support

moderators as they see fit, and PyCon organizers as they see fit, etc. - each as regards their respective spaces and nowhere else. There should not be a separate "work group" for this, especially not an unelected, unaccountable one which is for some reason taken seriously by everyone else - even when they make absurd allegations such as the ones against Mr. Peters. > Warsaw revealed that he had abstained from the vote on the suspension, in part because he did not feel he could be unbiased; similarly, CoC WG members Brett Cannon and Łukasz Langa abstained from the vote to recommend the suspension to the SC. Credit where it's due, I suppose. > Hammond's reply sums up some of the frustration that is being felt: ... So yes, we should continue to discuss this - but in my opinion, the onus is now on the SC to directly address some of the responses made by these individuals. It should be the WG's responsibility, since they're the ones whose unevidenced allegations are being challenged. But yes, I've been reading the corresponding threads, and - I don't know that the term "Kafkaesque" can be stretched to cover stonewalling, but it still feels like that. Supposedly the excuse for silence has been that there was no explicit, properly made request for clarification, despite all the forum activity pointing out layers of refusal to be transparent about previous refusals to be transparent. > SC replying either publicly or to Peters directly ""would be a waste of our precious volunteer time as it was guaranteed to be taken out of context and satisfy nobody"" At this point, I can hardly fathom a context that would justify their actions anyway. > Langa, who chairs the CoC WG And also moderates the forum. And also commented on a PyPI issue (https://github.com/pypi/support/issues/2771) directly related to the problem that brought me to the forum in the first place (https://discuss.python.org/t/_/25089), the day he banned me. (A strange coincidence, but I'm glad the problem is resolved now.) > What seems to be lacking, however, is what the community itself should learn from this incident about CoC enforcement, procedures, and reporting, especially as it relates to core developers. Maybe that will come in time, as well. One of the most important things in my view: the only purpose of secrecy in these processes is to protect the identity of a reporter. If a violation is claimed on the basis of publicly visible conduct, it is at least unacceptable to refuse to identify the specific conduct unless it was clearly targeted at a specific user; and there must be a clear explanation of how the conduct plausibly causes offense passing a reasonable-person test; and it must be readily apparent to third parties that the conduct is being fairly represented and charitably interpreted. (There's also a lot I could say here about how the WG has approached the topic of neurodiversity, but it's better if I save that for a blog post - which likely won't be the next PSF-related post.)

barrassing flaws (asking it to download a package without installing it can cause it to run arbitrary code from setup.py - https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/1884 and many others) that have persisted for almost the entire history of Pip. That said, I do see "bloat" in the social overhead of Python governance, given the proliferation of (volunteer) Work Groups that don't seem to be accomplishing very much. And just to emphasize, I did already describe the PSF as "woefully underfunded", because it is - just like most other open source orgs.

rms: CSRFProtectModelMixin, ModelFormMixin I would love feedback and suggestions on any part of the library, especially the more complex components (such as FormView and ModelFormMixin).