Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2018
From: Andreas Koenig
February 11, 2018 13:14
Message ID: email@example.com
>>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 16:12:36 -0600, "Craig A. Berry" <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Andreas Koenig
> <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> wrote:
> <big snip>
>> 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?
> <big snip>
> What "system"? You talk as if there were some big infrastructure
> built specifically to handle the moderation policy and implement bans.
> I am not a moderator so I don't really know the details, but I
Excuse me for interrupting you right here. Because both you and me have
no idea how it works, the question should be asked, which I did.
Assuming is not good enough. It's like with bugs in my code. You should
not trust code, you should make sure it is documented, reliable, and
does what it i supposed to do.
> the pumpking has to bug the perl.org mailing list admins to do
> something to implement the ban, and then has to remember to bug them
> again when it's time to lift the ban, and these people have to set
> aside what they are getting paid for and their more pleasant volunteer
> activities to do this. Verbally assaulting the person whose memory
> one is depending on to get one's ban lifted may not be the best way to
> ensure that it happens on time. And of course nothing prevents the
> banned person from writing a polite reminder to the moderators when
> the ban is supposed to be up; if it included an apology for past
> behavior and an expression of intent to play by the rules going
> forward, there's no telling how much good will might erupt.
Full disclosure: the polite way has been attempted in private. I have
offered Sawyer that we can publish our discourse and I repeat this offer
again. I did not receive answers after 10 days of attempting to in
private. I realize I should have disclosed this effort in my previous
posting. I'm sorry I missed that opportunity.
>> 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.
> Bans are publicly announced on list.
Why are you so sure that they are? I have asked for a list of links to
the postings that publicly announced bans and I did not get it.
> The moderation policy is publicly documented.
And rules are changed ex cathedra.
> The names of the moderators are publicly documented.
And changed ex cathedra es well.
> The rationale for recent changes was publicly documented in the
> commit message. Does it really matter whether the moderators voted
> on the changes or just kept revising it until it was unanimous? It
> seems so obviously sensible to me that I'd assume it was the latter,
> but I can't imagine why I would care.
Because you don't care. Fine by me, but I do care. I think you should
care too. Everybody should care. This is or at least was our community
we founded 24 years ago with much enthusiasm.
> I just don't see there is anything that needs to be "dealt with" and
> most of these questions sound, as Yves said, accusatory.
I apologize for sounding accusatory without giving enough context. I
should have made clear that there was a private prelude. Otherwise I
would not have come to 18 questions.