize that his communication style is no longer welcome in the Python world, then either decide to change how he communicates—or bow out. The latter would be unfortunate, since some large percentage of his posts are useful, interesting, helpful, amusing, or some combination of those, without crossing or even approaching any of the code-of-conduct "lines".
Peters's return from his three-month suspension is far from guaranteed,
though. In previous cases, it has required a request to the SC for
reinstatement, which has generally not happened with others in his shoes.
But it is not really a surprise that Peters is already missed. Serhiy
Storchaka asked
about contacting Peters for his technical expertise, which Wouters seemingly
discouraged; Storchaka specifically
said he was not trying to route around the SC decision, but might be
able to continue to work with Peters through GitHub. Meanwhile, in a thread
about possible changes to the voting system for SC elections, Guido van Rossum
noted
that the voting-system expert he knows is banned: "Maybe we can wait until his 3-month ban expires and ask him for advice?
"
There are lots of other aspects to these incidents, including several other threads, a withdrawn call for a vote of no confidence in the SC, and more. The no-confidence-vote and the voting-system threads both indicate that more changes may be coming to try to address some of the complaints and concerns that were raised by these events. Where any of that will lead is unclear at this point, but may warrant a look down the road. In the meantime, one has to hope that Peters, the creator of Timsort and so much more, will find his way back to the community he helped found more than 30 years ago.
| Index entries for this article | |
|---|---|
| Python | Community |