> If the incident occurred outside the community, but a community member's mental health or physical safety may be negatively impacted if no action is taken, the incident may be in scope.
IOW: they hold themselves free to go after people for stating political opinions entirely outside of any Python-related context, if someone else in a Python space deems those opinions sufficiently traumatizing.
> Does this pose a safety risk? Does the behavior put a person's physical safety at risk? Will this incident severely negatively impact someone's mental health?
Again, getting "triggered" by something is considered a matter of "safety". Some people are apparently fragile, and not responsible for their own actions, while others have a moral duty not to offend them.
> A person who makes a report should receive a follow-up email stating what action was taken in response to the report. If the work group decided no response was needed, they should provide an email explaining why it was not a Code of Conduct violation. Reports that are not made in good faith (such as "reverse sexism" or "reverse racism") may receive no response.
IOW: you have no recourse if people discriminate against you for being white or for being male. Not only that, but proposing that such a thing occurred is considered inherently "bad faith". And they will stuff terms in your mouth for this that you didn't actually use. [0] But not only that, when I was banned, they held up such an argument (by the way, the accusation that I even made such an argument was completely false) as itself a Code of Conduct violation, despite no language in that document which could possibly support such a claim.
Speaking of which, they don't even follow these procedures if they're inconvenient. See the "Follow up with the reported person" section? None of that bears any resemblance to how I was treated. (Not that it could, because I did nothing wrong and my "behaviour" had no reasonable "negative impact". [1])
There are tons of other "cultural" aspects you seem to be unaware of here. For example, defenders of the Work Group and their policies will constantly bring up (without naming names, as if anyone were unaware) the Adria Richards "Donglegate" incident from PyCon 2013. This is always described as a cautionary tale about what might happen to others like Richards without their CoC enforcement. It is never mentioned that Richards eavesdropped on a private conversation, took offense to a joke not intended to cause harm to anyone (and not even jokingly proposing any harmful idea!), and then ignored all the incident reporting procedures in the newly written PyCon CoC, opting instead to skip straight to social media for a round of public shaming.
[0] It's people with this political position who use the terms "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism"; people who correctly recognize the fact that racism can victimize white people (and be directly the fault of people who are not white, acting fully on their own agency) also correctly just call it "racism". Similarly for sexism.
[1] If you don't take that at face value, you are welcome to read my own backup of my posts related to the banning: https://zahlman.github.io/dpo_archive/ .
Yes. What you are missing is the separate "Enforcement Procedures" section: https://policies.python.org/python.org/code-of-conduct/Enfor... . Some quotes:
> If the incident occurred outside the community, but a community member's mental health or physical safety may be negatively impacted if no action is taken, the incident may be in scope.
IOW: they hold themselves free to go after people for stating political opinions entirely outside of any Python-related context, if someone else in a Python space deems those opinions sufficiently traumatizing.
> Does this pose a safety risk? Does the behavior put a person's physical safety at risk? Will this incident severely negatively impact someone's mental health?
Again, getting "triggered" by something is considered a matter of "safety". Some people are apparently fragile, and not responsible for their own actions, while others have a moral duty not to offend them.
> A person who makes a report should receive a follow-up email stating what action was taken in response to the report. If the work group decided no response was needed, they should provide an email explaining why it was not a Code of Conduct violation. Reports that are not made in good faith (such as "reverse sexism" or "reverse racism") may receive no response.
IOW: you have no recourse if people discriminate against you for being white or for being male. Not only that, but proposing that such a thing occurred is considered inherently "bad faith". And they will stuff terms in your mouth for this that you didn't actually use. [0] But not only that, when I was banned, they held up such an argument (by the way, the accusation that I even made such an argument was completely false) as itself a Code of Conduct violation, despite no language in that document which could possibly support such a claim.
Speaking of which, they don't even follow these procedures if they're inconvenient. See the "Follow up with the reported person" section? None of that bears any resemblance to how I was treated. (Not that it could, because I did nothing wrong and my "behaviour" had no reasonable "negative impact". [1])
There are tons of other "cultural" aspects you seem to be unaware of here. For example, defenders of the Work Group and their policies will constantly bring up (without naming names, as if anyone were unaware) the Adria Richards "Donglegate" incident from PyCon 2013. This is always described as a cautionary tale about what might happen to others like Richards without their CoC enforcement. It is never mentioned that Richards eavesdropped on a private conversation, took offense to a joke not intended to cause harm to anyone (and not even jokingly proposing any harmful idea!), and then ignored all the incident reporting procedures in the newly written PyCon CoC, opting instead to skip straight to social media for a round of public shaming.
[0] It's people with this political position who use the terms "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism"; people who correctly recognize the fact that racism can victimize white people (and be directly the fault of people who are not white, acting fully on their own agency) also correctly just call it "racism". Similarly for sexism.
[1] If you don't take that at face value, you are welcome to read my own backup of my posts related to the banning: https://zahlman.github.io/dpo_archive/ .