A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines(discuss.python.org) |
A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines(discuss.python.org) |
Its knowledge requirements of the voters are such that I would opposed it for general, political cases.
To some extent, the moderators are obligated to treat everyone equally. If they wouldn't let you or me relitagate past drama here, why should they let anyone? The core team should be setting the example for how other people should behave. If the core team doesn't agree with the values that they claim to agree to, and show this disdain by not enforcing their own rules, then why would they bother creating that governance structure in the first place? They are just being consistent with the processes that they agreed to and subjected themselves to. That's governance. Personally, I think it would be more alarming to the community if certain people didn't have to follow the rules.
As far as I can tell, there is no mention of not discussing the original decision in general. If there was, nobody seems to be following the rules as there are 8 billion Reddit threads on the topic. I knew nothing about this and had Names Named in about 3 seconds of searching. As a result, I don't think there is some sort of conspiracy taking place. Enough ink has been spilled on this issue; does it really need to be brought up again in a thread about voting systems?
More seems it's just embarrassing to the committee so they banned it.
If the banning of the member alluded to was inappropriate, there is a time, place, and tact to address that. If the process does not allow for that, then you work towards changing the process. If the governing body doesn't allow for that, then why the heck would you make a comment that could derail a discussion regarding how that governing body is elected?
I agree. But didn't he give up the Benevolent Dictator for Life
moniker? Sounds like a King Lear situation...
Since now we will divest us both of moderation authority,
Interest of ban-hammering, cares of tweets,--
Which of you shall we say doth love us most?
That we our highest privilege in the comments forum may extend
Where nature doth with merit challenge. Tim,
Our eldest-born, speak first.No one is above god's law (aka physics).
No one is above the _spirit_ of [man's] laws.
Yes
> why the heck would you make a comment that could derail a discussion.
Banning the poster derailed the discussion even more. So much so, it made it to front page of HN.
I am not arguing they shouldn't have banned Guido because of who he is; I am arguing banning anyone should have a pretty high threshold, and when it happens it should be done with extreme transparency. Asking to wait for a member to join the discussion later about a relevant topic shouldn't come anywhere near that threshold.
Being respectful. We're respectful of others, their positions, their skills, their commitments, and their efforts.> I don’t know much about voting systems, but I know someone who does. Unfortunately he’s currently banned. Maybe we can wait until his 3-month ban expires and ask him for advice?
Currently, the text reads:
> This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Since it has been hidden for more than 24 hours, this suggests that a moderator action has marked it as permanently hidden. Due to a recent decision, this means no one outside of the moderators or admins can view it: https://discuss.python.org/t/moderated-posts-are-no-longer-p...
Edit: I meant to post slightly more direct link in title: https://discuss.python.org/t/should-we-consider-ranked-choic...
Edit 2: Some comments suggest that Guido was banned from posting, but this is not accurate. I have edited the title from "Guido van Rossum's Post Removed for Violating Python Community Guidelines" to "A Post by Guido van Rossum Removed for Violating Python Community Guidelines" to clarify what actually happened.
Assuming your quote is what the original text said (I don't disbelieve you-- but nobody can see it to confirm) why would this have violated community standards? Is there some rule about not mentioning "un-persons" or something?
It's very confusing.
Edit: Answering my own question. There appears to be a kerfuffle afoot. Apparently the Steering Council has suspended a core developer for 3 months[0] but isn't naming the suspended developer or citing specific reasons why (per [1] and sparking a call for a vote of no confidence in the council which did not succeed).
Apparently even mentioning the suspended person (without naming them) is enough for even Guido van Rossum to be censored. Wow.
Edit 2: The suspended developer is Tim Peters[3].
Edit 3: Altered paragraph "Edit:" from "...or the reason why[1] (" to "...or citing specific reasons why (per [1]".
Edit 4: Added "which did not succeed" after "...vote of no confidence in the council".
[0] https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co...
[1] https://discuss.python.org/t/calling-for-a-vote-of-no-confid...
[3] https://chrismcdonough.substack.com/p/the-shameful-defenestr...
But, anyway, who is the "Steering Council" and how come they have more influence than the 2 people who basically created python the language and python the community?
Originally discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41234180
How in the hell do you have the balls or ovaries to ban the creator --for something so inane. It's like a highscool supe who gets no respect and will at every chance show you the little power she has in such a classless way. So utterly petty defying belief.
I hope those dweebs get voted out pronto. That's an absurd abuse of power.
People who trip like that have no business having any power or control.
[1] https://discuss.python.org/t/calling-for-a-vote-of-no-confid...
Flags may be cast by anyone, and this will eventually result in automatic hiding - flags on Discourse are weighted according to the "trust level" of those raising them.
My guess is that people perceived this as a passive-aggressive objection to Tim Peters' suspension. It has definitely been permitted up until now to refer to this (although everyone seemed to be avoiding the name on principle), but there seems to be an expectation that people should "read the air" now and stop talking about it - hence posts like https://discuss.python.org/t/moderated-posts-are-no-longer-p... and https://discuss.python.org/t/pr-disaster-surrounding-recent-... .
> and sparking a call for a vote of no confidence in the council which did not succeed
The call was retracted, which is not surprising. The Steering Council isn't the root of the problem, anyway. That would be the Code of Conduct Work Group (https://www.python.org/psf/workgroups/#code-of-conduct-work-...), which is not elected (https://wiki.python.org/psf/ConductWG/Charter#Membership), has membership overlapping other important groups (4 of them are on the PSF Board of Directors - https://www.python.org/psf/board/#id3 - and Brett Cannon and Łukasz Langa are Discourse forum moderators) and enforces the Code of Conduct according to hidden rules that betray the neutrality of that document (https://policies.python.org/python.org/code-of-conduct/Enfor...) counter to the wishes of one of the original drafters of said document (https://discuss.python.org/t/why-i-am-withdrawing-fellowship... ; https://discuss.python.org/t/why-im-leaving-discuss-python-o... etc.).
It's also noteworthy that the Steering Council - consisting of 5 core devs - apparently also now requires a "communications liaison" (https://www.notion.so/46aec24028fd4e8dbdba003097c18b5b?pvs=2...) who gets a glowing write-up in official updates on the forum (such as https://discuss.python.org/t/steering-council-updates-for-ju...) - which are not posted by said liaison. I have no idea why this should be necessary, nor is there anything in PEP 13 (https://peps.python.org/pep-0013/) about this position existing. It seems that this person was selected entirely out-of-process.
> I don’t know much about voting systems, but I know someone who does. Unfortunately he’s currently banned. Maybe we can wait until his 3-month ban expires and ask him for advice?
So he was banned for asking about someone who knows about voting. Transitive meta banning? I guess anyone asking about Guido’s post will also get banned.
Imo that kind of deliberate intransparency is a massive red flag. Here for example I can choose to see hidden comments and make up my own mind about the content, which is excellent. Even if I don't use the feature, the fact that I could if I wanted to is a massive plus for trust in the process.
The same cannot be said for in-numerous other acts of flagging and hiding. Almost all posts from Clay in this thread has been flagged and hidden; you can't even make sense of Guido's replies to him because of that.
https://discuss.python.org/t/approval-voting-vs-instant-runo...
Would be happy for admin to do so, if that's something that's done on this site.
They abuse their power by banning any opposition and then using said infrastructure to libel and defame their opponents.
Google already fired one or two of them. I do not know what is required to restore the health of Python.
I would appreciate more information about this.
https://youtu.be/X2xlQaimsGg?feature=shared&t=13
FYI, Python is named after Monty Python , who got into all kinds of trouble making fun of and saying things that upset basically everyone (religion to LGBT), which is ironic considering the circumstances.
I didn't complain without a dog in the hunt, but I noticed those that did were implied to be monsters, and told that their mild disagreement "would not look good to history." Unfortunately a few years later I can say the opposite.
Well, Guido made his bed, now it's time to lie in it. ;-)
It's your contention that people getting up in arms about not changing the name of the 'master' branch specifically look good now, with hindsight? Can't say I agree.
Something substantial perhaps, say promoting under-represented folks within psf would be something. You can’t eat branch names.
Turns out it's a slippery slope, who would've thunk.
Ten years ago, Debian saw three well respected members of the Technical Committee resign — including two former project leaders, one of whom designed the .deb packaging system — during what I see as a similarly heated vote/counter-vote power struggle. This Python saga feels similar.
(I also don't think they should be allowed to cite things said 5 years ago as a reason to ban someone today. How could that still be relevant?)
As well as a straightforward way to report bureaucrats and have them removed from the community.
Based on the same process as other abuses that may already be included int the code of conduct.
When Codes of Conduct were first introduced, they sounded like a benign concept. But now it's becoming increasing clear that they're the Trojan horse that allows the inmates to take over the asylum.
Another overview (easy to understand, but some non-central information is inaccurate), https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5819317/nixos-commits-a-purg...
Concrete events & evidences, https://github.com/nrdxp/rfc-evidence/blob/master/rfc_eviden...
Probably has something to do with the codified formal structures necessary for various committees/ decision making groups.
But it's interesting. This kind of stuff happens in ECMA, Rust, Python and a few others. Go seems to have escaped. Maybe because it's a corporate owned Lang? Similarly no drama in the Typescript world.
There was a tremendous amount of frustration around the walrus operator, which led to him stepping down.
All three of those have declined. It's less readable than it used to be, it's definitely more complicated (not just complex, complicated), and the standard library is declining rapidly in relevance as it ages.
And it wasn't just Guido. Tim was a big advocate for all three of those super powers when he was more influential. They banned Tim and they censored Guido, so go figure.
[edit: I am somewhat surprised people want to down-vote a factual statement, which in part aligns to the OP who changed the title of the post since it was being wrongly inferred his posting rights had gone, not a single post was being hidden. As the saying goes "you do you"]
A more drastic analogy, this is like getting kicked out of your house by your kids. Altough I see that this one is flawed and exaggarated
Can we help in increasing understanding on why people have certain opinions in this topic?
Or do you kinda know why and are expressing a kind of disagreement and disapproval of holding the opinions?
However, I don’t think reflexive actions like what you’re suggesting will sway anybody who’s not already convinced, or really help in any other way. Disruptive demonstrations can occasionally work IRL when they can serve to convey a concern to people who wouldn’t otherwise notice it, or to assure like-minded people that they’re not alone. Online forums, by contrast, are both lacking in passersby and plentiful in tools for suppressing disruptions.
Furthermore, I don’t think you can really outpolitick a politician on this low a level. Well-motivated and well-publicized forks could work. General apathy and nonparticipation could work. Other ways of voting with your feet could also work, if you can think of one. But you can’t argue (collaborate on converging to the truth) with an opponent who’s completely convinced of their own rightness and righteousness, only debate them (attempt to expose each other’s faults to an audience). Debating a politician won’t work, because they’ll crush you. It’s a large part of what being a good politician is, after all.
Drama Driven Development is truly the paradigm of the last 5 years.
The benefits of a sovereign are that they limit the amount of privileges that can be extracted from an political system. Obviously monarchs have their downsides, but if people can just up and fork the project, those downsides are limited.
I have not paid attention in years, and with the acknowledgment that some of the contributors there were their own worst enemy and/or not without sin, but you should really poke around http://wikipediareview.com/ - to see just how untrue that often is.
(I'm talking confidential email lists, whose existence is not to be confirmed, IRC channels, brigading, and far worse).
Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.
Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.
The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.
As is often the case, there is usually more to the story and we would be better off learning what really happened instead of immediately jumping to conclusions and then blaming people based on those conclusions. Otherwise we look rather silly when it ends up that it was all just a mistake and we risk ruining a good thing by our rash judgements.
http://web.archive.org/web/20240829000336/https://discuss.py...
http://web.archive.org/web/20240829004501/https://discuss.py...
Additionally, corporate structure is typically much more hierarchical. If someone has a complaint they can take it up with Anders, if he disagrees that’s it (unless your name happens to be Scott G or Satya N). This is, by and large, a good and efficient way to structure things.
In short, the Go module proxy causes an excessive traffic volume on git VCS sources with frequent clones of unchanged repos. Regardless of whether or not the developer is/was always reasonable in how he discussed this, he was absolutely right about this being a hostile behavior from the official Go proxy that is the result of bad/insufficient engineering. The team's suggestions to simply stop refreshing his one domain were also not sufficient given that the problem clearly impacts all Go module VCS hosts.
The developer also appeared to be banned in a way that violated the Go CoC's own provisions around fair notice and a proper hearing, which is super disappointing to see.
There's that saying about the inverse correlation between impact of the project/the stakes, and people being drama lords.
I would expect there to be a class of admin in here that do not actually contribute code but have created positions of authority over the project based on "community contribution" only. There's a particular type of person that does this and derives great satisfaction from it. I'm not going to criticise this - often the "community contribution" is real and beneficial - but I don't think it helps when the focus of the team managing the project moves away from the purely technical.
[0] I'm sure it still happens, but I no longer witness it.
> Why do you want to stick your opinion into something that you hadn't previously known about? What are you going to positively contribute to the discussion that will move things forward? How does that help?
A prudent response, the revised ending of "The Emperor's New Clothes".
I was actually thinking of someone else: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34311643
He got kicked out, too.
Go to pycon and try to talk to him. He doesn't want to talk to just anyone. And he's not great at accepting feedback.
We love him, of course. But there are reasons maybe that the community of users should have a strong voice in where python goes as well.
Out of curiosity, since similar arguments come up fairly regularly: What is the appropriate time limit, do you think?
There are at least 2 forks that happened seemingly as a result of these disputes (Aux, as mentioned in the Reg article and Lix)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40166912
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40107370
Discussion on /r/NixOS
https://old.reddit.com/r/NixOS/comments/1ed5gbc/the_nixos_co...
Any rules of order or organizational structure could be formulated in say metamath as formal sentences and a UI built around it so that people can take steps and make decisions and prove they are entitled to do so.
a malicious actor should fail to be able to prove undeserved powers in a properly formulated formal system.
none of this censorship nonsense
Now these new folks seems to be failing at the only job they had. Maybe they need more time to mature, or maybe the Python Community should take a more decisive stance towards this kind of abuse of power.
Of course if he goes around directly and explicitly bashing all sorts of minorities or doxxes some other users or commits any other actual big nono, sure remove him.
This is not what happened. GvR was impolite at worst, and impolite your founder shall be allowed to be
A committee that was chosen by a community decided to remove a post. It looks like the removal was well within their authority. If the community disagrees with the committee, they can move discussion to another venue, elect a new committee, and so on, no?
None of this adversely affects the performance or reliability of software written in python.
It's mainly about the organisation. The people in charge have some a sequence of things that have increasingly alarmed people who care about the organisation of the project. More people are getting interested in what has happened with each step. This is one of the latest actions where even the key person who started Python has been impacted. This shows that the actions they were doing are important and worthy of attention as anyone who interacts within the organisation is within the reach of potential impact. No-one is untouchable. Outside though to the rest of us it's not directly impactful currently.
So then there is the impacts on wider things like software. As you say the community can just vote out the ones they dislike and vote in a new bunch. To me and many others, this sounds it should solve the situation. However I think some others see the problems as systemic, where the actions taken are a result of how the management organisation is structured and so the problems will occur again even if new people were in charge. If that's the case then more of a change might be demanded which could affect the software. (But in what ways is unclear)
On a HN scale, there's a wider sociological and cultural issue of how large open source software projects should be organised. And this is an example showing the problems of certain approaches especially as certain things were directly for reducing abuse and yet seem to be used in an abusive way. For many here on HN who are in various communities with similar structures, seeing what happens here is very important to them. There is a varying amount of personal investment in this story about the users own lives more than Python itself.
this is what i'd like to know more about. should they have this authority? especially to remove any posts in a non-transparent way? such a level of authority should be limited to removing obviously illegal or age-restricted content, but not the kind of message in question. and even then, it should require oversight from someone outside the committee, ideally people specifically trained for handling such messages.
Hiding Guido's comment I could see being controversial, but I also believe allowing relitigation or reinsertion of harmful drama in governance discussions as being disruptive. Hiding the comment wasn't punitive.
Also the project shouldn't go into freeze mode because a valuable contributor is doing time for a crime, such a practice would be super destructive to the project. It'd basically give filibuster power to any contributor of sufficient 'clout' to derail and delay any steering committee decisions indefinitely
Packaging and the 2.x to 3.x migration were both nightmares under his stewardship.
Keep in mind that the leaders of the PSF can be voted out, if so chosen by the community. And the community may have a different opinion on the election cycle and want to take python a different direction.
I've worked with gps and twouter before at Google; they were two of the leaders of the python ecosystem. twouter is a highly technically skilled contributor- when I found a 2 bugs in the Python runtime, he was the person who helped me fix them (bug 1: RPC calls from C++ to Python delivered during interpreter shutdown caused crash, bug 2: importing the same library twice with two different names caused crash) upstream.
gps apparently is a core contributor to cpython but I he did mainly administrative work afaict when I was at Google. From what I can tell, gps is the primary instigator in this incident.
Barry Warsaw: was lead maintainer of jython, I think also involved in the guts of cpython for some time.
Emily Morehouse: I hadn't heard of her before but it looks like she is a core python developer: https://emilyemorehouse.com/blog/015-my-path-to-becoming-a-p... who implemented some key PEPs.
Greg, Thomas, and Barry are all old guard (20+ years as core devs), Emily and Pablo are relatively more recent, but still have 5+ years as core devs and are I believe more actively doing python feature development. All of these folks have served on the steering council before, some for 3-4 years.
Guido has served on the SC before, but has been stepping back recently.
They are core developers elected by an internal process among the developers. See PEP 13 for details: https://peps.python.org/pep-0013/#the-steering-council
> I have no clue who these guys are and what their actual contributions are.
Barry Warsaw (https://barry.warsaw.us) is another of the "old guard" who can be pictured standing next to Peters and GvR fairly easily. He gained the title of "Friendly Language Uncle For Life" (FLUFL), and has previously been the project lead for Mailman and lead maintainer for Jython. He was the release manager for Python 2.2 (as far as I can tell, the first time this position existed), 2.6 and 3.0, and shared the role for 2.3. His name is all over 2.x-era process documentation. Prior to GvR's actual retirement in 2018, there was an April Fools' Day announcement of his resignation in 2009, authored by Barry Warsaw and Brett Cannon. This was accompanied by a hidden option (still available!) which changes the `!=` syntax to `<>`. Refs: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4007289/ ; https://peps.python.org/pep-0401/ .
Emily Morehouse (https://emilyemorehouse.com/) was the PyCon co-chair for 2019 and chair for 2020 and 2021. She has done project management for Axios and mentoring for PyLadies (https://discuss.python.org/t/steering-council-nomination-emi...).
Gregory P. Smith has been a core dev since about 2003 and has notably worked on `hashlib` and `subprocess` (https://discuss.python.org/t/steering-council-nomination-gre...).
Pablo Galindo Salgado (https://github.com/pablogsal) was the release manager for 3.10 and 3.11, and Thomas Wouters was/is the release manager for 3.12 and 3.13. Wouters has also previously served as a PSF Board member and was a PSF founder (https://www.python.org/nominations/elections/2020-python-sof...).
I find it much more readable, and more importantly more expressive. Certain new features are missteps IMO, but I just don't use them. But more importantly, the language has been moving away from cryptic %-encodings and other C idioms.
As for the standard library, that was already happening for a long time, and is inevitable. The world has fundamentally changed. In Python's heyday it was much harder to download and install and use a third-party library, so a rich standard library was an asset. Now it's full of specialized code that handles obscure and increasingly irrelevant data formats; multiple overlapping hacks for binary data; terrible and confusing date support; awkward interfaces that haven't stood the test of time (particularly all the networking stuff; Requests is one of the most downloaded PyPI packages, along with its dependencies which are probably almost never downloaded for any other reason); etc.
Lots of people still seem to think that the 2->3 migration was a mistake. They couldn't be more wrong. The old way of handling "strings" was abysmal, and spit in the face of the Zen. Error messages were confusing and implicit conversions abounded.
Also, just for the record: Guido van Rossum was in favour of the walrus operator. In fact, he co-authored the PEP (https://peps.python.org/pep-0572/), along with Tim Peters.
Type hints are a sore spot for me. They're good enough when you just don't remember whether an argument is an object or a string, for example, but once you start type hinting deep into data structures, your hints become a mangled soup of nonsense for basically no real benefit. Typing errors are a rare occurrence—perhaps once a year in most projects—yet we clutter our codebases with verbosity to satisfy type checkers instead of prioritizing clarity for developers.
There's a lot that's just straight up redundant. Dicts are ordered now, but is OrderedDict deprecated? No, because it's just slightly different in weird and mostly unimportant ways. `frozenset` is a builtin, for all 3 programmers worldwide who use it. Python resisted match/case syntax for decades, but when it finally arrived, it did so in a way that’s anything but standard—good luck figuring it out without consulting the documentation.
Obviously some improvements are real. Every new version of Python brings valuable enhancements. But just go back to Python as it used to be -- pseudocode that runs. That's just not true anymore. The simplicity has slipped away and will never ever come back.
And the standard library? A very real problem, right now, in computer security is the software supply chain. Remember polyfill from like, yesterday? This is the era when we should double down on having a million dependencies from all over GitHub, from unknown developers with no commitment, because ... npm's hellscape is a model to follow?
I would argue the contrary. There's dependency hell, of course, but there's also dependency risk. If you were evaluating a product right now, and you saw its lockfile depended only on a specific version of the Python Standard Library, that gives you exactly 1 product to evaluate, exactly 1 team of developers to depend on. pip is great and all, but dependency resolvers have quietly let in a hundred trojan horses and a thousand unmaintained dependencies into tons of projects, and no one noticed it was even happening.
Python in 2005, when everyone depended on the standard library, was a safer place than npm is today.
What's wrong with `=` debugging operator in f-strings?
I find the unpacking syntax elegant. There are yet more unrealized possible generalizations of it that I can think of.
> Type hints are a sore spot for me.... Python resisted match/case syntax for decades, but when it finally arrived, it did so in a way that’s anything but standard
Many people expect match/case to be "a switch statement" but it really is not designed for this purpose. I agree that it's an awkward fit and I don't use it. Similarly, I only use type annotations for documentation purposes.
> Dicts are ordered now, but is OrderedDict deprecated? No, because it's just slightly different in weird and mostly unimportant ways.
Large amounts of existing code are dependent on those ways, because the code was written to use that design. The ordering of dicts since 3.6 is an accidental consequence of an unrelated space optimization. In my view, the team erred by deciding in 3.7 to guarantee that ordering. I have concretely identified a further space optimization which is prevented as a result.
> Python in 2005, when everyone depended on the standard library, was a safer place than npm is today.
The flip side of dependency risk is security risk from lack of maintenance. For example, the standard library `json` module is a frozen-in-time old version of `simplejson` (it even remembers a useless version number). That project is still actively maintained (https://github.com/simplejson/simplejson) but none of those improvements - even if they fix security - will make it into Python except by parallel work by the core dev team. (Or accepting a patch; but that also requires either the maintainer or a third party to notice that a recent `simplejson` change is a security fix, figure out how to backport it to the much older version, and make a PR.)
There are other ways to solve the problem. For example, an organization similar to PyPA could publish a set of "core" libraries, versioned independently from Python but explicitly tested as part of the CPython release process. (That would also allow for fixing the problem that the standard library isn't namespaced - which is at the root of the problem whereby beginners e.g. put their toy lottery project in `random.py` and get an error from a circular import, or - I swear I'm not making this up - having a `token.py` in the current working directory breaks the interactive REPL help - see https://stackoverflow.com/a/75068706).
So, yes, it would be nice to see lockfiles that "depend only on a specific version of the Python Standard Library". Right now, that dependency goes undeclared, and the maintenance work is distributed among people who are also busy with developing the actual language.
Not saying Python is going away tomorrow, in fact it might remain actively developed and used for decades to come. But with proactive thought, improvement and initiative gone. Competition will replace you in time. That's just how it works.
https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3120/
Under "And now for something completely different"
I don't expect any positive changes if said Work Group becomes directly responsible for such disciplinary actions.
Unintenti**l irony
Sayre's Law, effectively, the smaller the stakes the bigger the fights/politics.
See also: HOAs, academia.
For example, here's GNOME the desktop being concerned about climate change:
https://discourse.gnome.org/t/question-to-candidates-the-boa...