6 ms·

Python Bans Prominent Dev for Enjoying the Wrong Old SNL Sketch

47 points by tu7001 2y ago

teddyh 2y ago
Links to Bryan Lunduke are commonly themselves flagged here on HN.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
aguaviva 2y ago
What is that SNL sketch? The famous "Point, Counter-Point" 1979 sketch starring Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin. The one where Dan Aykroyd says the phrase, "Jane, you ignorant slut." I actually burst out laughing when I got to this part. These people need a serious talking-to. It's clear they have no idea what the sketch was about, and that it was actually deeply and brilliantly anti-sexist to its core. Let alone the of climate of the time, or how their reaction might be received by the great Jane Curtin. There's also this concept of "irony", but that may a bit too far out for them at this point.
- guitheeengineer 2y ago
  The article it's cherry-picking one minor incident of many more, to superficially construct a narrative to provoke the kind of reaction you're having at the moment (how could someone be banned just by referencing a snl skit), so readers instantly pick his side without considering all other repeated violations of their CoC: 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 later result of the vote showed 81% support for the most controversial of the bylaws changes, which demonstrates the controversy was blown out of proportion. Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment. Using potentially offensive language or slurs, in one case even calling an SNL skit from the 1970s using the same slur “genuinely funny”, which shows a lack of empathy towards other community members. Making light of sensitive topics like workplace sexual harassment, which could be interpreted as harassment or creating an unwelcoming environment. Casually mentioning scenarios involving sexual abuse, which may be inappropriate or triggering for some audiences. Discussing bans or removals of community members, which may be seen as publishing private information without permission. Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a “neurodivergent” trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment. Excessive discussion of controversial topics or past conflicts, which could be seen as sustained disruption of community discussions. Use of potentially offensive terms, even when self-censored or alluded to indirectly. Making assumptions or speculations about other community members’ motivations and/or mental health. Source: https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250 https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co... (I don't necessarily agree with either side, I just find it worthy pointing out that the article is bending the story to fit a narrative the author usually tries to paint).
  - veltas 2y ago
    The cherry-picking is explicit in the article, and the fact that the cherry-picked reasons are given as reasons at all is chilling. As is the fact this is all being dealt with publicly, like some sort of public shaming ritual. The process the Python project has adopted feels like social media hysteria formalised.
  - lostmsu 2y ago
    > Overloading the discussion of the bylaws change (47 out of 177 posts in topic... Was there a rule that prohibits that? > concepts not backed by empirical evidence You can see evidence with your own eyes right here: https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/10k31w3/d_iclr_now_has_a_track_with_racebased_and_more/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/10k31w3/d_... > Making light ... which could be interpreted as harassment or creating an unwelcoming environment No comment needed > Discussing bans or removals of community members Similar to violation of later Russian law that prohibits criticizing the government. > Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a “neurodivergent” trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment. Sounds bad, but really hard to judge without examples. > Excessive discussion of controversial topics or past conflicts Was there a rule that prohibits that? > Use of potentially offensive terms Is this like a kitchen knife "potential instrument of murder", or "he said something we think might have offended someone else. We don't have anyone complaining yet, but let's ban just in case"? > Making assumptions or speculations about other community members’ motivations and/or mental health. > Casually mentioning scenarios involving sexual abuse, which may be inappropriate or triggering for some audiences. These two are problematic, but the first one may be valid depending on actual circumstances (e.g. if his assumption or speculations were correct, then there's nothing to blame the person for).
    - belZaah 2y ago
      The neurodivergence part got to me. Almost by definition, it takes effort (i.e, is harder) to interact with a person that’s different. So why is it controversial to say it takes effort to interact with a neurodivergent person. As one myself, I can certainly say it takes a _lot_ of effort the other way. Talking to normal people is exhausting!
- fuzzfactor 2y ago
  I thought that was it. The L in SNL stands for "live". This was aired one time live and it had a distinct and unmistakable meaning to an impressionable generation of all ages. But way more people did have their VCRs running. For years this was the correct answer if a pointless back-and-forth, among people who work together respectfully almost all the time and will be doing so almost all the time in the future, when it would come to such an absurd point that it must end. The first one to recognize this point has arrived and call "Jane, you ignorant slut" entitled everyone involved to an immediate halt to the escalating discourse. This was a trigger which gained agreement to move in a direction more respectful, forever after that for people who do work together. Well within corporate decorum to signal that no further disparagement makes sense and the worst it could get is behind us. Nobody ever said this to each other except one time live, and the real Jane made it clear that it's not harmful to her so what does that tell you about people who can't take a joke. It didn't used to take a whole lot of social awareness for everyone to benefit by recognizing when they had gotten as comical as SNL. Calling a truce like this immediately set the stage that further unflattering action from any party signifies who is actually more of a loser than you thought.
bun_terminator 2y ago
All CoCs are weapons and used all the time to harm the project they were forced upon. "Python Software Foundation's Code of Conduct Working Group" just wow. And the person who did this is exactly the kind of person we all expect
- tssva 2y ago
  Please explain to me exactly you mean by "exactly the kind of person we all expect" because evidently I'm not part of "we all" because I don't know what you mean.
  - bun_terminator 2y ago
    There's strong stereotypes around people in technical projects, but without technical roles and actively working against the project. But as so often, they're very much true for this individual (the one who posted about the suspension, is part of that stupid "working group" and is boasting about it on "his" socials. I don't think this should be detailed further. Curiously, the same person was also in charge for the last python release, which featured a very political message in its release notes.
    - basementcat 2y ago
      Which political message was this? Is it somewhere in here? https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/index.html https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/index.html
      - bun_terminator 2y ago
        https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3120/ https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3120/
        zahlman 2y ago
        Wow, that's a dramatic shift from previous "And now for something completely different" sections, even the 3.11 one (whereas a lot of these ideas have been circulating among the higher-ups for years). It seems like these sections were introduced with the 3.8 release, and initially involved actual Monty Python sketch quotes.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
cdrini 2y ago
This is an interesting story but this article looks really poorly written/biased. It didn't until the QA at the end clarify that this was a 3 month suspension. It instead started with "bans" in the title, walks back to "suspended" in the first line, and then didn't clarify that point until effectively the appendix to "3 month suspension". Little tricks like this make me lose faith in the objectivity of an article. Then there's the cherry picking of reasons, general tone, which makes this feel more like rage bait than an article meant to inform. I would love to read an unbiased article on this. Edit: here's the source suspension announcement, which has lots of comments: https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250 https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co... And a less ragebait-y albeit much longer critical write-up from another developer: https://chrismcdonough.substack.com/p/the-shameful-defenestration-of-tim https://chrismcdonough.substack.com/p/the-shameful-defenestr...
- veltas 2y ago
  Looking at the actual announcement made me more annoyed than Lunduke's article did.
- add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
  Yeah what kind of adult believes another adult would believe this framing of an event? This is such 10-year-old "Mom, Billy hit me just because I looked at him!" energy.
  - mcphage 2y ago
    “He was banned for a whole bunch of things! Let’s pick out one or two, isn’t this unfair?”
- jsheard 2y ago
  > This is an interesting story but this article looks really poorly written/biased. Lunduke went off the deep end a while ago, anything he writes about codes of conduct is coming from the perspective of someone who published a list of companies to boycott for celebrating Pride Month. He is the archetypical person that CoCs are intended to exclude and he's extremely bitter about it.
ozzcer 2y ago
Bait title
veltas 2y ago
This turns me off of Python
- zahlman 2y ago
  As someone who was personally involved, it saddens me to hear this. The PSF is not Python, nor is the Steering Council. The language itself doesn't express any political ideology. Many core developers are displeased with the decision, too. I've been using Python for nearly 20 years. Its faults are many, but it's definitely the actually-existing language I hate the least. It's not even close. In the various threads here about the issue, I've seen calls to fork the project. This is a massive undertaking for a programming language and there's no viable way to get buy-in if you're planning to create something mutually incompatible. So that leaves separate implementations. But that doesn't really solve a problem, if the concern is that organizational dysfunction will limit development of new features - since you've committed to the same limitations. And if the concern is anything else, then why is that concern relevant to the language itself?
  - veltas 2y ago
    As an outsider I can just see some toxic behaviour here from people that seem to have some authority within Python project / steering. The fact that it has gotten this far, something which Peters apparently was trying to prevent and unfortunately failed to do so, is a big red flag to me. I agree a fork would fail. This is why I will avoid and recommend against utilising Python as a technology, because forking isn't realistic or constructive, and it seems the major implementation has this political baggage now. I'd only change my mind on this if the project apologised and reversed their decision, but given how the decisions were made I don't see that as a likely outcome.
RockRobotRock 2y ago
I encourage people to read the primary sources before coming to a conclusion on the validity of this suspension. While Lunduke has done good work, he's alienated a lot of people in recent times (for good reason, in my opinion). He is a great source if you're looking for a quick hit of tech-adjacent social justice ragebait. He is an awful source if you are looking for a neutral account of the facts.
AndyNemmity 2y ago
It is unjustified authority for the board to state we can do what we want because of information we must keep secret, and you just have to trust us. https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250/11 https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co...
- agf 2y ago
  I understand that reaction, I feel it too. But what is the alternative? Sharing details of an assault? Note that in Tim's response at the bottom of the article, he says clearly he believes the board that the details can't be shared and that they are serious.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - infamia 2y ago
    An unbiased, third-party should have been brought in to investigate, considering the players and the consequences of getting it wrong.
    - zahlman 2y ago
      That's the thing, though. As far as I can tell, per the Steering Council's and PSF's reasoning, they did exactly that. There's a separate Steering Council, CoC Work Group, and PSF Board of Directors for a reason - and also a separate team of moderators for the Discourse forum. Never mind that pairs of these groups may have multiple members in common and that they may act upon each others' "recommendations". Never mind that Mr. Peters is also suspended from the forum for the same period (which is nominally a completely separate action) and there was no separate announcement of this. Aside from that, keep in mind that one of the supposed charges is "defending reverse racism/sexism" - by which they don't mean defending the act of engaging in racism against white people or sexism against men, but rather defending the use of those concepts. Never mind that Mr. Peters didn't write those terms; the closest he got to the subject was to point out that he's been in environments where e.g. the idea of racism against white people is not considered legitimate. By the way, there is nothing actually written in the Code of Conduct (see https://policies.python.org/python.org/code-of-conduct/ https://policies.python.org/python.org/code-of-conduct/ ) which prohibits such a political view. The closest it gets is in the completely separate "enforcement policy" document, which says that claims of having been thus discriminated against should be considered as inherently bad-faith. In short: the Work Group, on all available evidence, objects to the idea that e.g. discrimination against men occurs and ought to be labelled as sexism; and in fact objects so strongly as to imagine that expressing such an opinion is inherently objectionable. When one party reasons like this, what "unbiased third party" could possibly be deemed acceptable?
mococa 2y ago
This site is forbidden in Brazil (without VPN)
gmuslera 2y ago
Besides the bias or not of the linked article, is not without irony the fact that Python itself was named after a phrase of a another comedy sketch.
jrflowers 2y ago
I thought Lunduke was a comedy bit like somebody yelling “Look what le fasciste wokisme mob has done to…” spins giant wheel “uh… open source development?” but then every time his blog gets posted several people respond with a version of “I read the headline and now I’m just as upset about this as the author”
infamia 2y ago
The most ironic thing thing is that Python, is named after Monty Python, which was quite controversial in it's time. For example, Monty Python The Life of Brian makes fun of both Christianity and LGBTQ folks. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA Best to kick out Guido since he clearly enjoys "problematic" content. Also, they must swiftly rename Python to "Grey Box Lang" or something totally inoffensive. The most offensive thing is the PSF's power grab vote so they can fire Python Fellows behind closed doors, which previously required the community to vote. This board is out of control and has to go. Also, if the board can muzzle a giant in the Python community with such vague and wispy allegations, they will have no problem silencing anyone else. This dispute should have been handled by a third party, rather than relying on inexperienced volunteers who are hopelessly too involved to be impartial.
infamia 2y ago
HN post (not flagged) with a better article is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41212788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41212788
daft_pink 2y ago
Just want to say that as someone that has volunteered for an organization for over a decade. It’s generally their loss and his gain. Honestly, once you get older and are very involved and are very experienced, it’s just an hinderance to your employer and you’re giving up tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to work for free. Meanwhile, they will lose out on his hardwork and inventiveness. I don’t think this should have been flagged though. People should be honest and cover what is happening.
aSithLord 2y ago
So glad I webscrape with Swift now.
hbogert 2y ago
Why is this flagged?

47 points by tu7001 2y ago

teddyh 2y ago

Links to Bryan Lunduke are commonly themselves flagged here on HN.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

aguaviva 2y ago

What is that SNL sketch? The famous "Point, Counter-Point" 1979 sketch starring Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin. The one where Dan Aykroyd says the phrase, "Jane, you ignorant slut." I actually burst out laughing when I got to this part. These people need a serious talking-to. It's clear they have no idea what the sketch was about, and that it was actually deeply and brilliantly anti-sexist to its core. Let alone the of climate of the time, or how their reaction might be received by the great Jane Curtin. There's also this concept of "irony", but that may a bit too far out for them at this point.

guitheeengineer 2y ago
The article it's cherry-picking one minor incident of many more, to superficially construct a narrative to provoke the kind of reaction you're having at the moment (how could someone be banned just by referencing a snl skit), so readers instantly pick his side without considering all other repeated violations of their CoC: 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 later result of the vote showed 81% support for the most controversial of the bylaws changes, which demonstrates the controversy was blown out of proportion. Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment. Using potentially offensive language or slurs, in one case even calling an SNL skit from the 1970s using the same slur “genuinely funny”, which shows a lack of empathy towards other community members. Making light of sensitive topics like workplace sexual harassment, which could be interpreted as harassment or creating an unwelcoming environment. Casually mentioning scenarios involving sexual abuse, which may be inappropriate or triggering for some audiences. Discussing bans or removals of community members, which may be seen as publishing private information without permission. Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a “neurodivergent” trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment. Excessive discussion of controversial topics or past conflicts, which could be seen as sustained disruption of community discussions. Use of potentially offensive terms, even when self-censored or alluded to indirectly. Making assumptions or speculations about other community members’ motivations and/or mental health. Source: https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250 https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co... (I don't necessarily agree with either side, I just find it worthy pointing out that the article is bending the story to fit a narrative the author usually tries to paint).
- veltas 2y ago
  The cherry-picking is explicit in the article, and the fact that the cherry-picked reasons are given as reasons at all is chilling. As is the fact this is all being dealt with publicly, like some sort of public shaming ritual. The process the Python project has adopted feels like social media hysteria formalised.
- lostmsu 2y ago
  > Overloading the discussion of the bylaws change (47 out of 177 posts in topic... Was there a rule that prohibits that? > concepts not backed by empirical evidence You can see evidence with your own eyes right here: https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/10k31w3/d_iclr_now_has_a_track_with_racebased_and_more/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/10k31w3/d_... > Making light ... which could be interpreted as harassment or creating an unwelcoming environment No comment needed > Discussing bans or removals of community members Similar to violation of later Russian law that prohibits criticizing the government. > Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a “neurodivergent” trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment. Sounds bad, but really hard to judge without examples. > Excessive discussion of controversial topics or past conflicts Was there a rule that prohibits that? > Use of potentially offensive terms Is this like a kitchen knife "potential instrument of murder", or "he said something we think might have offended someone else. We don't have anyone complaining yet, but let's ban just in case"? > Making assumptions or speculations about other community members’ motivations and/or mental health. > Casually mentioning scenarios involving sexual abuse, which may be inappropriate or triggering for some audiences. These two are problematic, but the first one may be valid depending on actual circumstances (e.g. if his assumption or speculations were correct, then there's nothing to blame the person for).
  - belZaah 2y ago
    The neurodivergence part got to me. Almost by definition, it takes effort (i.e, is harder) to interact with a person that’s different. So why is it controversial to say it takes effort to interact with a neurodivergent person. As one myself, I can certainly say it takes a _lot_ of effort the other way. Talking to normal people is exhausting!
fuzzfactor 2y ago
I thought that was it. The L in SNL stands for "live". This was aired one time live and it had a distinct and unmistakable meaning to an impressionable generation of all ages. But way more people did have their VCRs running. For years this was the correct answer if a pointless back-and-forth, among people who work together respectfully almost all the time and will be doing so almost all the time in the future, when it would come to such an absurd point that it must end. The first one to recognize this point has arrived and call "Jane, you ignorant slut" entitled everyone involved to an immediate halt to the escalating discourse. This was a trigger which gained agreement to move in a direction more respectful, forever after that for people who do work together. Well within corporate decorum to signal that no further disparagement makes sense and the worst it could get is behind us. Nobody ever said this to each other except one time live, and the real Jane made it clear that it's not harmful to her so what does that tell you about people who can't take a joke. It didn't used to take a whole lot of social awareness for everyone to benefit by recognizing when they had gotten as comical as SNL. Calling a truce like this immediately set the stage that further unflattering action from any party signifies who is actually more of a loser than you thought.

bun_terminator 2y ago

All CoCs are weapons and used all the time to harm the project they were forced upon. "Python Software Foundation's Code of Conduct Working Group" just wow. And the person who did this is exactly the kind of person we all expect

tssva 2y ago
Please explain to me exactly you mean by "exactly the kind of person we all expect" because evidently I'm not part of "we all" because I don't know what you mean.
- bun_terminator 2y ago
  There's strong stereotypes around people in technical projects, but without technical roles and actively working against the project. But as so often, they're very much true for this individual (the one who posted about the suspension, is part of that stupid "working group" and is boasting about it on "his" socials. I don't think this should be detailed further. Curiously, the same person was also in charge for the last python release, which featured a very political message in its release notes.
  - basementcat 2y ago
    Which political message was this? Is it somewhere in here? https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/index.html https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/index.html
    - bun_terminator 2y ago
      https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3120/ https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3120/
      - zahlman 2y ago
        Wow, that's a dramatic shift from previous "And now for something completely different" sections, even the 3.11 one (whereas a lot of these ideas have been circulating among the higher-ups for years). It seems like these sections were introduced with the 3.8 release, and initially involved actual Monty Python sketch quotes.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

cdrini 2y ago

This is an interesting story but this article looks really poorly written/biased. It didn't until the QA at the end clarify that this was a 3 month suspension. It instead started with "bans" in the title, walks back to "suspended" in the first line, and then didn't clarify that point until effectively the appendix to "3 month suspension". Little tricks like this make me lose faith in the objectivity of an article. Then there's the cherry picking of reasons, general tone, which makes this feel more like rage bait than an article meant to inform. I would love to read an unbiased article on this. Edit: here's the source suspension announcement, which has lots of comments: https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250 https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co... And a less ragebait-y albeit much longer critical write-up from another developer: https://chrismcdonough.substack.com/p/the-shameful-defenestration-of-tim https://chrismcdonough.substack.com/p/the-shameful-defenestr...

veltas 2y ago
Looking at the actual announcement made me more annoyed than Lunduke's article did.
add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
Yeah what kind of adult believes another adult would believe this framing of an event? This is such 10-year-old "Mom, Billy hit me just because I looked at him!" energy.
- mcphage 2y ago
  “He was banned for a whole bunch of things! Let’s pick out one or two, isn’t this unfair?”
jsheard 2y ago
> This is an interesting story but this article looks really poorly written/biased. Lunduke went off the deep end a while ago, anything he writes about codes of conduct is coming from the perspective of someone who published a list of companies to boycott for celebrating Pride Month. He is the archetypical person that CoCs are intended to exclude and he's extremely bitter about it.

ozzcer 2y ago

Bait title

veltas 2y ago

This turns me off of Python

zahlman 2y ago
As someone who was personally involved, it saddens me to hear this. The PSF is not Python, nor is the Steering Council. The language itself doesn't express any political ideology. Many core developers are displeased with the decision, too. I've been using Python for nearly 20 years. Its faults are many, but it's definitely the actually-existing language I hate the least. It's not even close. In the various threads here about the issue, I've seen calls to fork the project. This is a massive undertaking for a programming language and there's no viable way to get buy-in if you're planning to create something mutually incompatible. So that leaves separate implementations. But that doesn't really solve a problem, if the concern is that organizational dysfunction will limit development of new features - since you've committed to the same limitations. And if the concern is anything else, then why is that concern relevant to the language itself?
- veltas 2y ago
  As an outsider I can just see some toxic behaviour here from people that seem to have some authority within Python project / steering. The fact that it has gotten this far, something which Peters apparently was trying to prevent and unfortunately failed to do so, is a big red flag to me. I agree a fork would fail. This is why I will avoid and recommend against utilising Python as a technology, because forking isn't realistic or constructive, and it seems the major implementation has this political baggage now. I'd only change my mind on this if the project apologised and reversed their decision, but given how the decisions were made I don't see that as a likely outcome.

RockRobotRock 2y ago

I encourage people to read the primary sources before coming to a conclusion on the validity of this suspension. While Lunduke has done good work, he's alienated a lot of people in recent times (for good reason, in my opinion). He is a great source if you're looking for a quick hit of tech-adjacent social justice ragebait. He is an awful source if you are looking for a neutral account of the facts.

AndyNemmity 2y ago

It is unjustified authority for the board to state we can do what we want because of information we must keep secret, and you just have to trust us. https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250/11 https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co...

agf 2y ago
I understand that reaction, I feel it too. But what is the alternative? Sharing details of an assault? Note that in Tim's response at the bottom of the article, he says clearly he believes the board that the details can't be shared and that they are serious.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- infamia 2y ago
  An unbiased, third-party should have been brought in to investigate, considering the players and the consequences of getting it wrong.
  - zahlman 2y ago
    That's the thing, though. As far as I can tell, per the Steering Council's and PSF's reasoning, they did exactly that. There's a separate Steering Council, CoC Work Group, and PSF Board of Directors for a reason - and also a separate team of moderators for the Discourse forum. Never mind that pairs of these groups may have multiple members in common and that they may act upon each others' "recommendations". Never mind that Mr. Peters is also suspended from the forum for the same period (which is nominally a completely separate action) and there was no separate announcement of this. Aside from that, keep in mind that one of the supposed charges is "defending reverse racism/sexism" - by which they don't mean defending the act of engaging in racism against white people or sexism against men, but rather defending the use of those concepts. Never mind that Mr. Peters didn't write those terms; the closest he got to the subject was to point out that he's been in environments where e.g. the idea of racism against white people is not considered legitimate. By the way, there is nothing actually written in the Code of Conduct (see https://policies.python.org/python.org/code-of-conduct/ https://policies.python.org/python.org/code-of-conduct/ ) which prohibits such a political view. The closest it gets is in the completely separate "enforcement policy" document, which says that claims of having been thus discriminated against should be considered as inherently bad-faith. In short: the Work Group, on all available evidence, objects to the idea that e.g. discrimination against men occurs and ought to be labelled as sexism; and in fact objects so strongly as to imagine that expressing such an opinion is inherently objectionable. When one party reasons like this, what "unbiased third party" could possibly be deemed acceptable?

mococa 2y ago

This site is forbidden in Brazil (without VPN)

gmuslera 2y ago

Besides the bias or not of the linked article, is not without irony the fact that Python itself was named after a phrase of a another comedy sketch.

jrflowers 2y ago

I thought Lunduke was a comedy bit like somebody yelling “Look what le fasciste wokisme mob has done to…” spins giant wheel “uh… open source development?” but then every time his blog gets posted several people respond with a version of “I read the headline and now I’m just as upset about this as the author”

infamia 2y ago

The most ironic thing thing is that Python, is named after Monty Python, which was quite controversial in it's time. For example, Monty Python The Life of Brian makes fun of both Christianity and LGBTQ folks. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA Best to kick out Guido since he clearly enjoys "problematic" content. Also, they must swiftly rename Python to "Grey Box Lang" or something totally inoffensive. The most offensive thing is the PSF's power grab vote so they can fire Python Fellows behind closed doors, which previously required the community to vote. This board is out of control and has to go. Also, if the board can muzzle a giant in the Python community with such vague and wispy allegations, they will have no problem silencing anyone else. This dispute should have been handled by a third party, rather than relying on inexperienced volunteers who are hopelessly too involved to be impartial.

infamia 2y ago

HN post (not flagged) with a better article is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41212788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41212788

daft_pink 2y ago

Just want to say that as someone that has volunteered for an organization for over a decade. It’s generally their loss and his gain. Honestly, once you get older and are very involved and are very experienced, it’s just an hinderance to your employer and you’re giving up tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to work for free. Meanwhile, they will lose out on his hardwork and inventiveness. I don’t think this should have been flagged though. People should be honest and cover what is happening.

aSithLord 2y ago

So glad I webscrape with Swift now.

hbogert 2y ago

Why is this flagged?