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

Re: Moderation

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Andreas Koenig
Date:
February 12, 2018 20:07
Subject:
Re: Moderation
Message ID:
87y3jynfak.fsf@k85.linux.bogus
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 11:19:23 -0600, "Craig A. Berry" <craig.a.berry@gmail.com> said:

  > 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.

Thank you for offering a comparison! If it helps anything, please read
the real story with your PAUSE analogy.

Some day you discover a file in your PAUSE directory that has nefarious
code in it. You tell the pause admins that the file is wrong and you did
not put it there. After a few weeks they restore the original file and
tell you they are sorry. You probably would ask them privately and
politely how it came about that this file was there. You would not get a
satisficing answer. Instead you would get a posting from them that they
change the rules of uploading.

Now would you say "Oh, nevermind"? And if you would say that, would that
be wise? Would that be responsible towards the rest of the community?
The doubtless better reaction would be to ask: "which safeguards have
been considered and/or implemented to prevent that such accidents will
not repeat?" and you should take p5p into the loop.

You know the rest of the story. "A mistake was made. It was corrected,
publicly. An apology was issued, publicly.". And "Not every question
deserves an answer. Just because a person asks, does not entitle them to
a detailed answer.".

And when you realize that such negligience of the basic principles of
carefulness and best effort gets the new standard behaviour, how long
would you trust that this community has a future?

That reminds me of something related: it's not true, that the Pumpking
is always right. The perlpolicy manpage does not have this sentence.

-- 
andreas

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