When we find ourselvees thinking that, then we are part of the status quo - the system is designed to suit us. It's very easy to think that status quo is the entire universe; just keep doing what you're doing. Instead, to avoid perpetuating the bad aspects of the system, it's essential to curiously and closely look for its boundaries, look outside it, notice the humans out there who are not being served, who may express unhappiness.
Take them at their word; they may seem absurd, but that's your human response to someone violating norms - the norms being the status quo. Their expression may include being disruptive or unpleasant. 'Disrupt' means 'violate the status quo'; it shows you the status quo's limitations.
As someone formally trained in many forms of dispute resolution, I'll also offer many of these have a significantly misguided view of effective dispute resolution. They often think some neutral and objective group of people evaluating a situation is an effective way to resolve code of conduct disputes, in part out of a desire to be fair and objective. But these are social disputes and not contract or other legal disputes. Applying mechanisms meant for one to the other does not make a ton of sense
This claim is increasingly difficult to reconcile with an awareness of who gets chosen to evaluate situations, what reasoning they present as "neutral/fair and objective", and how they go about their resolutions.
They can keep the tools & remix new ones with LLMs. The rest of us can hang out in some tiny corner talking civilly.
It looks like you (plural) bring it up only to push your political agenda against Woke or whatever.. while people are mourning and I find it frankly distasteful and an insult to his memory.
This whole episode certainly reflects very badly on PSF SC. But it is not a very glorious event of Peters' life either, and it feels better to just not uselessly stir the pot in a way that makes Peters not look good.
(and again, to be clear, PSF SC looks even worse, but of course the point is to remember Peters for what he was, not to profit of his passing to score points against PSF SC)
So, the situation is more "grey" than Peters being the victim, and I don't think it is a good idea to highlight this in a time where we should focus on Peters. It feels like stirring the pot is just instrumentalizing the event to attack the PSF SC because of unresolved feelings.
Not that this event should be forgotten or forgiven, just that it is not true that it is a mistake it was not mentioned in article talking about Peters' passing. It feels like the idea is that some people don't mention it because they know the PSF SC made a mistake but they want to hide it. But it looks to me that they don't mention it because it makes Peters not look very good on that circumstance.
Not in any meaningful sense. The post you cite basically talks about Tim's historical posting style, and then suggests that newcomers to the community might not have been exposed to it, and therefore interpreted https://discuss.python.org/t/for-your-consideration-proposed... as somehow objectionable.
But here's the thing: I first interacted with the guy in 2014 (as far as I can tell) and wasn't part of the Python Usenet/mailing list culture. I didn't really have that exposure either. And yet it was still extremely obvious to me that the post was calling out injustice and not saying anything that any reasonable person could object to. The central argument is that it's unpleasant to be repeatedly subject to training that assumes you need training to behave yourself and not engage in criminal activity, while the wealthy and powerful get away with those crimes. And people who claim to be on the side of "social justice" take offense to that.
If there's some legitimate reason why a morally good person could object to that post, I never heard it floated the entire time, nor in any of the ensuing discussion anywhere on the Internet (and people have accused me before of being unreasonably interested in that discussion). I have only heard people expect me to take it for granted that this, and similar posts, somehow reflect unreasonable behaviour. And because I legitimately can't think of any charitable way to interpret the argument, I don't speculate.
Tim looks just fine "on that circumstance". It is his interlocutors who look completely unreasonable.
This is a very unfair way of treating the situation. What I had in mind was basically what you say after: Peters understands why the situation went this way (because newcomers were not used to his writing style) and acknowledge responsibility in not realising that earlier. His post is literally called "mea culpa". It is very very unfair to pretend that Peters does not recognise some part of responsibility in a post which contains so much language sending explicitly that message.
> But here's the thing: I first interacted ...
Well, what you say is not surprising and does not prove anything. In 99% of situations were people take offence or disagree, there are also people who are fine with it. And it would have been totally unrealistic to pretend that a style that people understood in a given period was misunderstood by 100% of the people just few years later. You were just part of the people who interpreted it as Peters intended. But I'm pretty sure that you interpreted things differently in other circumstances.
> If there's some legitimate reason why a morally good person could object to that post, I never heard it floated the entire time
Well, in Peters post, he says "So too many now read one of my typically part-joking posts, and think I’m making fun of the topic being discussed, or belittling them. Wholly unintended, but understandable, and I first realized that yesterday. Now it makes some sense to me how someone could take offense at my message about sexual harassment."
I think that the situation is simple and that Peters understands it while you don't. The message was incorrectly interpreted. Peters says here that in this case, the reaction was understandable and make some sense. Peters ended up understanding the whole mess that was basically just miscommunication.
On the opposite, in your message, you are basically saying that you cannot understand that someone would take offence. That's your opinion, and, after all, why not. But other people have other opinion. I hope you don't take offence of that :)
> (and people have accused me before of being unreasonably interested in that discussion)
Hm, do you think that it is not highlighting that what "looks just fine" according to you may not be an universal truth?
> Tim looks just fine "on that circumstance". It is his interlocutors who look completely unreasonable.
As I've said, his interlocutors look very bad. You may think Peters looks "just fine", but that does not mean Peters looks just fine. You are just one person. And, I know, "everyone who disagree on this is a social justice warrior and is wrong", but you cannot force other persons who wrote articles on Peters' passing to be bad or misguided because they don't agree with you on this detail.
Regardless of who was wrong or right, is it the way you would like to be eulogy written about you? bonoboTP was such a nice person and helped so many person and here is a myriad of example to prove how. All that said, I will remind everyone he had a fight a few years ago with some people he worked with and there were not very nice to him. It is just but a pebble in a long fruitful life, but it is really important I mention it here to remind everyone CoC = bad
I know you're exaggerating but that's not what they were saying.
They are not woke in the first place. The "old white men" keep their corporate positions that they pretend belong to the underprivileged. David Mertz pointed that out and was swiftly disappeared by the Python Gestapo.
> While I've since adopted a tedious posting style to avoid triggering newer people, I haven't really changed. I'm not a grim person, and still find humor (sometimes dark) in almost everything. I just keep all sense of joy bottled up now. "Joy is not professional, supportive, welcoming, or inclusive - unless it's joy at the humiliation of perceived enemies of our new Mandatory Utopia" ;-) [..] > I would like an apology from the PSF, but don't expect one, and don't insist on one. What I demand is that they improve the broken _processes_ that led to this. My case wasn't the first one of trumped-up fantasy charges, and won't be the last
We are talking about a political system which seeks to introduce or apply rules that are obviously unfair on their face, justified by inconsistent theories that constantly make hypocrites of their proponents. It is bizarre and unreasonable to call opposition to this a "political agenda".
As one of the people directly involved in the situation, let me tell you: defending my friend's legacy is part of the mourning. His treatment was clearly unjust on its face and now the people who were responsible and/or supported it or advocated it are trying to blend in and pretend nothing happened, while showing no remorse whatsoever. While I'm sure the benedictions they offer now are sincere, I find it mind-boggling that it seemingly gives them no pause to consider what happened. Especially considering the timing (dying around the second anniversary of the original tension, and this being discovered around the time of his reinstatement).
Tim made an entire separate blog site to plead his case, largely motivated by my own posts[0][1]. His "mea culpa"[2] ceded only a tiny bit of ground, and even that was frankly unreasonable. (In the post[3] where he accepted blame, he was explicitly calling out an oppressive power structure, just apparently not the right one.) Not to mention that he was very clearly being "tone policed" by people acting on behalf of the very movement that popularized the term to try to shield themselves.
The insulting thing is to pretend that any reasonable person could ever have seen any merit in the claims against him after any honest inspection of the evidence (to the extent that evidence was presented: the nature of the claims made it clear what public events were being alluded to, while nothing private was ever asserted to exist).
[0]: https://zahlman.github.io/posts/an-open-letter-to-the-psf-co...
[1]: https://zahlman.github.io/posts/open-letter-psf-coc-wg-adden...
[2]: https://tim-one.github.io/psf/meaculpa
[3]: https://discuss.python.org/t/for-your-consideration-proposed...