Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2018
From: Andreas Koenig
February 11, 2018 12:46
Message ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:12:19 +0200, Sawyer X <email@example.com> said:
Top-posting is badly suited for multi-context-postings like the one this
Recommended reading: "Choosing the proper posting style" in
> 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.
You already recused but now answer nonetheless. And repeat what was
already public before the questions were asked. It makes the thread
longer, not stronger. And poses more questions than it answers.
> 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
Who was talking of a mass conspiracy?
> 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.)
The fact that we have no meeting minutes leaves it open whether the
group has heard advice from other experienced moderators from outside or
from other members of the community. It leaves it open whether they were
informed about the other issues I asked about in my posting
In this context it may have been wrong to even perform a vote about such
> 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
> fix that.)
Fair enough. It just so happened, that *while I was waiting* for an
answer to *one* question, I discovered that 17 more questions were open.
That's circa one additional question per day of waiting, not out of
proportion. I think after 16 days of waiting it is appropriate to send a
"ping" and why should I hold back my questions?
> So, short story: Mistake happened (publicly), mistake fixed (publicly),
> apology issued (publicly).
Top posting also tends to lead to more repetition.
> 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.
The questions are mine. Would you answer differently when somebody else
was asking? Who has to ask for that matter?
> 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.
Recuse, unrecuse, repeat.
I'm deeply grateful that two moderators and former pumpkings are
stepping in and illustrate how a carefully crafted argumentation could
sound in an off-putting environment.
> 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.
I'm concerned and deeply worried about your erratic argumentation. One
either recuses or stays in the loop. Both at a time is usually not