Ogi Moore (@j9ac9k), in post 29:

Without an example of volunteers being rejected for ideological reasons from working on the CoC committee

I didn’t propose anything of the sort. Selection processes can be completely unconscious.1

Ogi Moore (@j9ac9k), in post 29:

If there is evidence of of ideological selection, it should be presented, but absent any evidence

The evidence is the mutual agreement in an environment where others disagree. It is a perfectly natural thing to happen and the effect can be extremely strong. (Skip to section 3 if you aren’t interested in learning more new things today.) But it is selection nonetheless.

Ogi Moore (@j9ac9k), in post 29:

let’s not insult our volunteers with baseless accusations.

I fail to see how it constitutes an insult.

Ogi Moore (@j9ac9k), in post 29:

people who volunteer to make the python community conform to our shared values

They are clearly not shared. That’s the point. Before I point out a few examples, please meditate on the phrasing you just used. If they were shared values, why would it be necessary to make people conform?

Anyway.

There are people here who believe2, for example, that supporting specific activist groups is a prerequisite to claiming to oppose whatever form of bigotry; and those who don’t. But you won’t, as far as I can tell, find people in the latter group enforcing the CoC - considering the incredible latitude shown towards those attacking people for not supporting those groups. (Never mind “Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences”.)

There are people here who believe that discrimination is discrimination regardless of who is discriminated against; and those who believe that certain forms of it simply don’t count, because of some supposedly academic theory. But those enforcing the CoC have the latter as explicit, written policy (just not in the CoC itself).3

There are people here who believe the commit message on that one PEP 8 edit meant substantively the same thing as the corresponding pull request commentary; and those who see “relic of white supremacy” as a serious accusation that necessarily reflects on owners or users of the work thus described. The people enforcing the CoC at the time appear to have consistently felt it was no big deal.

There are people here who believe that writing a word in plaintext is equivalent to using it, and that sufficiently offensive words must be scrubbed regardless of context; and those who draw a distinction. You can see, by now, where I’m going with this.

Aside from that, raw statistics tell us about this values divide.

Since let’s say Jan 1 2020 (the Python 2 sunset date), how many core devs have either been banned or suspended from the project, for CoC issues, or left (either officially, or noticeably “checked out”) in protest of something related to the CoC or to political discourse in the community? How many, similarly, have either had their PSF membership stripped, or ceded it?

How many are no longer making CPython commits and/or enjoying PSF membership, for any other reason?

  1. Weirdly: this is exactly what “systemic X-ism” is supposed to be. Yet when my side proposes something like this, it can only be framed as peddling conspiracy theories. Sigh. ↩

  2. Or at least, repeatedly say words that are inconsistent with any other interpretation I can think of. ↩

  3. And in laying out that policy, the document uses disparaging rhetoric. ↩