Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2018
From: Andreas Koenig
February 9, 2018 06:19
Message ID: email@example.com
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:14:22 +0100, Andreas Koenig <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> said:
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:42:54 +0000, Aaron Crane <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> My fellow list members,
>> Please note that, as of commit
>> ef7498d2b69936a5c6476ecf1950066f638b2dac, the section of perlpolicy
>> relating to the standards of conduct has been updated.
> So how did the voting process go? I suppose there was one, and the
> voting moderators are not shy to stand to their decisions, right?
I have asked some more questions to some members of the community and
have received the feedback that they are worth being asked. And I was
told that I should provide some insights about how we could move forward
from here. I believe the questions themselves partially contain hints
about a way forward. It all depends on the reaction of the rest of the
community to determine which ways are reachable.
Before I present the questions, I ask the moderators for obvious reasons
to suspend moderation completely for the duration of this investigation.
That being out of the way, here they are:
1. was the whole group of moderators informed about the state of
the incident with Marc Lehmann's ban?
2. was the whole group of moderators informed about the mail from
former pumpkin Ricardo in which he said that he believes it was an
accident and apologizes and is sure that this will be fixed quickly?
3. was the whole group of moderators informed why the issue was not
fixed quickly but was dragged on and on for over three weeks?
4. since it was a pumpking who instigated the moderation team, do the
moderators believe they should report to the pumpking or to
perl5-porters? Or to nobody at all?
5. what was the reason why it took so long to apologize and fix the ban
6. which moderators have access to the system that handles bans?
7. who has access to the logs of the system?
8. who has investigated, how the ban against Marc Lehmann was entered
into the system? When and for how long was it entered by whom?
9. have the other moderators been informed about the findings?
10. which safeguards have been considered and/or implemented to prevent
that such accidents will not repeat?
11. when did the discussion about the changes to the moderation rules
that lead to commit v5.27.8-10-gef7498d2b6 take place, who
participated, who voted how?
12. where are the meeting minutes?
13. did anybody of the participants in the discussion come to the idea
that changes to the rules would have to be discussed with and
decided by the people on perl5-porters themselves and not by the
14. how do the moderators think about the idea that they might have to
obey rules set up by the members of the community, not by
15. did nobody in the moderation team realize that the new rules might
be perceived as authoritarian?
16. did nobody in the moderation team realize that the new rules might
be perceived as: perl, the superglue of the internet now glueing the
cylinder lock to lock members out forever?
17. who had the idea that the maximum penalty we have to have on
perl5-porters needs to be indefinite? How long is indefinite
compared to the age of the community? Compared to longest reign of a
pumpking? Compared to the longest grant paid out by the perl
18. would you agree that the border between acceptable and unacceptable
behaviour is not cast in stone and for this reason the moderation
team might decide wrongly, at least occasionally? Which part of the
moderation system would automatically correct such potentially wrong
While it may sound ungrateful when I present such a shitload of
questions, I'd like to let you know that I'd rather not have had to go
into this endavour. But it's not about my personal inclination when I
set up this catalogue. I hear the questions and I have to spell them out
because apparently nobody else does, while still they actually are
awaiting to be dealt with.