this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
70 points (88.0% liked)

Python

6229 readers
87 users here now

Welcome to the Python community on the programming.dev Lemmy instance!

📅 Events

October 2023

November 2023

PastJuly 2023

August 2023

September 2023

🐍 Python project:
💓 Python Community:
✨ Python Ecosystem:
🌌 Fediverse
Communities
Projects
Feeds

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
erlingur@programming.dev
jnovinger@programming.dev
70
A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines (discuss.python.org)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by BitSound@lemmy.world to c/python@programming.dev
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Original comment:

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?

Previous discussion

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] moormaan@lemmy.ca 19 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (10 children)

Searching some of these Python Community discussions separately and reading how they handled these bumps in the road as a group has actually increased my confidence in that group as a whole:

https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250

https://discuss.python.org/t/calling-for-a-vote-of-no-confidence/61557

On the other hand, the three month suspension of Tim Peters that started it all and how that was handled sounds problematic (the second half of the essay addresses each point from the original banning rationale in detail):

https://chrismcdonough.substack.com/p/the-shameful-defenestration-of-tim

Finally, Chris McDonough (the author of the above article) drawing attention to valid criticism of his own defense of Tim Peters is a blueberry on top of the cherry on the cake:

https://chattingdarkly.org/@chrism/113020098915125686

I hope the community ends up stronger as a result of this.

[–] lysdexic@programming.dev 11 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Boy, does that group sound like the ultimate bunch of social climbers trying to make a living out of someone else's work.

[–] moormaan@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Interesting perspective. It implies that:

  1. The value of their policy work is significantly below the technical community's contributions value
  2. There is perceived status to be gained by climbing this particular social ladder.

I neither agree or disagree fully, but I believe there is value in good governance of large and diverse projects.

Whether their governance is good is what this whole kerfuffle is all about.

[–] BB_C@programming.dev 0 points 2 weeks ago

It implies that the value of their policy work is significantly below...

It's always safe to assume that value to be negative unless proven otherwise actually.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)