What sort of goobledygood is this?

> The "burden of proof" falls on those making the accusations, not the accused,

In general I agree with this. As I stated though, I think they've passed that bar here. We seem to disagree on that.

I was also talking about *this* comments section in particular. A lot of it goes from "I don't agree with the SC" to calling the SC "unreasonable" and generally impugning them well beyond just judging this decision. In my analysis there's a big difference between thinking the SC failed to make their case and thinking its unbelievable that they'd even bring it. I have no evidence that it's *impossible* for Tim Peters to do wrong, even if he generally does right, so the SC doesn't need to prove to me the mere possibility that such a person could ever be causing problems on the forum.

There isn't much burden of proof when it comes to opinions in general, but I don't feel like that's a standard anybody is holding themselves to here -- myself included. I *believe* the SC is right because the evidence is convincing enough to me. I'm not certain if it's truly enough to count as a "preponderance of evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" in any formal sense. Luckily this about membership in a social group rather than anything so serious as civil penalties or imprisonment.

> due to the massive difference in the relative balance of power between the parties.

Now this is interesting, because I think you're saying that the Steering Committee has substantially more power here. Taking a quick browse of the number of people defending Peters and the number of people that are posting that they're leaving because they want to follow Peters seems to imply otherwise. Tim Peters first response to the call for him to be more inclusive opens with him enumerating his prestige and eminence within the python community. I think that we're even here debating this is evidence of the balance of power being far in Tim's favor.

This situation I think is *why* so many FOSS communities feel afraid to call out important people when they misbehave. Rather than being a chance for Tim Peters and the SC to come to an accord on more inclusive language it's turned into a fight which will likely result in deep rifts. Most communities simply choose that first group that loudly supports the important person rather than the other group that the important person runs off because it'll be quieter and simpler. This fundamentally how so many people are excluded in a way that lots of participants don't even realize they're doing.

>> Peters personally representing 26% of the total conversation is a massive red flag.

> Okay, he's guilty of "participating too much", whatever that means.

> For a couple of years, I've been consistently the top "speaker" in a couple of IRC channels for a project I help maintain, and end up weighing in on nearly everything else (mailing lists, forums) at some point or another. Is this a massive red flag too? Or do I (and perhaps Peters) have a vested interest in the goings on?

I don't know you personally, so please don't take offense to this: You should absolutely be reviewed both by others and yourself to make sure your volume of participation is actually a net positive contribution.

I mentioned this earlier, but I want to bring back up the "your problem players are [often] also your most active and involved players." Having a vested, positive interest in a group *does not* guarantee that your style of engaging with it isn't detrimental in some ways. Peters could genuinely be trying to do the best for the python community. It does not require *intent* to harm in order to harm another. If it ever seemed like I was accusing Peters of having anything other than Python's best interest at heart, I apologize, because I don't actually think that. It's just not a requisite for being in the wrong.