Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Link to the SH Q&A entry #69

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 14, 2024
Merged

Link to the SH Q&A entry #69

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
b8ad4bf
Link to the SH Q&A entry
tim-one Oct 14, 2024
3a08cc5
Update psf/ban.md
tim-one Oct 14, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
7 changes: 4 additions & 3 deletions psf/ban.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -107,7 +107,8 @@ to have been made in bad faith. ***A key to this***
is that it was mostly very vague, and the one specific claim it made
didn't pass a "reasonable person" test to me[^1].

[^1]: While they didn't reply, they apparently agreed, since the specific claim they made never appeared in public - they changed the claim before public posting, but to one which also didn't pass a reasonable person test to me - at which point my suspicion of bad faith increased.
[^1]: While they didn't reply, they apparently agreed, since the specific claim[^2] they made never appeared in public - they changed the claim before public posting, but to one which also didn't pass a reasonable person test to me - at which point my suspicion of bad faith increased.
[^2]: Which was still somewhat vague - no link to the message was given, so it was left to guesswork. I think it was "clear enough", and everyone else appeared to have the same guess, which is spelled out in the [2024-10-12 entry](ban_qa) of the Q&A page

Without specificity, the best I could make of it was "we're not
objecting to what you're saying, we're objecting to who you are -
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -184,7 +185,7 @@ not in this one.
Addendum
--------
Of course many people saw this coming. It was hard to miss that _some_ "old timer"
was in the crosshairs. But it wasn't exactly[^2] clear who until I saw
was in the crosshairs. But it wasn't exactly[^3] clear who until I saw
[this post](https://discuss.python.org/t/im-leaving-too/58408/9). Note especially
who "liked" it.

Expand All @@ -194,5 +195,5 @@ Addendum 2
----------
[Click here for some Q&A](ban_qa) from responses to this blog.

[^2]: Two of the SC's complaints in [their public topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/inclusive-communications-expectations-in-python-spaces/57950) were obviously aimed at me, but the referent for "soft conduct moderation" was unknown. As detailed above, I never opposed a mod action against me, so I wasn't a plausible guess. No clarification was made, beyond that they didn't mean David Mertz (who seemed to be most peoples' guess).
[^3]: Two of the SC's complaints in [their public topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/inclusive-communications-expectations-in-python-spaces/57950) were obviously aimed at me, but the referent for "soft conduct moderation" was unknown. As detailed above, I never opposed a mod action against me, so I wasn't a plausible guess. No clarification was made, beyond that they didn't mean David Mertz (who seemed to be most peoples' guess).
***
Loading