[agf]

I understand that reaction, I feel it too. But what is the alternative? Sharing details of an assault?

Note that in Tim's response at the bottom of the article, he says clearly he believes the board that the details can't be shared and that they are serious.

[Brian_K_White]

It's not a feeling. There is simply no way for that to ever be valid, and no one should ever aceept it.

As others have said, 3rd party that somehow has established trust, who has no incentive to favor either of the first parties and an incentive to never once have their own integrity questioned.

[infamia]

An unbiased, third-party should have been brought in to investigate, considering the players and the consequences of getting it wrong.

[zahlman]

That's the thing, though. As far as I can tell, per the Steering Council's and PSF's reasoning, they did exactly that. There's a separate Steering Council, CoC Work Group, and PSF Board of Directors for a reason - and also a separate team of moderators for the Discourse forum.

Never mind that pairs of these groups may have multiple members in common and that they may act upon each others' "recommendations". Never mind that Mr. Peters is also suspended from the forum for the same period (which is nominally a completely separate action) and there was no separate announcement of this.

Aside from that, keep in mind that one of the supposed charges is "defending reverse racism/sexism" - by which they don't mean defending the act of engaging in racism against white people or sexism against men, but rather defending the use of those concepts. Never mind that Mr. Peters didn't write those terms; the closest he got to the subject was to point out that he's been in environments where e.g. the idea of racism against white people is not considered legitimate.

By the way, there is nothing actually written in the Code of Conduct (see https://policies.python.org/python.org/code-of-conduct/ ) which prohibits such a political view. The closest it gets is in the completely separate "enforcement policy" document, which says that claims of having been thus discriminated against should be considered as inherently bad-faith.

In short: the Work Group, on all available evidence, objects to the idea that e.g. discrimination against men occurs and ought to be labelled as sexism; and in fact objects so strongly as to imagine that expressing such an opinion is inherently objectionable. When one party reasons like this, what "unbiased third party" could possibly be deemed acceptable?