61–70 of 94 posts
Seriously? Who on earth could possibly say that Tim Peters isn't the embodiment of this? It’s utterly ridiculous to even question whether he’s a role model. This kind of talk is completely out of touch with reality.
Tim Peters, author of timsort and longtime Python contributer, is a graybeard spaz like Stallman: https://discuss.python.org/t/for-your-consideration-proposed... I know this type, they definitely know how to belabor a point, and their language can be "colorful". I read through a bunch of comments, and on a scale from 0 to Terry Davis, Tim seems like a 1 or 2, annoying and crotchety but well-meaning and mild-mannered…
When we start dividing ourselves and others into categories based on race, gender, origin, or other characteristics, we lose sight of our shared humanity. Instead of recognizing each individual as a person with unique thoughts and feelings, we resort to generalizations and stereotypes, leading to further division and alienation.
As a society, we need to remember that, above all, we are all human beings. We must listen to each other, understand, and accept our differences, while also recognizing that we have much more in common than what separates us. Sincerity, respect, and empathy are the qualities that help us stay connected as humans, despite our differences.
Additionally, it's crucial that we approach the communication styles of elderly individuals with greater attention and tolerance. Their way of expressing themselves might differ from what we’re used to, shaped by different experiences and cultural contexts, but this doesn’t make their perspectives any less valuable. We should strive to be more understanding and patient, recognizing that everyone has something important to contribute, regardless of how they communicate.
Let's reflect on how our words and actions impact others, and make an effort to be more mindful of those around us. Being human means understanding and feeling, not just following social norms or external pressures.
> 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... > Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment. So simply having an opinion and expressing it cou…
My understanding based on talking to others who DO like them, is that the rules they put in there are an attempt to show contributors (and potential new contributors) that they will be welcome in this community and shouldn't have to worry about being harassed or ridiculed etc. in the hopes that they can point to specific violations and have moderators deal with it if something happens.
But moderators already had that power. And the terms they use in these documents are quite subjective, and so the interpretation ends up being left up to the moderators, which was already the case anyways. Then you have the people who weaponize the document specifically to use their own interpretations in ways that conflict with how the moderators view it in order to stir up drama and "cancel" people they don't like.
Other projects who try to be more democratic such as Nix etc., from what I can tell, end up getting too focused on endless discussions and disagreements over terminology that not much ends up getting accomplished that way either.
Even when people say simply to keep "politics" out of discussions, then there is always disagreement about what is considered politics, including the people who point out that it's impossible to do anything that's NOT considered politics to someone e.g. "everything is political" if you look at it that way.
I'm not sure what the solution is but I'd be interested to hear some ideas.
Given the long list of things, as an outsider, it seems like this person was quite disruptive to the community. It doesn't seem like there's a "this one post was sus", but rather, "we've exhausted other options after repeated violations of our rules across many, many threads." This seems like basic moderation of a community, and good on the mods for applying their rules even to a core developer?
Reading Tim's posts gives me the exact opposite impression. As far as I can tell, his "defense of "reverse racism"" was simply: > Can’t say I’ve paid it much attention in recent years. Last time I did, “all races can be prejudiced, but only whites can be racist” was the Correct View™. [...] > While it still largely makes good sense to me, I don’t want to see the PSF insisting that any other view can only be held in “…
They are even more rude and certainly more mean, because issuing official sounding invented negative character pictures is far more damaging than a single person occasionally going off on a rant.
Python-dev is a now full blown dictatorship, and speaking the truth is not allowed.
They are probably also afraid because Google fired the Python team that contained some members of the ruling class, so they double down.
Tim Peters, author of timsort and longtime Python contributer, is a graybeard spaz like Stallman: https://discuss.python.org/t/for-your-consideration-proposed... I know this type, they definitely know how to belabor a point, and their language can be "colorful". I read through a bunch of comments, and on a scale from 0 to Terry Davis, Tim seems like a 1 or 2, annoying and crotchety but well-meaning and mild-mannered…
After reading that python discussion I have a very hard time believing the suspension was warranted unless there are some major factors i'm missing. It looks like a relatively cordial discussion yet in the suspension notice his posts are framed as having created "an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty and doubt". I can't believe the offensive word / slur that is mentioned is the word "slut", which was said in reference t…
Given the long list of things, as an outsider, it seems like this person was quite disruptive to the community. It doesn't seem like there's a "this one post was sus", but rather, "we've exhausted other options after repeated violations of our rules across many, many threads." This seems like basic moderation of a community, and good on the mods for applying their rules even to a core developer?
> 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... > Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment. So simply having an opinion and expressing it cou…
The thread is here: https://discuss.python.org/t/for-your-consideration-proposed... The person in question is Tim Peters. It’s weird to not name them, but not linking to the thread is appropriate.
> It’s weird to not name them, but not linking to the thread is appropriate.
It looks like they're applying the Met Police standard: even discussing it in specific terms is "an offence" because of the potential for attracting sympathy for the offender.
Very bad look. They ask for discussion but when someone brings them counterpoints they suspend them for three months. I read the discussion and I'm assuming it's about Tim Peters. But his responses seem normal and not at all something that even almost should warrant a ban. This is almost cartoonish level of power abuse.