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

Re: Moderation

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Craig A. Berry
Date:
February 11, 2018 17:19
Subject:
Re: Moderation
Message ID:
CA+vYcVwV9re-r5iP6BLnkSz47-SJ3Ht3rNXmhTbqMezVARBzQg@mail.gmail.com
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 7:13 AM, Andreas Koenig
<andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 16:12:36 -0600, "Craig A. Berry" <craig.a.berry@gmail.com> 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
>   > assume
>
> 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.

So far my assumptions have turned out to be correct based on
information provided in this thread by people directly involved.

> 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.

I have to disagree.  I don't believe that people should be treated
like code that needs to be debugged.  If they don't respond instantly,
we shouldn't assume there is something fundamentally wrong with them.
If they don't give the response we want or expect, we shouldn't try to
tear them apart and replace them. We should expect ethical and
competent leadership, of course, and are right to complain when it
isn't happening, or even when we observe innocent mistakes that cause
trouble for others.  The latter has already been done to the hilt in
this case.

>   > Bans are publicly announced on list.
>
> Why are you so sure that they are?

Because that's the policy and I have no reason to impugn the integrity
of the people implementing it.  Even though you and I are having a
disagreement, I don't expect that you'll delete my PAUSE account or
inject nefarious code into distributions to which I've contributed.
That would not serve anyone's interest and it would be paranoid of me
to expect it.  Why would you expect the equivalent, i.e., that the
pumpking, the moderators, and the Perl NOC folks are so ethically
challenged that they would conspire to ban people secretly?  That
seems incredibly implausible, not to mention being a secret that
wouldn't stay secret very long.

>   > 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.

I don't see how it could be otherwise.  Everything else related to
core development is done by informal consultation and consensus where
possible and pumpking ruling where not.

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