Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2018
Your insistent that this has something to do with moderation is misguided, Leon. I cannot stress this enough. To wit: One of the most compelling attempts to revert this was yours, which was strongly worded but not offensive. You did not attempt to humiliate or disrespect anyone. While it was strong, it was not uncivil, just passionate. On the other hand, the email that was unapologetically abusive side-lined us into handling policy on "Please be civil." Civility is not an inhibition to discussing the topic. Your civility allowed your comments to shine and take effect. Please avoid confusing moderation and basic civility with design process and communication on technical details. Moderation enforced civility which allows better communication. It doesn't mean we will do things right but it will be far less wrong if we were to have bad communication and abuse which reduces communication even more. Now having said this, your comments were not the only important comments. The first reason that I realized we should revert was Slaven explaining he simply cannot continue to smoke blead. So, yes, p5p actually did achieve realizing the breakage here was exaggerated. It was not as broken as you claim. On 01/01/2018 03:33 PM, Leon Timmermans wrote: > On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Father Chrysostomos <sprout@cpan.org> wrote: >> Some seem to be treating this situation as a >> disaster that could have been avoided, not realising that the disaster >> *was* avoided, *precisely* because of the process we currently have, >> which is working. Nothing has been dumped on users in a stable >> release yet. I would call that success. > It is not a success at all for me personally. > > I meant it quite literally when I said "and no one on the list who was > online that week protested too much". In my experience, the de facto > process (both sides of it) often has more to do with being always > present and being loud (in that order) than a rational decision making > process. I firmly believe this process creates a toxic working > environment (even when clearly no one has that intention). That is why > I'm so offended by the way we've been working, and why I compared it > to the need for moderation. That's why my unsuccessful non-loud > attempt at preventing this dynamic before it happened this makes it so > bitter. > > If participating in all that is success, I don't want to get to know failure. > > LeonThread Previous | Thread Next