To be clear, SendGrid is her employer and that's exactly who sergiotapia sent an e-mail to saying he was going to boycott and recommended that others do the same.

* Calling people out who violate PyCon's code of conduct? * Following this up by going to PyCon and getting it resolved? (http://pycon.blogspot.com/2013/03/pycon-response-to-inapprop...)

Are we really arguing that people should keep silent when things like this happen? When a rule is violated? That they should only respond after it's taken place?

Is that what people are really asking for?

* Calling people out who violate PyCon's code of conduct * Following this up by going to PyCon and getting it resolved

Those are the two things she did. Call people out who broke a rule. She also went to PyCon organizers to resolve it.

So, what culture is she encouraging, and why would we want to discourage it?

I think the culture that she's implicitly promoting is ultimately a suspicious and hostile one where there is no principle of charity but instead there's the inverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity). And not by the fact that she reported it to PyCon organizers, but by the fact that she then escalated it to the public. In this instance, I think she should have kept their identities anonymous in her tweets and blog post.

There are instances where I can imagine revealing their identities would be the right thing to do, but this doesn't come close to it by my judgement (for all that's worth).

The two guys are unprofessional assholes. 100% agreed. But by my lights, she is too.

> She never directly replied to or messaged pycon staff

That's not true. At all.

What did she "get"? If you do something publicly, you are open for public criticism. That's life.

However few would debate that it is utter hubris to use social media to demand a lynchmob response to a relatively mild social faux pas (which is 100% bullying behavior. Ala "I have 9000 twitter followers so you'll see who is the boss"). I don't blame her for the guy getting fired (that's on his shitty employer that knee jerk responds to something asinine), nor should anyone else, but I think the original activities were much more egregious and socially questionable than making a dongle joke.

I'd quickly e-mail back: "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

Where does it say anything about someone's expressed permission? Doing a search on the page for several words did not bring up anything remotely close. Permission isn't even used.

This is the statement being contested:

> that very code says that you are not supposed to take a picture of someone without their express permission.

So, unless you can produce something that says this, it's a lie.

As for this:

> harassing photography or recording

It didn't happen.