Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2018
From: Sawyer X
February 9, 2018 17:51
Message ID: email@example.com
On 02/09/2018 11:32 AM, demerphq wrote:
> On 9 February 2018 at 07:18, Andreas Koenig
> <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
> I don't think you have the right to expect answers to questions framed
> this way. Who appointed you special prosecutor?
> And honestly I feel like this is just stirring up controversy for no reason.
> If you have issues with the moderation policy you should mail the
> Pumpking privately and address your concerns.
> But you have to accept that his word is final.
> Under the rules of our community the Pumpking is always right, and the
> Pumpking can change his mind. This is not new. See rule 1 and rule 2
> in perlpolicy.
> The only other option is propose a vote of no-confidence in the
> Pumpking, or request that one of the voters does so. If asked in the
> interest of fairness I would make the proposal, even though I would
> *vehemently* vote and lobby against it.
> But I don't see how rule 1 or rule 2 allow a right to interrogate the
> Pumpking or his appointed representatives about the decisions they
> have made to keep our community functioning.
> You have a right to politely ask them to explain things, and they have
> a right to politely refuse to explain. But that seems about it.
While it's easier to throw this at me, I should note that I act here not
as pumpking but member of the moderation team. In fact, in this
particular case (as well as the recent incidents) I have taken three
steps back to avoid any conflict of interest. Since the majority of
abuse was towards me (on the list and off the list), I shouldn't be the
one acting as the moderator on it.
The discussions and decisions about this topic (and others) included the
entire moderation team. I'll let the other moderators field the list of
questions since I would still prefer to avoid conflict as much as possible.