> As a general rule I think we should be working to empower people to handle situations on their own
I totally agree. There is nothing here prohibiting you from telling immature people to cut it out.
> Not disenfranchising them so they've got no recourse but to report something to a group of people selected for their ability to run a conference, not necessarily mediate disputes.
The only thing this "disenfranchises" you from is trying to start lynch mobs whenever you feel like it. That is rarely an appropriate method of mediating disputes or resolving a problem, and I am totally happy that they are discouraging it.
> Do I happen to think that "public shaming" was appropriate here? Probably not. Do I think it's been effectively used by many groups in the past to effect change, yes.
Public shaming is a drastic measure. It should only be used if you have exhausted other more reasonable methods of resolving your problems. You should only reach for that hammer when you face systemic issues.
I have seen no evidence that the PyCon staff turns a blind eye to sexism or inappropriate comments. That's the kind of thing that deserves public shaming; when the system itself is broken.
> The fact that PyCon and many other conferences have adopted a code of conduct is evidence of this.
Yes, but once you have a system that is working, you threaten its efficacy by continuing to try to effect change in spite of it.
> When a group asks me to constrain how I behave outside the confines of their event (on twitter for example) I tend to apply it universally.
They are not telling you how to behave outside the confines of their event. They are telling you that the appropriate venue to bring your disputes at PyCon is to the PyCon staff, not your legion of twitter followers.
If the PyCon staff doesn't handle things appropriately, then go ahead and start handing out torches and pitchforks.