Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2018
From: Leon Timmermans
February 9, 2018 20:23
Message ID: CAHhgV8h95vyb213O+NDeznc1upbBtm0aqTCxk9n87xLfQ2wEow@mail.gmail.com
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:32 AM, demerphq <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I don't think you have the right to expect answers to questions framed
> this way. Who appointed you special prosecutor?
A prosecutor implies an accusation, and I don't think he does that.
Most of these questions are essentially a call for transparency around
the moderation process. Above all I would read this as "I'm
concerned"; and quite frankly the answer I would hope for is an
empathic dialogue. Because the implicit hope behind "I'm concerned" is
"I hope you can reassure me".
> And honestly I feel like this is just stirring up controversy for no reason.
Asking how the sausage is made should not be controversial, and if it
is it should probably be pulled out of the supermarket.
> If you have issues with the moderation policy you should mail the
> Pumpking privately and address your concerns.
While there are sometimes reasons why a discussion needs to be in
private (in particular when it's about people), I don't see how that
is generally helpful in the case of policy.
> 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.
To quote that same document: «Larry sees Perl development along the
lines of the US government: there's the Legislature (the porters), the
Executive branch (the -pumpking), and the Supreme Court (Larry).»
The executive has every right to make their various decisions, but I
would hope the legislature has the right to discuss them still.
I also note the Supreme Court is vacant :-/.
> 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.
To quote perlpolicy again «Mostly, however, the legislature and the
executive branch are supposed to get along and work out their
differences without impeachment or court cases.»
Quite frankly the sort of approach you propose sounds entirely
dysfunctional to me: "I don't understand what you did, can you explain
to me how you came to this decision" and "this makes me uncomfortable,
can you please take that into account" are both reasonable issues that
can be resolved through dialogue. Going for the nuclear option should
be the last resort, not the first.
> 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.
I don't think we have ever been that kind of top-down organization,
and I think that line of thinking is exactly what Andreas is concerned
> 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.
They could. They didn't.