Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2018
From: Sawyer X
February 10, 2018 08:12
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
Here's what happened so far:
* A person who repeatedly abused people on the list was banned, publicly.
* A mistake was made on reinstating him.
* It was corrected, publicly.
* An apology was issued, publicly.
No amount of interrogation is going to uncover some mass conspiracy of
what otherwise was easily explained as an honest mistake by people who
volunteer for a job that involves literally just the abuse of the
community - I mean, that's really the job description for anyone in the
Regarding your single question on whether the entire committee approved
the change (which, just for your edification, I didn't request - but
supported), the short answer is "YES." (I hope that was clear.)
However, the person who requested to answer you and the list on this has
moved countries, so they were quite busy and it slipped their mind. It
happens. If we were to assume good intentions, this would not turn into
an interrogation attempt and you would have received an answer as soon
as they settled with their family. (Fun fact: Two members of the
committee were moving recently, so even less bus factor. We're going to
So, short story: Mistake happened (publicly), mistake fixed (publicly),
apology issued (publicly). If this anonymous person who is repeatedly
asking you to receive every fine little detail of this "debacle" has a
problem with it, they're more than welcome to come forward. However, I
will give you my personal opinion (especially since I'm recursing myself
from this, as I've stated before) on this: Not every question deserves
an answer. Just because a person asks, does not entitle them to a
detailed answer.. It is sometimes fine to say "This is what we did. This
is why. That's it." No one is owes anyone endless questions and answers,
no matter how much they *think* they are entitled to it.
But hey, that's super easy for me to say, because I'm the one who just
said "Yes, this was a mistake. And yes, I agree with this change to the
policy. And yes, I personally would be happy if we could move on from
this." You're free to inquire the committee as to who suggested each
change to the policy, but the moderators work as a group and the
decision was made as a group once someone suggested it. I'm sorry you
have a hard time accepting it, but that won't make it not have happened.
On 02/09/2018 08:18 AM, Andreas Koenig 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 <email@example.com> 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
> moderators alone?
> 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.
> Take care,