Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2018
From: Kent Fredric
February 10, 2018 04:09
Message ID: CAATnKFAs9Tm+w75z-k0xJ758KQzZFfzMjG0LNee4hegx4dk-2A@mail.gmail.com
On 10 February 2018 at 10:48, demerphq <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 9 February 2018 at 21:23, Leon Timmermans <email@example.com> wrote:
>> 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".
> To me it is a bunch of leading and accusatory questions, impolitely
> framed, some of which are no better than "When did you stop beating
> your wife?".
> I can think of 500 ways to ask the same questions without sounding
> like an episode of Supreme Court.
> Sawyer and the moderators do a thankless task and they deserve better than that.
> FWIW, I am well aware that Andreas also does a thankless task, and
> fully respect him as a long term major contributor in our community.
> I just do not feel like anyone has the right to demand such answers
> from the Pumpking or Moderators.
> Just as I feel no-one would have the right to demand such answers from
> him if he had to make a difficult and socially contentious decision
> about PAUSE.
Can we stop with the masturbatory meta-discussion as to whether or not
we have a right to ask questions of our moderators, or whether or not
we deserve answers, and instead get some of the questions answered,
and those which we're not gonna get answers to, have responded to with
a simple statement that the given question won't be answered?
As it is, this is just looking incredibly orwellian.
"How dare you challenge your political leaders, they try very hard and
are very busy".
Given the defacto authority they're given and the responsibility
entailed, it should be more a question of whether or not they have the
right to dodge questions, not a question of whether or not we have the
right to ask questions.
Sure, they don't get paid for this, but that's immaterial: They signed
up for this, and there's not really a higher ring of "hiring and
firing" that gets involved when people don't want to do some part of
Pay or not, having to answer questions about what you do seems like
part of the job description.
And its not like there's somebody holding a gun to their head and
demanding *immediate* answers, and its not like there is a *single*
person running moderation.
Any answers, eventually, would be nice.
Authoritarian power-play not required.
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL