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

Re: Moderation

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Sawyer X
Date:
February 11, 2018 08:05
Subject:
Re: Moderation
Message ID:
a0f202ed-d285-383b-c0fd-cbf9b13ccde3@gmail.com
[Top-posted]

This echoes my understanding and sentiments.

A point I think should be made here: Determining the line at which
someone is banned or not banned cannot be a collective decision beyond
the moderation team for two main reasons: 1. It would take far too long
to get everyone's opinion and position (one of the questions here even
dealt directly with "why did it take this long to fix?") and 2. Far
worse, some people are simply perfectly fine with abuse of others. For
example, there are people who are completely fine with Marc's behavior
and see no reason to not provide him with a stage. These people would
not prevent abuse, they would normalize it - the opposite of the purpose
of rules of conduct.

The moderators should be a group of people who are interested in the
safety of p5p and the ability to have conversations without resulting to
insults and alienation. Such decisions cannot be rendered by people who
are perfectly fine with bullying.

I find it silly (to say the least) that this needs to be explained, but
here we are, so: Any committee to prevent abuse (of any form) *cannot* -
by any ethical measure - be composed by anyone who supports abusive
behavior. This is like the Standard of Conduct committee at a conference
be inhabited by people who support sexual assault. Sure, it makes *them*
feel better, but it doesn't serve the attendees, which is the point of
it. If an attendee demands that an assaulter be allowed, this is someone
who is not serving the community, only themselves and their friend who
assaults others.

On 02/11/2018 07:27 AM, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> 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,
>

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