Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

discuss.python.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 289 posts

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#51

Post by jrockway »

I'm going to be contrarian here and say, maybe it's the right choice. Bringing up already-litigated drama in an unrelated thread is not particularly constructive. If Guido thinks this person's opinions are relevant, he can send them and email and ask for them, right?

To some extent, the moderators are obligated to treat everyone equally. If they wouldn't let you or me relitagate past drama here, why should they let anyone? The core team should be setting the example for how other people should behave. If the core team doesn't agree with the values that they claim to agree to, and show this disdain by not enforcing their own rules, then why would they bother creating that governance structure in the first place? They are just being consistent with the processes that they agreed to and subjected themselves to. That's governance. Personally, I think it would be more alarming to the community if certain people didn't have to follow the rules.

As far as I can tell, there is no mention of not discussing the original decision in general. If there was, nobody seems to be following the rules as there are 8 billion Reddit threads on the topic. I knew nothing about this and had Names Named in about 3 seconds of searching. As a result, I don't think there is some sort of conspiracy taking place. Enough ink has been spilled on this issue; does it really need to be brought up again in a thread about voting systems?

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#52

Post by PaulHoule »

germanjoey wrote: post #18
EvanAnderson wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an outsider who only knows Guido van Rossum by way of interviews his writing. Assuming your quote is what the original text said (I don't disbelieve you-- but nobody can see it to confirm) why would this have violated community standards? Is there some rule about not mentioning "un-persons" or something? It's very confusing. Edit: Answering my own question. There appears to be a kerfuffle afoot. Apparently the St…

Looks like some kind of power play... Originally discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41234180

My experience is that discussions of bylaw changes tend to get heated and that trying to change your bylaws is like Russian Roulette, that is maybe 1/6 of the time there is some disaster which is either the end of he organization or that results in a major loss of members.

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#53

Post by yeahwhatever10 »

yarg wrote: post #46
mc32 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the hell, has everyone caught and gone gung-ho on censorship? What the actual f*** is this? How in the hell do you have the balls or ovaries to ban the creator --for something so inane. It's like a highscool supe who gets no respect and will at every chance show you the little power she has in such a classless way. So utterly petty defying belief. I hope those dweebs get voted out pronto. That's an absurd abuse…

[flagged]

Down voting this comment is burying your head in the sand. Censorship has been and will continue to be one the primary political fights of the 20s. They just arrested the Telegram founder a few days ago...

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#54

Post by lazyasciiart »

scoofy wrote: post #49
debacle wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guido did that for a long time, but I think he reached a point where he wanted to transition.

Again, I would prefer he retain an unused veto. Who knows, perhaps he's entirely fine with his comment being removed. The benefits of a sovereign are that they limit the amount of privileges that can be extracted from an political system. Obviously monarchs have their downsides, but if people can just up and fork the project, those downsides are limited.

The downsides can be pretty high for the chosen monarch.

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#55

Post by lazyasciiart »

dllthomas wrote: post #48
OutOfHere wrote: post #31

[flagged]

It's not just how much information you extract, but also what you do with that information. RCV, in the most common form of IRV, has a problem that I think is relevant. If we accept the truism that the appropriate compromise won't be anyone's first choice, then the very first thing IRV does is throw out any appropriate compromise, leaving it to make a decision between inappropriate options. I think we need to be more…

That truism seems pretty unacceptable to me.

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#56

Post by mindslight »

dllthomas wrote: post #48
OutOfHere wrote: post #31

[flagged]

It's not just how much information you extract, but also what you do with that information. RCV, in the most common form of IRV, has a problem that I think is relevant. If we accept the truism that the appropriate compromise won't be anyone's first choice, then the very first thing IRV does is throw out any appropriate compromise, leaving it to make a decision between inappropriate options. I think we need to be more…

Yeah, it's painful seeing all the enthusiasm IRV gets. I've come to the conclusion it's how people think they want to be able to express support for third party candidates due to their frustration with the current system, but not actually seeing down the line to what happens when non-duopoly options gain some popularity. Basically it's still hopelessly wed to the two party model after the less-popular third parties are run off. It's only redeeming feature is that the same choices can serve as the input to a Condorcet decision process when the failures of IRV become apparent.

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#57

Post by EvanAnderson »

rjmorris wrote: post #36
EvanAnderson wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an outsider who only knows Guido van Rossum by way of interviews his writing. Assuming your quote is what the original text said (I don't disbelieve you-- but nobody can see it to confirm) why would this have violated community standards? Is there some rule about not mentioning "un-persons" or something? It's very confusing. Edit: Answering my own question. There appears to be a kerfuffle afoot. Apparently the St…

I don't understand why you said they didn't explain the reason for the 3-month ban. Your link [0] lays out the reasons.

I badly paraphrased what citation [1] said. I've dropped on an edit. (I have no dog in this race, other than thinking that Python is a pretty important software project. I didn't mean to editorialize.)

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#58

Post by zaptheimpaler »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #5
oblvious-earth wrote: post #2

The original text stated: > I don’t know much about voting systems, but I know someone who does. Unfortunately he’s currently banned. Maybe we can wait until his 3-month ban expires and ask him for advice? Currently, the text reads: > This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden. Since it has been hidden for more than 24 hours, this suggests that a moderator action has marked it as permanently hid…

I'm an outsider who only knows Guido van Rossum by way of interviews his writing. Assuming your quote is what the original text said (I don't disbelieve you-- but nobody can see it to confirm) why would this have violated community standards? Is there some rule about not mentioning "un-persons" or something? It's very confusing. Edit: Answering my own question. There appears to be a kerfuffle afoot. Apparently the St…

Re: the vote of no confidence [1]. Looks like most devs disagreed with the vote and have opted to let the council continue but transfer the "HR" Code of Conduct duties to the PSF.

[1] https://discuss.python.org/t/calling-for-a-vote-of-no-confid...

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#59

Post by stackghost »

potsandpans wrote: post #44

This kind of drama seems to exist very specifically to programming language design and implementation. Probably has something to do with the codified formal structures necessary for various committees/ decision making groups. But it's interesting. This kind of stuff happens in ECMA, Rust, Python and a few others. Go seems to have escaped. Maybe because it's a corporate owned Lang? Similarly no drama in the Typescript…

>This kind of drama seems to exist very specifically to programming language design and implementation.

There's that saying about the inverse correlation between impact of the project/the stakes, and people being drama lords.

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#60

Post by scoofy »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #54
scoofy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I would prefer he retain an unused veto. Who knows, perhaps he's entirely fine with his comment being removed. The benefits of a sovereign are that they limit the amount of privileges that can be extracted from an political system. Obviously monarchs have their downsides, but if people can just up and fork the project, those downsides are limited.

The downsides can be pretty high for the chosen monarch.

I obviously can't speak to the politics of the Python Foundation (my favorite language and would buy every single person in this governance discussion a beer), but my point is that these types of monarchs generally have more (Taleb-style) skin in the game than someone who shows up later. More to lose (everything they've built), and so I would generally trust their judgement to care more about the institution as a whole, than about exercising power (which is the entire reason they have effectively given up power in the first place).
Post reply on HN