develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2018

Re: Moderation

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Andy Dougherty
Date:
February 11, 2018 06:11
Subject:
Re: Moderation
Message ID:
20180211052736.k3cmu5ujgbcew5av@dendrite.phys.lafayette.edu
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 07:18:59AM +0100, 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 <arc@cpan.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?
> 
> Ping?

I am one of the moderators, but only speaking for myself here.

I'm sorry you didn't get a response sooner.  The moderators did indeed
discuss those changes and they were agreed upon and supported by the
group.

> That being out of the way, here they are:

[questions 1-3 and 5-12 about details of past moderation process]

Since moderation is, thankfully, rarely needed or used, there is
no complicated formal apparatus or structure.  The moderators simply
consult and seek to arrive at consensus.  In this case, the mistakes
made removing a ban were just that--simple honest mistakes.  I don't
know that there's much more useful I can say.

[questions 15-17 about whether the revised policy is wise]

The basic goal of fostering civility is, I hope, not controversial.
The rationale is explained in the commit message:

    Our rationale is that temporary bans are for the offender: to give
    them the opportunity to change their behaviour in a way that aligns
    with our community expectations. However, if the person in question
    fails to take advantage of that opportunity, our focus must shift
    to the community: we aim to protect other list members from having
    to bear the burden of unacceptable behaviour.

One main issue here seems to be how long a ban should be after the
*fourth* instance.  Changing it from 6 months to indefinite (which
can be lifted whenever the relevant party agrees to try to be civil)
does not seem a particularly drastic or authoritarian change to me.
I would agree that there can be reasonable disagreement about the best
length in such cases, and public, civil, discussion on the mailing list
about it is appropriate.

[questions 4, 13-14, and 18 about the appropriate place of moderators
within the community ]

I am not aware of extensive discussions along these lines, so I will not
try to invent any policy here.  My personal opinion is that moderators
have a primary responsibility to the broader perl5 community, and
should try to take direction from that broader community.  Of course
perl5-porters does not always speak with a single voice, so considerable
judgment is required.

Again, I am just speaking for myself here, and I know this doesn't
explicitly answer all the questions various people have raised, but I
hope some readers find it at least somewhat helpful.

Thanks for reading this far,

-- 
    Andy Dougherty		doughera@lafayette.edu

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About