[python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution

[Georg Brandl]

On 01/01/2013 11:13 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Brian Curtin <brian at python.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Ezio Melotti <ezio.melotti at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote:
>>>> On 01/01/2013 05:54 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>     I say Ezio lets him know that this is the plan since he talked to him
>>>>>     recently and is in the no-ban-yet camp.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yesterday I talked to him, informed him about the probation and showed him this
>>>>> message.  I hope this is official enough.
>>>>
>>>> So, what was the reaction?  That is the important thing to know...
>>>>
>>>
>>> He acknowledged the fact, but I think he had already understood the
>>> issue from our previous conversation.
>>
>> ...and?
>>
>> Does he care about what was said? Is he going to do anything about his
>> actions?
> 
> He does, and he is already trying to improve.  We already discussed
> about the issue  and how to solve it in our previous conversation (see
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2012-December/002307.html),
> so informing him about the probation only served to let him know the
> specific punishment(s) he might face.

Good, sounds like we did all we can now.

>> The fact that this discussion sidetracked into contributor
>> agreements is not a good sign to me. He should have just said those
>> things himself to the PSF's legal counsel, not in response to an email
>> about his behavior...
> 
> I'm doing this via chat (I think it's better/more effective than
> emails), so sidetracking is not so unexpected (we even ended up
> discussing things that are completely unrelated after we clarified the
> important points).  The discussion about the CLA started because he
> said that some of the "accusations" in the thread are not true -- in
> particular that "He flat-out refuses to sign any contributor
> agreement".  I asked him why he hasn't signed it and if there was any
> problem with the contributor agreement, and so he replied.

I still don't understand the CA issue: either he sent one some months back,
and it got lost: then he can re-submit it.  Or he thinks there is something
wrong with it and it shouldn't be signed: then why did he do so in the first
place (and frankly, why did nobody else (among them big corporations) find a
cause for concern)?

cheers,
Georg