Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2018
From: Craig A. Berry
February 24, 2018 18:19
Message ID: CA+vYcVysK7M4EFHcWdX7Q4J82nT5WFaGBLusQYwKtmhK+5UJ9g@mail.gmail.com
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 8:17 AM, Tina Müller <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi #p5p,
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, Andreas Koenig wrote:
>> How much more obvious can it be: we're talking about moderation, the
>> moderation team forbids questioning the moderation itself, deadlock.
>> ("Any attempts to engage the moderators in further discussion of these
>> topics, whether on- or off-list, will therefore be treated as actions
>> warranting moderator intervention." found in
> I would like to throw in my opinion on this.
> When I read this sentence in the new policy, I was a bit shocked.
That is *not* a sentence from the civility policy or the moderation
policy, new or old. It is a sentence from an e-mail announcing a
decision in a particular case, after (apparently -- I know only what
I've read in this thread) the moderators had to deal with various
off-list personal attacks, which naturally they did not want to see
continue. It's not a formulation I would have chosen, but in context
it sounded more like weariness than authoritarianism to me.
> I did not say anything because
> * I'm just a lurker on this list
> * I'm too busy with other things currently
> * The policy said I'm not allowed
> To me it raised the question if the new policy was only discussed
> by the moderation team itself, or if other members had a chance to
> add their opinion.
> I've been a moderator myself, and I'm sure I made mistakes in my
> communication, but it was important for me that the decisions I made, or
> the team made together, were accepted by the majority of the community.
> Without doing a survey, of course, I cannot be sure about that, so
> I have to rely on people speaking out and expressing their opinion.
As far as I know, there is no general ban against discussing the
civility policy or how best to maintain a friendly and productive
workplace on-list. There have certainly been lots of different
opinions expressed about it and I'm sure yours are welcome, especially
since they've been formed by experience. There are some difficulties
with involving a large group in defining such a policy, though,
because there is no formal membership with voting rights and a straw
poll tends to amplify the loudest voices rather than the most
I will also just say that I see no basis for the note of crisis raised
by some in this thread. I've been following core development off and
on for close to two decades, and there has never been a time when the
impact of core changes on the wider Perl community gets assessed and
acted on more frequently and quickly than it does now. We are
constantly revising, delaying, and reverting changes based on
assessments of impact, and while there will always be disagreements
about which changes went too far or not far enough and in which
direction, the vast majority of these discussions are civil, fruitful,
and involve a wide range of stakeholders (pardon the business jargon).
No one who is willing to comply with the rather modest civility policy
need worry about being silenced, and indeed very few have even needed
such a reminder.