Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2018
From: Sawyer X
February 11, 2018 13:49
Message ID: email@example.com
On 02/11/2018 02:46 PM, Andreas Koenig wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:12:19 +0200, Sawyer X <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> > [Top-posting]
> Top-posting is badly suited for multi-context-postings like the one this
> replied to.
> Recommended reading: "Choosing the proper posting style" in
Thank you for the helpful link.
> > 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.
Recusing does not mean I cannot share my thoughts or tell you what
happened. Recusing means I cannot make a decision or be a direct side.
For example, recusing myself when someone violates the conduct policy
with an email towards me means I cannot issue a warning as a moderator
or judge it as a violation.
I would have patronizingly pasted a link on the difference but I don't
think this kind of behavior is helpful.
> And repeat what was
> already public before the questions were asked.
If these were clear, you might not have written your email or the way
you did. (Though I could be wrong.)
> 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
> > committee.
> 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
> a change.
I think your answer has nothing to do with my response. Your original
question (to which you "Ping?"'ed) was wanting to know who voted for it.
The answer is a resounding "Everyone." Would you like to have a row in
which each person raises their hand and says "I supported this"?
> > 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?
I think you fail to see how your emails come across, despite efforts
from others to explain it. (Fair warnings: this is repeated below.)
Broadly speaking, you are absolutely correct that it is fine to ask as
many questions as you want. It is also fine to ping, even at the
time-frame you did. However, your emails do not give that sense. They
give a sense of an interrogation. Notice responses others gave you. I
think you are unaware of how you are coming across.
> > 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?
I'm sorry. I misread a sentence in your email.
> > 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.
Thank you, Andreas, but I feel like I must repeat myself again here:
Recuse means I cannot make any determination at any professional level
as a moderator. I am simply telling you what I think as a person. You
may freely ignore it.
The term "recusal" refers to judges and juries who cannot preside or
determine a case because of involvement. A person who cannot serve as
jury may still provide their thoughts as people. It doesn't mean they
are not allowed to speak anymore - or write emails to p5p. :)
> 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.
"Carefully crafted" is an interesting term to be used here. I believe
your arguments and emails are carefully crafted. However, I don't
believe they convey what you wish to convey. And unfortunately, I don't
think you see it either.
> > 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
This is not what recusal means. See above.