You implicitly claim (in a snarky way) that the actions taken against Mr. Peters were justified. So yes, it absolutely is your job, if you intend for others to take you seriously (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=burden+of+proof+philosophy).
> You're welcome to draw your own conclusions from the public record as I have.
I have. They oppose yours.
> The Foundation laid it out pretty clearly when they suspended him
No, they absolutely did not. The claims made by the Code of Conduct Work Group did not stand up to even basic scrutiny. I have already cited that link repeatedly within the thread, and contrasted it with Mr. Peters' analysis (https://tim-one.github.io/psf/crimes.html).
To take just one example, as an objective matter of fact, not only did he not "use" the "potentially offensive language or slurs" referred to, he did not even write them out. (Also, I disagree that the word in question is a "slur".) He also as an objective matter of fact did not claim that the skit was funny, but rather that SNL generally was funny in that time period. And even that claim had a clear ironic meaning; the underlying point was that social norms change over time, which was relevant to the discussion.
There is simply no way that any reasonable person who is paying attention could come to the conclusion that this was somehow endorsing the use of such language. The only reasonable underlying logic I can fathom for the objection is "when discussing an incident where someone used a naughty word, thou shalt not provide information that might assist the reader in figuring out what word it was". But I can't fathom a good moral reason for that, nor can I fathom a reading of the Code of Conduct which actually supports that.
I can make similar arguments about every single point on the list. The findings were utterly absurd, and the action unjust.
For that matter, in private discussion (as well as from some of what is said on the above-linked site) I have determined that Mr. Peters is in fact far more sympathetic to the social views of the Code of Conduct Work Group than I am. (I consider a large part of their expressed worldview to be frankly unjust and bigoted.)
They won't listen to you anyway and everything will be dismissed. I remember when zahlman first came to HN, they always participate in threads adjacent to cultural wars and specifically around Python community. Like, religiously so.
> I remember when zahlman first came to HN, they always participate in threads adjacent to cultural wars and specifically around Python community. Like, religiously so.
I came here because I learned that an incident that I was personally connected to (which also happens to relate to this very thread) was being discussed: i.e., the 3-month suspension of Tim Peters.
These topics are only "adjacent to culture wars" insofar as the enactment of the ban could only possibly be explained by culture-war beliefs of those doing the banning. This clearly led them to make many objectively false statements. In particular, they claimed that he had "used" offensive language that he didn't even write out; and suggested that he was defending the use of such language (by "finding it genuinely funny") when he was in fact agreeing that it should not be used, in the middle of citing a previous moderation action where he agreed that it should not be used. (In doing so, they misrepresented the antecedent of "finding it genuinely funny".)
I "religiously" look for discussion of Python and participate in it. The most popular threads, and thus the ones you are most likely to see, are often ones that involve a culture-war angle; such is the nature of Internet discourse. I'm not going to shy away from that discussion when it concerns Python, because I really like Python and I want to see it flourish; and I consider that actions such as the unjust suspension of Mr. Peters interfere with that.
> They won't listen to you anyway and everything will be dismissed.
This is false and hurtful, and you reasonably ought to know so from your own claimed first-hand experience. Like, the above is not at all a long response by my standards. Replying like this takes effort and careful consideration of what people are saying.
