Moderation

My fellow list members,

There has been a recent spate of discussion, both here and off-list,
about the nature and consequences of moderation. Some messages that
have appeared on the list do not meet our standards of conduct. I am
genuinely unhappy to report that some off-list messages have been
particularly full of unpleasant invective, mostly directed at Sawyer.

The moderators have discussed this situation at length, both as a
group and with some other people. We say unanimously that we will not
accept this. The list is meant as a tool to discuss the maintenance
and development of the language and not a medium for doling out
personal attacks and insults. We will not permit this to become a
platform to abuse others.

We are therefore making four rulings.

1. We hereby issue a formal warning to Scott Lanning for this message:

https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/01/msg248666.html

Our standards of conduct are clear that responding in kind to
incivility is not acceptable. We are pleased to see that Scott has
apologised, and we therefore think it unlikely that this behaviour
will be repeated. Nonetheless, we do consider it necessary to issue a
formal warning about this message, on the grounds that moderation
actions should be applied universally.

2. We have noted the existence of this message from Andreas Koenig,
forwarding a second message from Marc Lehmann:

https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/01/msg248664.html

The wording of the forwarded message is clearly in contravention of
our standards of conduct, and the moderators consider that the
standards of conduct should apply to forwarded messages just as to the
sender's own words. However, in the absence of a clear statement to
that effect, we have decided to let this one message pass without
formal warning. We will adjust perlpolicy.pod to be clear on this
point, and we will not clarify a second time.

3. Marc Lehmann was banned from the list in June 2016. This was
intended to be a time-limited one-month ban, but an administrative
oversight meant that the ban has been in place since then. We
apologise to Marc for our failure to lift the ban at the right time.
The ban has now been lifted.

4. We will not discuss these rulings any further. We have deliberated
extensively over these matters off-list, and we consider this to be a
repeated reaffirmation of our unanimous decisions. 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.


Our goal continues to be that people who work on Perl 5 should be able
to do so in a respectful and peaceful environment, just as they would
be able to do their job in a conventional workplace.

In that spirit of peace and respect, we wish everybody a happy 2018
that brings you everything you want out of it.

-- 
Aaron Crane
0
arc
1/12/2018 9:57:32 AM
perl.perl5.porters 47209 articles. 0 followers. Follow

45 Replies
80 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 22

-----Original Message----- 
From: Aaron Crane
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 8:57 PM
To: Perl5 Porters
Cc: Marc Lehmann ; lannings@gmail.com
Subject: Moderation

> My fellow list members,
> There has been a recent spate of discussion, both here and off-list, about 
> the nature and consequences of moderation. Some messages that have 
> appeared on the list do not meet our standards of conduct. I am genuinely 
> unhappy to report that some off-list messages have been particularly full 
> of unpleasant invective, mostly directed at Sawyer.
>
> The moderators have discussed this situation at length, both as a group 
> and with some other people. We say unanimously that we will not accept 
> this. The list is meant as a tool to discuss the maintenance and 
> development of the language and not a medium for doling out personal 
> attacks and insults. We will not permit this to become a platform to abuse 
> others.
>
> We are therefore making four rulings.
>
> 1. We hereby issue a formal warning to Scott Lanning for this message:
>
> https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/01/msg248666.html
>
> Our standards of conduct are clear that responding in kind to incivility 
> is not acceptable. We are pleased to see that Scott has apologised, and we 
> therefore think it unlikely that this behaviour will be repeated. 
> Nonetheless, we do consider it necessary to issue a formal warning about 
> this message, on the grounds that moderation actions should be applied 
> universally.
>
> 2. We have noted the existence of this message from Andreas Koenig, 
> forwarding a second message from Marc Lehmann:
>
> https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/01/msg248664.html
>
> The wording of the forwarded message is clearly in contravention of our 
> standards of conduct, and the moderators consider that the standards of 
> conduct should apply to forwarded messages just as to the sender's own 
> words. However, in the absence of a clear statement to that effect, we 
> have decided to let this one message pass without formal warning. We will 
> adjust perlpolicy.pod to be clear on this point, and we will not clarify a 
> second time.
>
> 3. Marc Lehmann was banned from the list in June 2016. This was intended 
> to be a time-limited one-month ban, but an administrative oversight meant 
> that the ban has been in place since then. We apologise to Marc for our 
> failure to lift the ban at the right time. The ban has now been lifted.
>
> 4. We will not discuss these rulings any further. We have deliberated 
> extensively over these matters off-list, and we consider this to be a 
> repeated reaffirmation of our unanimous decisions. 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.
>
>
> Our goal continues to be that people who work on Perl 5 should be able to 
> do so in a respectful and peaceful environment, just as they would be able 
> to do their job in a conventional workplace.
>
> In that spirit of peace and respect, we wish everybody a happy 2018 that 
> brings you everything you want out of it.
>
> -- 
> Aaron Crane

Thank you, Aaron, for your balance and sensibility.

Cheers,
Rob 
0
sisyphus1
1/12/2018 12:44:46 PM
My fellow list members,

Please note that, as of commit
ef7498d2b69936a5c6476ecf1950066f638b2dac, the section of perlpolicy
relating to the standards of conduct has been updated. The following
substantive changes have been made, after discussion among the
moderators.

Firstly, as promised earlier, we have clarified that, by forwarding a
message to the list, the sender takes responsibility for the content
of the message in question.

Secondly, we have changed the policy regarding ban lengths.
Previously, third or subsequent instances of unacceptable behaviour
resulted in a ban twice the length of the person's previous ban. Under
the new policy, a third instance of unacceptable behaviour results in
a further warning, and a fourth instance results in a ban of
indefinite length.

Our rationale is that temporary bans are for the offender: to give
them the opportunity to change their behaviour in a way that aligns
with our community expectations. However, if the person in question
fails to take advantage of that opportunity, our focus must shift to
the community: we aim to protect other list members from having to
bear the burden of unacceptable behaviour.

Finally, we welcome Karen Etheridge and Todd Rinaldo as additional
moderators. I'd like to offer both Karen and Todd my personal thanks
for agreeing to serve.

The relevant section of perlpolicy, as revised, follows below.


=3Dhead1 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

The official forum for the development of perl is the perl5-porters mailing
list, mentioned above, and its bugtracker at rt.perl.org.  Posting to the
list and the bugtracker is not a right: all participants in discussion are
expected to adhere to a standard of conduct.

=3Dover 4

=3Ditem *

Always be civil.

=3Ditem *

Heed the moderators.

=3Dback

Civility is simple: stick to the facts while avoiding demeaning remarks,
belittling other individuals, sarcasm, or a presumption of bad faith. It is
not enough to be factual.  You must also be civil.  Responding in kind to
incivility is not acceptable.  If you relay otherwise-unposted comments to
the list from a third party, you take responsibility for the content of
those comments, and you must therefore ensure that they are civil.

While civility is required, kindness is encouraged; if you have any doubt a=
bout
whether you are being civil, simply ask yourself, "Am I being kind?" and as=
pire
to that.

If the list moderators tell you that you are not being civil, carefully
consider how your words have appeared before responding in any way.  Were t=
hey
kind?  You may protest, but repeated protest in the face of a repeatedly
reaffirmed decision is not acceptable.  Repeatedly protesting about the
moderators' decisions regarding a third party is also unacceptable, as is
continuing to initiate off-list contact with the moderators about their
decisions.

Unacceptable behavior will result in a public and clearly identified
warning.  A second instance of unacceptable behavior from the same
individual will result in removal from the mailing list and rt.perl.org,
for a period of one calendar month.  The rationale for this is to
provide an opportunity for the person to change the way they act.

After the time-limited ban has been lifted, a third instance of
unacceptable behavior will result in a further public warning.  A fourth
or subsequent instance will result in an indefinite ban.  The rationale
is that, in the face of an apparent refusal to change behavior, we must
protect other community members from future unacceptable actions.  The
moderators may choose to lift an indefinite ban if the person in
question affirms they will not transgress again.

Removals, like warnings, are public.

The list of moderators will be public knowledge.  At present, it is:
Aaron Crane, Andy Dougherty, Karen Etheridge, Ricardo Signes, Sawyer X,
Steffen M=C3=BCller, Todd Rinaldo.

--=20
Aaron Crane ** http://aaroncrane.co.uk/
0
arc
1/21/2018 8:42:54 PM
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:42:54 +0000, Aaron Crane <arc@cpan.org> said:

  > My fellow list members,
  > Please note that, as of commit
  > ef7498d2b69936a5c6476ecf1950066f638b2dac, the section of perlpolicy
  > relating to the standards of conduct has been updated.

So how did the voting process go? I suppose there was one, and the
voting moderators are not shy to stand to their decisions, right?

-- 
andreas
0
andreas
1/24/2018 7:14:22 AM
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:14:22 +0100, Andreas Koenig <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> said:

>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:42:54 +0000, Aaron Crane <arc@cpan.org> said:
 >> My fellow list members,
 >> Please note that, as of commit
 >> ef7498d2b69936a5c6476ecf1950066f638b2dac, the section of perlpolicy
 >> relating to the standards of conduct has been updated.

  > So how did the voting process go? I suppose there was one, and the
  > voting moderators are not shy to stand to their decisions, right?

Ping?

I have asked some more questions to some members of the community and
have received the feedback that they are worth being asked. And I was
told that I should provide some insights about how we could move forward
from here. I believe the questions themselves partially contain hints
about a way forward. It all depends on the reaction of the rest of the
community to determine which ways are reachable.

Before I present the questions, I ask the moderators for obvious reasons
to suspend moderation completely for the duration of this investigation.

That being out of the way, here they are:

 1. was the whole group of moderators informed about the state of
    the incident with Marc Lehmann's ban?
 2. was the whole group of moderators informed about the mail from
    former pumpkin Ricardo in which he said that he believes it was an
    accident and apologizes and is sure that this will be fixed quickly?
 3. was the whole group of moderators informed why the issue was not
    fixed quickly but was dragged on and on for over three weeks?
 4. since it was a pumpking who instigated the moderation team, do the
    moderators believe they should report to the pumpking or to
    perl5-porters? Or to nobody at all?
 5. what was the reason why it took so long to apologize and fix the ban
    settings?
 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?
 9. have the other moderators been informed about the findings?
10. which safeguards have been considered and/or implemented to prevent
    that such accidents will not repeat?
11. when did the discussion about the changes to the moderation rules
    that lead to commit v5.27.8-10-gef7498d2b6 take place, who
    participated, who voted how?
12. where are the meeting minutes?
13. did anybody of the participants in the discussion come to the idea
    that changes to the rules would have to be discussed with and
    decided by the people on perl5-porters themselves and not by the
    moderators alone?
14. how do the moderators think about the idea that they might have to
    obey rules set up by the members of the community, not by
    themselves?
15. did nobody in the moderation team realize that the new rules might
    be perceived as authoritarian?
16. did nobody in the moderation team realize that the new rules might
    be perceived as: perl, the superglue of the internet now glueing the
    cylinder lock to lock members out forever?
17. who had the idea that the maximum penalty we have to have on
    perl5-porters needs to be indefinite? How long is indefinite
    compared to the age of the community? Compared to longest reign of a
    pumpking? Compared to the longest grant paid out by the perl
    foundation?
18. would you agree that the border between acceptable and unacceptable
    behaviour is not cast in stone and for this reason the moderation
    team might decide wrongly, at least occasionally? Which part of the
    moderation system would automatically correct such potentially wrong
    decisions?

While it may sound ungrateful when I present such a shitload of
questions, I'd like to let you know that I'd rather not have had to go
into this endavour. But it's not about my personal inclination when I
set up this catalogue. 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.

Take care,
-- 
andreas
0
andreas
2/9/2018 6:18:59 AM
On 9 February 2018 at 07:18, Andreas Koenig
<andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:14:22 +0100, Andreas Koenig <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> said:
>
>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:42:54 +0000, Aaron Crane <arc@cpan.org> said:
>  >> My fellow list members,
>  >> Please note that, as of commit
>  >> ef7498d2b69936a5c6476ecf1950066f638b2dac, the section of perlpolicy
>  >> relating to the standards of conduct has been updated.
>
>   > So how did the voting process go? I suppose there was one, and the
>   > voting moderators are not shy to stand to their decisions, right?
>
> Ping?
>
> I have asked some more questions to some members of the community and
> have received the feedback that they are worth being asked. And I was
> told that I should provide some insights about how we could move forward
> from here. I believe the questions themselves partially contain hints
> about a way forward. It all depends on the reaction of the rest of the
> community to determine which ways are reachable.
>
> Before I present the questions, I ask the moderators for obvious reasons
> to suspend moderation completely for the duration of this investigation.

-1.

I don't think you have the right to expect answers to questions framed
this way. Who appointed you special prosecutor?

And honestly I feel like this is just stirring up controversy for no reason.

If you have issues with the moderation policy you should mail the
Pumpking privately and address your concerns.

But you have to accept that his word is final.

Under the rules of our community the Pumpking is always right, and the
Pumpking can change his mind. This is not new. See rule 1 and rule 2
in perlpolicy.

The only other option is propose a vote of no-confidence in the
Pumpking, or request that one of the voters does so. If asked in the
interest of fairness I would make the proposal, even though I would
*vehemently* vote and lobby against it.

But I don't see how rule 1 or rule 2 allow a right to interrogate the
Pumpking or his appointed representatives about the decisions they
have made to keep our community functioning.

You have a right to politely ask them to explain things, and they have
a right to politely refuse to explain. But that seems about it.

cheers,
Yves






-- 
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
0
demerphq
2/9/2018 9:32:52 AM

On 02/09/2018 11:32 AM, demerphq wrote:
> On 9 February 2018 at 07:18, Andreas Koenig
> <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:14:22 +0100, Andreas Koenig <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> said:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:42:54 +0000, Aaron Crane <arc@cpan.org> said:
>>  >> My fellow list members,
>>  >> Please note that, as of commit
>>  >> ef7498d2b69936a5c6476ecf1950066f638b2dac, the section of perlpolicy
>>  >> relating to the standards of conduct has been updated.
>>
>>   > So how did the voting process go? I suppose there was one, and the
>>   > voting moderators are not shy to stand to their decisions, right?
>>
>> Ping?
>>
>> I have asked some more questions to some members of the community and
>> have received the feedback that they are worth being asked. And I was
>> told that I should provide some insights about how we could move forward
>> from here. I believe the questions themselves partially contain hints
>> about a way forward. It all depends on the reaction of the rest of the
>> community to determine which ways are reachable.
>>
>> Before I present the questions, I ask the moderators for obvious reasons
>> to suspend moderation completely for the duration of this investigation.
> -1.
>
> I don't think you have the right to expect answers to questions framed
> this way. Who appointed you special prosecutor?
>
> And honestly I feel like this is just stirring up controversy for no reason.
>
> If you have issues with the moderation policy you should mail the
> Pumpking privately and address your concerns.
>
> But you have to accept that his word is final.
>
> Under the rules of our community the Pumpking is always right, and the
> Pumpking can change his mind. This is not new. See rule 1 and rule 2
> in perlpolicy.
>
> The only other option is propose a vote of no-confidence in the
> Pumpking, or request that one of the voters does so. If asked in the
> interest of fairness I would make the proposal, even though I would
> *vehemently* vote and lobby against it.
>
> But I don't see how rule 1 or rule 2 allow a right to interrogate the
> Pumpking or his appointed representatives about the decisions they
> have made to keep our community functioning.
>
> You have a right to politely ask them to explain things, and they have
> a right to politely refuse to explain. But that seems about it.


While it's easier to throw this at me, I should note that I act here not
as pumpking but member of the moderation team. In fact, in this
particular case (as well as the recent incidents) I have taken three
steps back to avoid any conflict of interest. Since the majority of
abuse was towards me (on the list and off the list), I shouldn't be the
one acting as the moderator on it.

The discussions and decisions about this topic (and others) included the
entire moderation team. I'll let the other moderators field the list of
questions since I would still prefer to avoid conflict as much as possible.
0
xsawyerx
2/9/2018 5:50:31 PM
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:32 AM, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think you have the right to expect answers to questions framed
> this way. Who appointed you special prosecutor?

A prosecutor implies an accusation, and I don't think he does that.
Most of these questions are essentially a call for transparency around
the moderation process. Above all I would read this as "I'm
concerned"; and quite frankly the answer I would hope for is an
empathic dialogue. Because the implicit hope behind "I'm concerned" is
"I hope you can reassure me".

> And honestly I feel like this is just stirring up controversy for no reas=
on.

Asking how the sausage is made should not be controversial, and if it
is it should probably be pulled out of the supermarket.

> If you have issues with the moderation policy you should mail the
> Pumpking privately and address your concerns.

While there are sometimes reasons why a discussion needs to be in
private (in particular when it's about people), I don't see how that
is generally helpful in the case of policy.

> But you have to accept that his word is final.
>
> Under the rules of our community the Pumpking is always right, and the
> Pumpking can change his mind. This is not new. See rule 1 and rule 2
> in perlpolicy.

To quote that same document: =C2=ABLarry sees Perl development along the
lines of the US government: there's the Legislature (the porters), the
Executive branch (the -pumpking), and the Supreme Court (Larry).=C2=BB

The executive has every right to make their various decisions, but I
would hope the legislature has the right to discuss them still.

I also note the Supreme Court is vacant :-/.

> The only other option is propose a vote of no-confidence in the
> Pumpking, or request that one of the voters does so. If asked in the
> interest of fairness I would make the proposal, even though I would
> *vehemently* vote and lobby against it.

To quote perlpolicy again =C2=ABMostly, however, the legislature and the
executive branch are supposed to get along and work out their
differences without impeachment or court cases.=C2=BB

Quite frankly the sort of approach you propose sounds entirely
dysfunctional to me: "I don't understand what you did, can you explain
to me how you came to this decision" and "this makes me uncomfortable,
can you please take that into account" are both reasonable issues that
can be resolved through dialogue. Going for the nuclear option should
be the last resort, not the first.

> But I don't see how rule 1 or rule 2 allow a right to interrogate the
> Pumpking or his appointed representatives about the decisions they
> have made to keep our community functioning.

I don't think we have ever been that kind of top-down organization,
and I think that line of thinking is exactly what Andreas is concerned
about.

> You have a right to politely ask them to explain things, and they have
> a right to politely refuse to explain. But that seems about it.

They could. They didn't.

Leon
0
fawaka
2/9/2018 8:23:25 PM
On 9 February 2018 at 21:23, Leon Timmermans <fawaka@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:32 AM, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't think you have the right to expect answers to questions framed
>> this way. Who appointed you special prosecutor?
>
> A prosecutor implies an accusation, and I don't think he does that.
> Most of these questions are essentially a call for transparency around
> the moderation process. Above all I would read this as "I'm
> concerned"; and quite frankly the answer I would hope for is an
> empathic dialogue. Because the implicit hope behind "I'm concerned" is
> "I hope you can reassure me".

To me it is a bunch of leading and accusatory questions, impolitely
framed, some of which are no better than "When did you stop beating
your wife?".

I can think of 500 ways to ask the same questions without sounding
like an episode of Supreme Court.

Sawyer and the moderators do a thankless task and they deserve better than that.

FWIW, I am well aware that Andreas also does a thankless task, and
fully respect him as a long term major contributor in our community.

I just do not feel like anyone has the right to demand such answers
from the Pumpking or Moderators.

Just as I feel no-one would have the right to demand such answers from
him if he had to make a difficult and socially contentious decision
about PAUSE.

Yves
-- 
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
0
demerphq
2/9/2018 9:48:57 PM
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
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.

> 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.  The moderation policy is
publicly documented.  The names of the moderators are publicly
documented.  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.  I just don't see there
is anything that needs to be "dealt with" and most of these questions
sound, as Yves said, accusatory.
0
craig
2/9/2018 10:12:36 PM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0
J
2/9/2018 10:34:44 PM
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:48 PM, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote:
> To me it is a bunch of leading and accusatory questions, impolitely
> framed, some of which are no better than "When did you stop beating
> your wife?".
>
> I can think of 500 ways to ask the same questions without sounding
> like an episode of Supreme Court.

To me it read laconic. It may be a translational issue (German has
that tendency IME).

> Sawyer and the moderators do a thankless task and they deserve better than that.
>
> FWIW, I am well aware that Andreas also does a thankless task, and
> fully respect him as a long term major contributor in our community.
>
> I just do not feel like anyone has the right to demand such answers
> from the Pumpking or Moderators.

I obviously can't speak for the moderators (or anyone else), but if
they do feel like that about this then that's exactly the sort of
thing that ought to be part of that empathic dialogue that I
mentioned. It's obvious this list is going through a rather tense
period lately, but digging trenches isn't going to resolve that. Only
talking will.

Leon
0
fawaka
2/9/2018 11:18:32 PM
--f403045f2d8e11f3840564d02adb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Leon Timmermans <fawaka@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's obvious this list is going through a rather tense
> period lately, but digging trenches isn't going to resolve that. Only
> talking will.
>

  Talking seems to be exactly how this rather tense period arose, and
exactly how those trenches are dug.

  No, talking doesn't resolve this.  If anything, it's just making things
worse.

  In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest this won't be resolved until people
stop talking about it.


Eirik, shutting up now

--f403045f2d8e11f3840564d02adb
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On S=
at, Feb 10, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Leon Timmermans <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:fawaka@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">fawaka@gmail.com</a>&gt;</sp=
an> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">It&#39;s obvious this list is =
going through a rather tense<br>
period lately, but digging trenches isn&#39;t going to resolve that. Only<b=
r>
talking will.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0 Talking seems to b=
e exactly how this rather tense period arose, and exactly how those trenche=
s are dug.<br></div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0 No, talking doesn&#39;t reso=
lve this.=C2=A0 If anything, it&#39;s just making things worse.</div><div><=
br></div><div>=C2=A0 In fact, I&#39;d go so far as to suggest this won&#39;=
t be resolved until people stop talking about it.<br></div><div><br></div><=
div><br></div><div>Eirik, shutting up now<br></div></div></div></div>

--f403045f2d8e11f3840564d02adb--
0
Eirik
2/9/2018 11:48:24 PM
---1454121964-501902817-1518227447=:3529
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.1802100252271.3529@mail.mgm-net.de>

From the keyboard of Andreas Koenig [09.02.18,07:18]:

>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:14:22 +0100, Andreas Koenig <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> said:
>
>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:42:54 +0000, Aaron Crane <arc@cpan.org> said:
> >> My fellow list members,
> >> Please note that, as of commit
> >> ef7498d2b69936a5c6476ecf1950066f638b2dac, the section of perlpolicy
> >> relating to the standards of conduct has been updated.
>
>  > So how did the voting process go? I suppose there was one, and the
>  > voting moderators are not shy to stand to their decisions, right?
>
> Ping?
>
> I have asked some more questions to some members of the community and
> have received the feedback that they are worth being asked. And I was
> told that I should provide some insights about how we could move forward
> from here. I believe the questions themselves partially contain hints
> about a way forward. It all depends on the reaction of the rest of the
> community to determine which ways are reachable.
>
> Before I present the questions, I ask the moderators for obvious reasons
> to suspend moderation completely for the duration of this investigation.
>
> That being out of the way, here they are:

[1..18]

19. Are any parts of the discussed commit out of proportion?
20. Do we need a commision of inquiry into the government of moderation?
21. Do we see a tendency towards dictatorship in the above government?
22. Does the government of p5p in general, and the ModGov in particular,
     need a revision of procedures to prevent abuse and set up checks and
     balances?
23. Who is writing the voting machine software for the necessary voting
     procedures requested for the perl development in general, the p5p
     mailing list in particular, and the ModGov sytem (if any) changes in
     atomar? and, oh wait... commits on the quantum level?

And so on. I'm tempted to write a big filibuster to fill up your mail
boxes, thus weighing in heavily into the duscission as a no-name and
back seat wonker. So here I go...

use Acme::Morse;
..--.-..--..---.-.--..--.-..--..---.-.--.
.....---..-..---.-..-.--..---.--...-.---.
......-....----....----..-.-...-.----..-.
....-..-.--.---...-.-....-..-..-.---..-..
...--.--...--.--......-..--.-.--.-.-..--.
-.-..--.....---......-....-.---....-.--.
-....--...-.---......-..--..---....-.--.
----.--..-..---...-.---..---.-.......-..
..-.-..-.-.-.---.--..---...-.---......-..
--..---.----.--.-.--.--.-.-..--......-..
...--.--.-....--.--..---...-.---......-..
-...---.-.-.---.-.-..--.--..---...-.---.
-..-.--.----.--..---.--.--..---..-.---..
..-.-.......-..-.-....--..--.---.-.-..--.
......-....-.---....-.--.-.-..--..-..---.
-.-..--......-...-...--.-.-..--.-.-..--.
..---.--......-..-....--.....---.----.--.
...--.--.----.--.---..--.-..-.--.-.-..--.
--..---......-...--..--..-..---.----.--.
-.--.--......-....-.---....-.--.-.-..--.
......-......---.-.-.---.-.--.--.....---.
--.-.--.-..-.--..---.--.---..--.----.-..
-.--.--.----.--...-..--.-.-..--..-..---.
-....--...-.---.----.--..-..---.--..---.
......-....-.---.----.--.---.---.-....--.
..-..---...-..--.--..---......-..-.--..-.
-....--..-..---.--...--......-....--..-.
-.-..--....-.--.-.--.--.-....--..---.--.
..---.--.------...-.-.......-..-.-....--.
--..---......-....-.---....-.--.-.-..--.
..-..---.-.-..--......-...-...--.-.-..--.
-.-..--..---.--......-..-....--..---.--.
......-..-....--.....---.----.--...--.--.
----.--.---..--.-..----......-...--..--.
..-..---.----.--.-.--.--......-..-.--..-.
-....--..-..---.--...--......-....--..-.
-.-..--....-.--.-.--.--.-....--..---.--.
..---.--......-....-.---.----.--.---.---.
-....--..-..---...-..--.--..---......-..
...-.---....-.--.-.-..--......-..-....--.
..-...--.----.--..--.---.-.-..--...--.-..
......-..----.--..-..---......-....-.---.
....-.--.-.-..--......-......---.-.-.--..
.....---......-..-.--.--.-....--.-..-.--.
...--.--.-..-.--..---.--.---..--......-..
...--.--.-..-.--.--..---...-.---.------..
..-.-.......-..-.-....--.--..---......-..
...-.---....-.--.-.-..--......-..-.--..-.
-....--..-..---.--...--......-....--..-.
-.-..--....-.--.-.--.--.-....--..---.--.
..---.--......-..-..-.--.--..---.--..---.
-.-.---.-.-..--......-...-...--.-.-..--.
-.-..--..---.--......-..--..---.-.-..--.
...-.---...-.---...--.--.-.-..--...-..--.
......-..-....--...--.--..-..---.-.-..--.
-....--...-..--.-..----.------...-.-....
....-..-.-....--.--..---......-.....-.--.
-.-..--......-...-...--.-.-..--.-.-..--.
..---.--......-..---.---.-.-..--...--.--.
--...--.----.--.-.--.--.-.-..--...-..--.
......-...-...--.-....--.--...--.--.-.--.
......-....-.---.----.--......-....-.---.
....-.--.-.-..--......-......---.-.-.--..
.....---......-..-.--.--.-....--.-..-.--.
...--.--.-..-.--..---.--.---..--......-..
...--.--.-..-.--.--..---...-.---.------..
..-.-.....-.-......-.-.-....-.--.-....--.
..---.--.--.-.--......-..-..----.----.--.
-.-.---......-..-....--...--.--...--.--.
......-...--..--.----.--..-..---......-..
-....--..---.--.--..---.---.---.-.-..--.
..-..---.-..-.--..---.--.---..--......-..
...-.---....-.--.-.-..--.--..---.-.-..--.
......-..-...---.-.-.---.-.-..--.--..---.
...-.---.-..-.--.----.--..---.--.--..---.
......-..-..-.--..---.--......-..-..----.
----.--.-.-.---..-..---......-..-.--.--.
-..-.--..---.--...-..--...--.-.......-..
-....--..---.--...-..--......-..-....--.
...-.---...-.---.-.-..--..---.--...-..--.
-..-.--..---.--.---..--..---.-...-.-....
-..-..-..--..--......-..-..----.----.--.
-.-.---......-....-..--.-..-.--...-..--.
..---.--.---..-....-.---......-..-....--.
...-.---...-.---.-.-..--..---.--...-..--.
...--.-.......-..-..----.----.--.-.-.---.
......-...-...--..-..---.----.--.--.-.--.
-.-..--......-..-....--...-.---...-.---.
-.-..--..---.--...-.---.-..-.--.----.--.
..---.--......-..-....--..---.--...-..--.
......-..---.---.----.--..---.--.---..-..
...-.---......-...-...--.-.-..--......-..
-....--..-...--...--.--.-.-..--......-..
...-.---.----.--......-....-..--..-..---.
-....--.---.---......-..--...--.----.--.
..---.--.--..---.-.-..--.-...---.-.-.---.
-.-..--..---.--.--...--.-.-..--.--..---.
..---.-...-.-....-.....-...-.---...-.---.
-.-..--.-.--.--.....---...-.---.-..-.--.
..---.--.---..--......-....-.---.----.--.
......-..-....--...-.---...-.---.-.-..--.
..---.--...-..--......-..-....--...-.---.
...-.---.-.-..--..---.--...-.---.-..-.--.
----.--..---.--......-..-..-.--.--..---.
......-..-....--...--.--...--.--......-..
-..----.----.--.-.-.---......-..--...--.
-....--..---.--......-....-..--.----.--.
......-.....-.--.-.-..--..-..---.-.-..--.
...--.-.......-..-....--..---.--...-..--.
......-..-..-.--..--..--......-..-..----.
----.--.-.-.---......-....-..--.-..-.--.
...-..--..---.--.---..-....-.---...--.-..
......-..---.---.-.-..--.-.-..--.....---.
......-..-....--......-...-...--.-..-.--.
...-.---..---.-...-.-.....---..-.-.-..--.
....----...-.---......-....-..--.-....--.
-..----...--.-.......-....-.---....-.--.
-.-..--......-..--..---.-.-.---..---.--.
......-..---.---.-..-.--...--.--...--.--.
......-...-..---.-..-.--.--..---.-.-..--.
......-..-....--.---..--.-....--.-..-.--.
..---.--...--.-.......-..-....--..---.--.
...-..--......-..-.--.--.-....--.--.-.--.
-.-..--......-..-..----.----.--.-.-.---.
......-..--..---.-.--.--.-..-.--...--.--.
-.-..--...--.-.......-..-....--...-.---.
...-.---.-.-..--..---.--...-..--.-..-.--.
..---.--.---..--......-..-..-.--...-.---.
..---.-...-.-....--.-..-.-.-..--.-.-..--.
.....---......-..-.-.---.....---......-..
...-.---....-.--.-.-..--......-..---..--.
----.--.----.--...-..--......-..---.---.
----.--..-..---.--.-.--..---.-...-.-....
...-.-.-....-.--.-....--..---.--.--.-.--.
......-..-..----.----.--.-.-.---......-..
-....--...--.--...--.--...--.-.......-..
-....--.---..--.-....--.-..-.--..---.--.
..---.-.......-..-..-..-.---..-....-..--.
......-..--..---.-....--.-..----......-..
..-...-..-..----.----.--.-.-.---......-..
..-..---.----.--.--...--.--.-.--..-...-..
......-..-..-.--..--..--......-....-.---.
....-.--.-....--...-.---......-..---.---.
-.-..--..-..---.-.-..--..---.--.---..-..
...-.---......-..--..---.-..-.--...--.--.
...--.--.-..----..---.-...-.-....-.-...-.
----..-....-..-..-.-....

> While it may sound ungrateful when I present such a shitload of
> questions, I'd like to let you know that I'd rather not have had to go
> into this endavour. But it's not about my personal inclination when I
> set up this catalogue. 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.

Yes, the world is full of questions awaiting answers, pressing ones.
The Marc Lehmann ban issue is not one of them. Negligence is the norm,
the exceptional is overcoming negligence.

And that moderation foo is *not* the real issue you are addressing.
I'm just guessing, but the real thing seems to be the lack of a valid
constitution of the Programming Republic Of Perl, set up and voted for
by all of it citizens.

Should we constitute a constitutional commitee? and how?

just my $foo cents
0--gg-

-- 
_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q�/)Oo.  G�\        /
                               /\_�/(q    /
----------------------------  \__(m.====�.(_("always off the crowd"))."�
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}
---1454121964-501902817-1518227447=:3529--
0
gm
2/10/2018 2:16:44 AM
On 10 February 2018 at 10:48, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 February 2018 at 21:23, Leon Timmermans <fawaka@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:32 AM, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don't think you have the right to expect answers to questions framed
>>> this way. Who appointed you special prosecutor?
>>
>> A prosecutor implies an accusation, and I don't think he does that.
>> Most of these questions are essentially a call for transparency around
>> the moderation process. Above all I would read this as "I'm
>> concerned"; and quite frankly the answer I would hope for is an
>> empathic dialogue. Because the implicit hope behind "I'm concerned" is
>> "I hope you can reassure me".
>
> To me it is a bunch of leading and accusatory questions, impolitely
> framed, some of which are no better than "When did you stop beating
> your wife?".
>
> I can think of 500 ways to ask the same questions without sounding
> like an episode of Supreme Court.
>
> Sawyer and the moderators do a thankless task and they deserve better than that.
>
> FWIW, I am well aware that Andreas also does a thankless task, and
> fully respect him as a long term major contributor in our community.
>
> I just do not feel like anyone has the right to demand such answers
> from the Pumpking or Moderators.
>
> Just as I feel no-one would have the right to demand such answers from
> him if he had to make a difficult and socially contentious decision
> about PAUSE.


Can we stop with the masturbatory meta-discussion as to whether or not
we have a right to ask questions of our moderators, or whether or not
we deserve answers, and instead get some of the questions answered,
and those which we're not gonna get answers to, have responded to with
a simple statement that the given question won't be answered?

As it is, this is just looking incredibly orwellian.

"How dare you challenge your political leaders, they try very hard and
are very busy".

Given the defacto authority they're given and the responsibility
entailed, it should be more a question of whether or not they have the
right to dodge questions, not a question of whether or not we have the
right to ask questions.

Sure, they don't get paid for this, but that's immaterial: They signed
up for this, and there's not really a higher ring of "hiring and
firing" that gets involved when people don't want to do some part of
their job.

Pay or not, having to answer questions about what you do seems like
part of the job description.

And its not like there's somebody holding a gun to their head and
demanding *immediate* answers, and its not like there is a *single*
person running moderation.

Any answers, eventually, would be nice.

Authoritarian power-play not required.

-- 
Kent

KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL
0
kentfredric
2/10/2018 4:09:41 AM
[Top-posting]

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.

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.

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.)

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.)

So, short story: Mistake happened (publicly), mistake fixed (publicly),
apology issued (publicly). 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. 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.

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.


On 02/09/2018 08:18 AM, Andreas Koenig wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:14:22 +0100, Andreas Koenig <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> said:
>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:42:54 +0000, Aaron Crane <arc@cpan.org> said:
>  >> My fellow list members,
>  >> Please note that, as of commit
>  >> ef7498d2b69936a5c6476ecf1950066f638b2dac, the section of perlpolicy
>  >> relating to the standards of conduct has been updated.
>
>   > So how did the voting process go? I suppose there was one, and the
>   > voting moderators are not shy to stand to their decisions, right?
>
> Ping?
>
> I have asked some more questions to some members of the community and
> have received the feedback that they are worth being asked. And I was
> told that I should provide some insights about how we could move forward
> from here. I believe the questions themselves partially contain hints
> about a way forward. It all depends on the reaction of the rest of the
> community to determine which ways are reachable.
>
> Before I present the questions, I ask the moderators for obvious reasons
> to suspend moderation completely for the duration of this investigation.
>
> That being out of the way, here they are:
>
>  1. was the whole group of moderators informed about the state of
>     the incident with Marc Lehmann's ban?
>  2. was the whole group of moderators informed about the mail from
>     former pumpkin Ricardo in which he said that he believes it was an
>     accident and apologizes and is sure that this will be fixed quickly?
>  3. was the whole group of moderators informed why the issue was not
>     fixed quickly but was dragged on and on for over three weeks?
>  4. since it was a pumpking who instigated the moderation team, do the
>     moderators believe they should report to the pumpking or to
>     perl5-porters? Or to nobody at all?
>  5. what was the reason why it took so long to apologize and fix the ban
>     settings?
>  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?
>  9. have the other moderators been informed about the findings?
> 10. which safeguards have been considered and/or implemented to prevent
>     that such accidents will not repeat?
> 11. when did the discussion about the changes to the moderation rules
>     that lead to commit v5.27.8-10-gef7498d2b6 take place, who
>     participated, who voted how?
> 12. where are the meeting minutes?
> 13. did anybody of the participants in the discussion come to the idea
>     that changes to the rules would have to be discussed with and
>     decided by the people on perl5-porters themselves and not by the
>     moderators alone?
> 14. how do the moderators think about the idea that they might have to
>     obey rules set up by the members of the community, not by
>     themselves?
> 15. did nobody in the moderation team realize that the new rules might
>     be perceived as authoritarian?
> 16. did nobody in the moderation team realize that the new rules might
>     be perceived as: perl, the superglue of the internet now glueing the
>     cylinder lock to lock members out forever?
> 17. who had the idea that the maximum penalty we have to have on
>     perl5-porters needs to be indefinite? How long is indefinite
>     compared to the age of the community? Compared to longest reign of a
>     pumpking? Compared to the longest grant paid out by the perl
>     foundation?
> 18. would you agree that the border between acceptable and unacceptable
>     behaviour is not cast in stone and for this reason the moderation
>     team might decide wrongly, at least occasionally? Which part of the
>     moderation system would automatically correct such potentially wrong
>     decisions?
>
> While it may sound ungrateful when I present such a shitload of
> questions, I'd like to let you know that I'd rather not have had to go
> into this endavour. But it's not about my personal inclination when I
> set up this catalogue. 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.
>
> Take care,
0
xsawyerx
2/10/2018 8:12:19 AM
Hi Jon,

On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 22:34:44 +0000
Jon Bird <J.X.BIRD@mdx.ac.uk> wrote:

> PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THIS EMAIL LIST.

please see https://lists.perl.org/list/perl5-porters.html for how to
unsubscribe.

> Jon Bird
>=20
> On 09/02/2018, 21:48, "demerphq" <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>     On 9 February 2018 at 21:23, Leon Timmermans <fawaka@gmail.com> wrote:
>     > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:32 AM, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrot=
e: =20
>     >> I don't think you have the right to expect answers to questions fr=
amed
>     >> this way. Who appointed you special prosecutor? =20
>     >
>     > A prosecutor implies an accusation, and I don't think he does that.
>     > Most of these questions are essentially a call for transparency aro=
und
>     > the moderation process. Above all I would read this as "I'm
>     > concerned"; and quite frankly the answer I would hope for is an
>     > empathic dialogue. Because the implicit hope behind "I'm concerned"=
 is
>     > "I hope you can reassure me". =20
>    =20
>     To me it is a bunch of leading and accusatory questions, impolitely
>     framed, some of which are no better than "When did you stop beating
>     your wife?".
>    =20
>     I can think of 500 ways to ask the same questions without sounding
>     like an episode of Supreme Court.
>    =20
>     Sawyer and the moderators do a thankless task and they deserve better
> than that.=20
>     FWIW, I am well aware that Andreas also does a thankless task, and
>     fully respect him as a long term major contributor in our community.
>    =20
>     I just do not feel like anyone has the right to demand such answers
>     from the Pumpking or Moderators.
>    =20
>     Just as I feel no-one would have the right to demand such answers from
>     him if he had to make a difficult and socially contentious decision
>     about PAUSE.
>    =20
>     Yves
>     --=20
>     perl -Mre=3Ddebug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
>    =20
>=20

=09

--=20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/Can-I-SCO-Now/ - =E2=80=9CCan I SCO N=
ow?=E2=80=9D

Chuck Norris doesn=E2=80=99t commit changes, the changes commit for him.
    =E2=80=94 Araujo

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
0
shlomif
2/10/2018 8:48:03 AM

On 02/10/2018 10:12 AM, Sawyer X wrote:
> [...]
>
> [...] (especially since I'm recursing myself [...]

*Recusing.
0
xsawyerx
2/10/2018 12:33:07 PM
On 02/10/2018 03:12 AM, Sawyer X wrote:
> [Top-posting]
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.)
> 
> 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.)
> 
> So, short story: Mistake happened (publicly), mistake fixed (publicly),
> apology issued (publicly). 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. 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.
> 
> 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.
> 

+1

jimk
0
jkeenan
2/10/2018 1:58:15 PM
--EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Andreas Koenig <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> [2018-02-09T01:=
18:59]
> That being out of the way, here [are a lot of questions]:
> [...]

The presentations of the questions was really off-putting, because it read =
like
a list of accusations, and so at first I was, well, put off.

On a second or third reading, and since there seems to have been a sort of
shotgun style of response here, I thought I might as well cast my pellets to
the wind.

As far as I know, every moderator understood the situation with Marc's ban =
and
its failure to terminate correctly.  I certainly posted my understanding of=
 the
situation.

Then there was a lot of discussion about how to respond.  This took too long
because it was an unpleasant discussion among volunteers.  I present that a=
s an
explanation, but it's not an excuse.  Surely this could've been turned arou=
nd
faster, but the discussion was seeking unanimity, because the moderators te=
nd
to shoot for everybody consenting, not unilateral action.

>  4. since it was a pumpking who instigated the moderation team, do the
>     moderators believe they should report to the pumpking or to
>     perl5-porters? Or to nobody at all?

I think this is a very pertinent question.  It has never been discussed as =
far
as I know.  If you asked me -- and I guess you did -- I think we have an
ethical responsibility to perl5-porters, rather than the pumpking, and I
would've told you that x years ago, too.

>  6. which moderators have access to the system that handles bans?

None.  It's handled by the Perl NOC.  Perl's mailing list system is extreme=
ly
manual, run by two volunteers in limited time.

The buck can stop with me, here:  I requested the ban, the ban was apparent=
ly
not sufficiently removed.  I'll see if there's any interesting details behi=
nd
the scenes, but I doubt it.  I'll let you know.

In a private email earlier this year, or late last, I said we'd be setting =
up a
better mailing list for the moderators to use.  This hasn't happened yet, b=
ut
it will.  I don't expect it to have public archives, though.

> 13. did anybody of the participants in the discussion come to the idea
>     that changes to the rules would have to be discussed with and
>     decided by the people on perl5-porters themselves and not by the
>     moderators alone?

I don't think so, no.  Starting a conversation about specific problems with=
 the
policy as committed seems like a reasonable step for anybody unhappy about =
it.

I really believe that everybody involved here wants what they think is best=
=2E  I
would like us to have whatever conversations we need to have while all tryi=
ng
to keep believing that.  It's really hard to work toward a mutually accepta=
ble
conclusion when your discussion partner seems to be assuming bad faith.

> 18. would you agree that the border between acceptable and unacceptable
>     behaviour is not cast in stone and for this reason the moderation
>     team might decide wrongly, at least occasionally? Which part of the
>     moderation system would automatically correct such potentially wrong
>     decisions?

As with any decision, mistakes can be made.  I hope that the moderators will
remain open-minded to reasoned arguments from the group.  So, the answer to
"which part" is "the part where decisions are made publicly in a large room
full of people who care and try to help."

--=20
rjbs

--EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJafyFqAAoJEOYby6cMccU5cKQH/00SZvtiVHzouYwehWx1YA2l
AQgX9OXVzw6RMkRaiWmMCBFldS5adQyTfHn2qiJbKo4Ei+tYu1Il6M4G+GnV5MKu
Ju6MH1D8y1KAs4s67ABDfH0ibHXmxTdlnQ8vURDZzLjRtLodub30gPf89XU2bZE7
1I82C4TPoueDh6xnrqPMb5pgTRsIDPyJd1IHUhFNHrWXj2xG2qGTmxIT5CBduNDa
kWVWtKRlN2TIQxtQg/8j6j06VVU1hivGmIsmLPIzDtSh9BZVIVgWoYlTz/cwVCkl
rkxOwnkZVOqkZq25PPorK3eYik7N5GJBuu6lI+w6U3LncFz4CzdFm97TZ1MHgWM=
=m671
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm--
0
perl
2/10/2018 4:44:27 PM
---1454121964-1960592822-1518282680=:3529
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

From the keyboard of Ricardo Signes [10.02.18,11:44]:

> * Andreas Koenig <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> [2018-02-09T01:18:59]
[...]
>> 18. would you agree that the border between acceptable and unacceptable
>>     behaviour is not cast in stone and for this reason the moderation
>>     team might decide wrongly, at least occasionally? Which part of the
>>     moderation system would automatically correct such potentially wrong
>>     decisions?
>
> As with any decision, mistakes can be made.  I hope that the moderators will
> remain open-minded to reasoned arguments from the group.  So, the answer to
> "which part" is "the part where decisions are made publicly in a large room
> full of people who care and try to help."

emphasizing the "automatically" in "which part", I guess an at-job would
do. Issuing a ban, an at-job could be set up to remove it after expiry.
Unless further $foo, that is, upon which that job may be cancelled.

As for "the border between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour is not
cast in stone", this list is open for discussion, i.e. change requests
are welcome to be pondered.

0--gg-

-- 
_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q�/)Oo.  G�\        /
                               /\_�/(q    /
----------------------------  \__(m.====�.(_("always off the crowd"))."�
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}
---1454121964-1960592822-1518282680=:3529--
0
gm
2/10/2018 5:11:20 PM
--9amGYk9869ThD9tj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> [2018-02-10T11:44:27]
> The buck can stop with me, here:  I requested the ban, the ban was appare=
ntly
> not sufficiently removed.  I'll see if there's any interesting details be=
hind
> the scenes, but I doubt it.  I'll let you know.

Memory did not serve me right, this ban originated after the one I had in m=
ind.

Nonetheless, if I find out anything, I'll say so.

--=20
rjbs

--9amGYk9869ThD9tj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJafzqhAAoJEOYby6cMccU5OYcIANRO5RgxoO+MdFotISNlqGOR
8cM4ei1hj1v3dw0NF7j4ZuuSrllTYjB+oas30JiNhKQ5oJlSVD3dxDssnjVRdSSH
Tbi85Bgka92aM/qfduFVHQESS3xMvg7s0hhqkJbbTNR63JPB/T3eqGGstgY/F0JT
AYznFgisAu/gPfml/+SONTuMMSVYNlHJkTsM+2Nw0qejH4ztSnrSu8MGPgCcreBG
CykpSCevp48Uy167WUiE6rA3dJ8FEI5gwF8J+tyaTtH1ioVe+caNHbM3/rJdg2PQ
+htSub1E30mFc8UPxPMognP1AfsFtIfCr3+akkeNfgZJanOileGqQYl2yFu+53o=
=pWWZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--9amGYk9869ThD9tj--
0
perl
2/10/2018 6:32:01 PM
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 07:18:59AM +0100, Andreas Koenig wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:14:22 +0100, Andreas Koenig <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> said:
> 
> >>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:42:54 +0000, Aaron Crane <arc@cpan.org> said:
>  >> My fellow list members,
>  >> Please note that, as of commit
>  >> ef7498d2b69936a5c6476ecf1950066f638b2dac, the section of perlpolicy
>  >> relating to the standards of conduct has been updated.
> 
>   > So how did the voting process go? I suppose there was one, and the
>   > voting moderators are not shy to stand to their decisions, right?
> 
> Ping?

I am one of the moderators, but only speaking for myself here.

I'm sorry you didn't get a response sooner.  The moderators did indeed
discuss those changes and they were agreed upon and supported by the
group.

> That being out of the way, here they are:

[questions 1-3 and 5-12 about details of past moderation process]

Since moderation is, thankfully, rarely needed or used, there is
no complicated formal apparatus or structure.  The moderators simply
consult and seek to arrive at consensus.  In this case, the mistakes
made removing a ban were just that--simple honest mistakes.  I don't
know that there's much more useful I can say.

[questions 15-17 about whether the revised policy is wise]

The basic goal of fostering civility is, I hope, not controversial.
The rationale is explained in the commit message:

    Our rationale is that temporary bans are for the offender: to give
    them the opportunity to change their behaviour in a way that aligns
    with our community expectations. However, if the person in question
    fails to take advantage of that opportunity, our focus must shift
    to the community: we aim to protect other list members from having
    to bear the burden of unacceptable behaviour.

One main issue here seems to be how long a ban should be after the
*fourth* instance.  Changing it from 6 months to indefinite (which
can be lifted whenever the relevant party agrees to try to be civil)
does not seem a particularly drastic or authoritarian change to me.
I would agree that there can be reasonable disagreement about the best
length in such cases, and public, civil, discussion on the mailing list
about it is appropriate.

[questions 4, 13-14, and 18 about the appropriate place of moderators
within the community ]

I am not aware of extensive discussions along these lines, so I will not
try to invent any policy here.  My personal opinion is that moderators
have a primary responsibility to the broader perl5 community, and
should try to take direction from that broader community.  Of course
perl5-porters does not always speak with a single voice, so considerable
judgment is required.

Again, I am just speaking for myself here, and I know this doesn't
explicitly answer all the questions various people have raised, but I
hope some readers find it at least somewhat helpful.

Thanks for reading this far,

-- 
    Andy Dougherty		doughera@lafayette.edu
0
doughera
2/11/2018 5:27:36 AM
[Top-posted]

This echoes my understanding and sentiments.

A point I think should be made here: Determining the line at which
someone is banned or not banned cannot be a collective decision beyond
the moderation team for two main reasons: 1. It would take far too long
to get everyone's opinion and position (one of the questions here even
dealt directly with "why did it take this long to fix?") and 2. Far
worse, some people are simply perfectly fine with abuse of others. For
example, there are people who are completely fine with Marc's behavior
and see no reason to not provide him with a stage. These people would
not prevent abuse, they would normalize it - the opposite of the purpose
of rules of conduct.

The moderators should be a group of people who are interested in the
safety of p5p and the ability to have conversations without resulting to
insults and alienation. Such decisions cannot be rendered by people who
are perfectly fine with bullying.

I find it silly (to say the least) that this needs to be explained, but
here we are, so: Any committee to prevent abuse (of any form) *cannot* -
by any ethical measure - be composed by anyone who supports abusive
behavior. This is like the Standard of Conduct committee at a conference
be inhabited by people who support sexual assault. Sure, it makes *them*
feel better, but it doesn't serve the attendees, which is the point of
it. If an attendee demands that an assaulter be allowed, this is someone
who is not serving the community, only themselves and their friend who
assaults others.

On 02/11/2018 07:27 AM, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 07:18:59AM +0100, Andreas Koenig wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:14:22 +0100, Andreas Koenig <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> said:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:42:54 +0000, Aaron Crane <arc@cpan.org> said:
>>  >> My fellow list members,
>>  >> Please note that, as of commit
>>  >> ef7498d2b69936a5c6476ecf1950066f638b2dac, the section of perlpolicy
>>  >> relating to the standards of conduct has been updated.
>>
>>   > So how did the voting process go? I suppose there was one, and the
>>   > voting moderators are not shy to stand to their decisions, right?
>>
>> Ping?
> I am one of the moderators, but only speaking for myself here.
>
> I'm sorry you didn't get a response sooner.  The moderators did indeed
> discuss those changes and they were agreed upon and supported by the
> group.
>
>> That being out of the way, here they are:
> [questions 1-3 and 5-12 about details of past moderation process]
>
> Since moderation is, thankfully, rarely needed or used, there is
> no complicated formal apparatus or structure.  The moderators simply
> consult and seek to arrive at consensus.  In this case, the mistakes
> made removing a ban were just that--simple honest mistakes.  I don't
> know that there's much more useful I can say.
>
> [questions 15-17 about whether the revised policy is wise]
>
> The basic goal of fostering civility is, I hope, not controversial.
> The rationale is explained in the commit message:
>
>     Our rationale is that temporary bans are for the offender: to give
>     them the opportunity to change their behaviour in a way that aligns
>     with our community expectations. However, if the person in question
>     fails to take advantage of that opportunity, our focus must shift
>     to the community: we aim to protect other list members from having
>     to bear the burden of unacceptable behaviour.
>
> One main issue here seems to be how long a ban should be after the
> *fourth* instance.  Changing it from 6 months to indefinite (which
> can be lifted whenever the relevant party agrees to try to be civil)
> does not seem a particularly drastic or authoritarian change to me.
> I would agree that there can be reasonable disagreement about the best
> length in such cases, and public, civil, discussion on the mailing list
> about it is appropriate.
>
> [questions 4, 13-14, and 18 about the appropriate place of moderators
> within the community ]
>
> I am not aware of extensive discussions along these lines, so I will not
> try to invent any policy here.  My personal opinion is that moderators
> have a primary responsibility to the broader perl5 community, and
> should try to take direction from that broader community.  Of course
> perl5-porters does not always speak with a single voice, so considerable
> judgment is required.
>
> Again, I am just speaking for myself here, and I know this doesn't
> explicitly answer all the questions various people have raised, but I
> hope some readers find it at least somewhat helpful.
>
> Thanks for reading this far,
>
0
xsawyerx
2/11/2018 8:04:39 AM
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:12:19 +0200, Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> 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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

  > 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. And repeat what was
already public before the questions were asked. 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
https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/02/msg249290.html

In this context it may have been wrong to even perform a vote about such
a change.

  > 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?

  > 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?

  > 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.

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.

  > 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
possible.

Thanks,
-- 
andreas
0
andreas
2/11/2018 12:46:21 PM
>>>>> 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. 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.

-- 
andreas
0
andreas
2/11/2018 1:13:50 PM

On 02/11/2018 02:46 PM, Andreas Koenig wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:12:19 +0200, Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> 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
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

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
> https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/02/msg249290.html
>
> 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.

Heh.

>   > 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
> possible.

This is not what recusal means. See above.
0
xsawyerx
2/11/2018 1:48:41 PM
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.
0
craig
2/11/2018 5:19:23 PM
>>>>> 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
0
andreas
2/12/2018 8:06:43 PM
--089e082f330c4f211e056509cbc2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

[Resend. There seems to be something horribly wrong in mail
post-gsuite-migration email setup and how it interacts with the perl.org
email infra. This email was sent on Feb 9th and I'm now giving up on
thinking that it's stuck in moderation.]

First: My apologies. There was a discussion between the moderators and the
conclusion included me responding to you. I don't know what it was that got
me distracted that night, but I've since started a new job and don't know
where my brain is right now from information overflow. Anyway, enough of my
excuses.

The way I read your questions, you're wondering whether it was agreed upon
by the entire set of moderators. If so, the answer is a definite yes (but
this was obviously before Karen and Todd joined the set).

I'll send another reply to your more recent email.

Best regards,
Steffen

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Andreas Koenig <
andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> wrote:

> >>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:42:54 +0000, Aaron Crane <arc@cpan.org> said:
>
>   > My fellow list members,
>   > Please note that, as of commit
>   > ef7498d2b69936a5c6476ecf1950066f638b2dac, the section of perlpolicy
>   > relating to the standards of conduct has been updated.
>
> So how did the voting process go? I suppose there was one, and the
> voting moderators are not shy to stand to their decisions, right?
>
> --
> andreas
>

--089e082f330c4f211e056509cbc2
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">[Resend. There seems=
 to be something horribly wrong in mail post-gsuite-migration email setup a=
nd how it interacts with the <a href=3D"http://perl.org">perl.org</a> email=
 infra. This email was sent on Feb 9th and I&#39;m now giving up on thinkin=
g that it&#39;s stuck in moderation.]</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-=
size:12.8px"><br></span></div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">First: My ap=
ologies. There was a discussion between the moderators and the conclusion i=
ncluded me responding to you. I don&#39;t know what it was that got me dist=
racted that night, but I&#39;ve since started a new job and don&#39;t know =
where my brain is right now from information overflow. Anyway, enough of my=
 excuses.</span><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"fon=
t-size:12.8px">The way I read your questions, you&#39;re wondering whether =
it was agreed upon by the entire set of moderators. If so, the answer is a =
definite yes (but this was obviously before Karen and Todd joined the set).=
</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.=
8px">I&#39;ll send another reply to your more recent email.</div><div style=
=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Best regard=
s,</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Steffen=C2=A0</div></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 7:1=
4 AM, Andreas Koenig <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:andreas.koenig=
..7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de" target=3D"_blank">andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz=
..ak.mind.de</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span c=
lass=3D"">&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:42:54 +0000, Aaron Cr=
ane &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:arc@cpan.org">arc@cpan.org</a>&gt; said:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 &gt; My fellow list members,<br>
=C2=A0 &gt; Please note that, as of commit<br>
=C2=A0 &gt; ef7498d2b69936a5c6476ecf195006<wbr>6f638b2dac, the section of p=
erlpolicy<br>
=C2=A0 &gt; relating to the standards of conduct has been updated.<br>
<br>
</span>So how did the voting process go? I suppose there was one, and the<b=
r>
voting moderators are not shy to stand to their decisions, right?<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
andreas<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>

--089e082f330c4f211e056509cbc2--
0
mail
2/12/2018 8:33:13 PM
--94eb2c1a5f4880236705650a1ead
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

[Resend. There seems to be something horribly wrong in mail
post-gsuite-migration email setup and how it interacts with the perl.org
email infra. This email was sent on Feb 9th and I'm now giving up on
thinking that it's stuck in moderation.]

Preface: If anyone following this hasn't seen my previous email in this
thread, please read it because it is the actual response from the
moderators to Andreas' original question.

In the following, I don't speak for any of the other moderators, and I'm
describing only my opinions and feelings.

Andreas,

we've known each other online and from conferences for many, many years
now. I have the utmost respect for you, for many reasons. Obviously, your
technical and thought-leadership contributions to the community are
tremendous. But even more importantly, I've come to know you as a kind and
respectful person who is willing to spend a lot of effort on trying to work
out what's best for the greater good and best for Perl's users. For
example, I very eagerly lapped up your zen on PAUSE take-over requests over
a decade ago.

It's this context in which it really pains me to say that I feel the
attitude that I gleam from your recent emails is rather hostile. Given how
(I think) I know you, you must clearly think that there's somebody being
wronged* by somebody else's *deliberate* actions. I feel that you do not
trust the set of moderators, and that you do not give us the benefit of
doubt about also trying to do the right things. Considering that we're all
here for choice, and in many ways because we're trying to render a free
service, as well as the deep respect I have for you, the impression I get
from your communication does hurt and disappoint.

I believe that the purpose of having moderators - and trust me, each one of
us would prefer if none were required - is to ensure that perl5-porters is
a place where people want to contribute, feel valued, can have
constructively critical but not insulting or hurtful debates, and
correspondingly keep coming back, as well as grow as hackers in the process.

Now, the line between what's hurtful or not-in-good-faith and what's just
curt constructive criticism is very hard to draw. Therefore, moderation
needs to be done (sparingly, as you've said yourself in a previous email)
by people and cannot be written down as policy and automated by a shell
script.

I've been a professional manager for a large software engineering
department for some time now, and if you'll allow me preach from experience
for a brief moment: The single most helpful rule for attaining the above is
to always use the most charitable reading of what others say, assume that
their intent is good (like yours is, and please believe me, mine), and of
course also always maintain good intent oneself. I'd like to ask everyone
to take a step back and consider whether they are assuming good intent of
their peers, particularly when engaging in meta discussion such as this.

Thank you for bearing with me. I will try to respond to your questions
below. I may run out of time if the kids wake up, and if that is so, I'll
send a partial response. I am unlikely to be able to engage in extended
further discussion for lack of time and sleep, and I'm doing this in the
hope that something is better than nothing. I hope for your understanding.

Kind regards,
Steffen

* There was indeed, Marc, but by error, not evil deliberation.

Reminder: This is my opinion only and hasn't been discussed with any of the
other moderators.

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 6:18 AM, Andreas Koenig <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@
franz.ak.mind.de> wrote:

> >>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:14:22 +0100, Andreas Koenig <
> andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> said:
>
> >>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:42:54 +0000, Aaron Crane <arc@cpan.org> said:
>  >> My fellow list members,
>  >> Please note that, as of commit
>  >> ef7498d2b69936a5c6476ecf1950066f638b2dac, the section of perlpolicy
>  >> relating to the standards of conduct has been updated.
>
>   > So how did the voting process go? I suppose there was one, and the
>   > voting moderators are not shy to stand to their decisions, right?
>
> Ping?
>
> I have asked some more questions to some members of the community and
> have received the feedback that they are worth being asked. And I was
> told that I should provide some insights about how we could move forward
> from here. I believe the questions themselves partially contain hints
> about a way forward. It all depends on the reaction of the rest of the
> community to determine which ways are reachable.
>
> Before I present the questions, I ask the moderators for obvious reasons
> to suspend moderation completely for the duration of this investigation.
>
>
I do not at all find that conclusion obvious.

I also feel that your tone is one of an inquisition and find it altogether
inappropriate, demeaning. Your use of the word "investigation" implies a
sanction that does not exist.

That being out of the way, here they are:
>
>  1. was the whole group of moderators informed about the state of
>     the incident with Marc Lehmann's ban?
>

Not sure I understand: Do you mean "did all moderators know at the time of
Marc's ban that it was to be only for a limited time?" Then yes, we all
know as we'd discussed it. Or do you mean "did you all know about how we
failed to unban him at the right time?" Then yes, all moderators knew
because we discussed that. Without wanting to put words in anyone's mouth,
I think I can say that nobody was happy about having missed that (thus also
the apology). Note that all of this was before Todd and Karen's involvement.


>  2. was the whole group of moderators informed about the mail from
>     former pumpkin Ricardo in which he said that he believes it was an
>     accident and apologizes and is sure that this will be fixed quickly?
>

Yes, that was after our discussion. None of the moderators can lift the ban
ourselves, that's done by the (wonderful and volunteer, I might say)
admins. They did so, but I don't think there was an immediate email to p5p
(or Marc) about the ban being lifted (typically when multiple people are
involved => misalignment on who communicates what).


>  3. was the whole group of moderators informed why the issue was not
>     fixed quickly but was dragged on and on for over three weeks?
>

I believe the ban was lifted much quicker than that. I think it took a few
days.


>  4. since it was a pumpking who instigated the moderation team, do the
>     moderators believe they should report to the pumpking or to
>     perl5-porters? Or to nobody at all?
>

To the pumpking.

This being said, if the pumpking (being that Sawyer now or anybody else
past or future) said "ye must decide this way or that", I would not blindly
follow that order but rather if I felt that it was wrong in a significant
way, I would clearly state so, and if need be, resign. In other words, I
believe the pumpking delegates the responsibility.

I may also add that Sawyer has been extremely responsible about this and
has done a stellar job at avoiding any abuse of his influence here. He's
stayed out of moderation decisions where he had an involvement in the
p5p-incident that preceded the moderation discussion. If he were to get too
close to that line, I would be very blunt to him about that, but I know him
to be highly sensitive and sensible to this.

 5. what was the reason why it took so long to apologize and fix the ban
>     settings?
>

Order of things as I remember them:

a) realization
b) head-desking
c) lengthy discussion among the moderators about what exactly to do (to
avoid any of us accidentally speaking for the others, see also my
disclaimers about what I'm doing here)
d) apology from Rik
e) asking admins to unban
f) unbanned
g) failed or delayed notice about being unbanned as discussed above

Now, the times between steps (specifically a to d and d to f) were, I
believe a few days each. Do not forget that

 6. which moderators have access to the system that handles bans?
>

None.


>  7. who has access to the logs of the system?
>

I don't believe any of the moderators do.


>  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?
>

You know very well who maintains the mailing list services. And it's none
of the moderators. Why would you even ask that? I am really trying to give
you the benefit of doubt here, but I find this whole thing to be very
cynical.


>  9. have the other moderators been informed about the findings?
>

"Findings"? What are you even talking about? A ban was put in place way
back when. Somebody should have remembered to remove it. (Typical mailing
list software - mailman or whatever else - doesn't support
automatic-time-dependent-removal of bans as far as I know.) Nobody did.

10. which safeguards have been considered and/or implemented to prevent
>     that such accidents will not repeat?
>

None and I do not think that any are warranted. You do realize that this
could have ALSO been fixed by a simple reminder, right?


> 11. when did the discussion about the changes to the moderation rules
>     that lead to commit v5.27.8-10-gef7498d2b6 take place, who
>     participated, who voted how?
>

Unanimous among the moderators, but before Karen and Todd were added to the
group (adding them was also unanimous, I believe).


> 12. where are the meeting minutes?
>

Please. It's an asynchronous email thread among people in different time
zones. What kind of shadow organization do you think exists here?


> 13. did anybody of the participants in the discussion come to the idea
>     that changes to the rules would have to be discussed with and
>     decided by the people on perl5-porters themselves and not by the
>     moderators alone?
>

I can't speak for the others.

I will say, however, that I don't think that this type of discussion makes
sense to run on p5p. Mostly the same thing that necessitates even having
moderators in the first place. Mailing list membership does not come with
some entitlement to vote about anything.

14. how do the moderators think about the idea that they might have to
>     obey rules set up by the members of the community, not by
>     themselves?
>

The moderators are asked to keep things on the list civil by the pumpking.
In the past, that duty had fallen on the pumpking alone. Rik then decided
to get help and reduce the risk for singular personal bias that way.

Do not fall into the trap to equate membership of a mailing list with a
sense of community either. It's unfortunately a VERY fuzzy line and we're
constantly reminded of that when people refer to "the echo chamber".


> 15. did nobody in the moderation team realize that the new rules might
>     be perceived as authoritarian?


I cannot speak for the others. But I stated about what I think the purpose
of the moderation is. I believe that the current rules are a good tool for
that. And even more so, that having people who do their best to make
participation in perl development via p5p as constructive and enjoyable as
possible. Yes, that requires judgment calls.

16. did nobody in the moderation team realize that the new rules might
>     be perceived as: perl, the superglue of the internet now glueing the
>     cylinder lock to lock members out forever?
>

Andreas, now you're just being cynical. I feel very disappointed.


> 17. who had the idea that the maximum penalty we have to have on
>     perl5-porters needs to be indefinite? How long is indefinite
>     compared to the age of the community? Compared to longest reign of a
>     pumpking? Compared to the longest grant paid out by the perl
>     foundation?
>

Do not forget: If a productive, constructive, and civil person chooses to
leave perl 5 development because of a toxic environment, that is also
indefinite. So the aim is to balance that as much as possible such that
this doesn't happen while bans remain a very rare and dire exception. A
single toxic contributor can drive away many others. You can't really win,
can you? See also: The trolley problem (except that this isn't congruent in
that participants make decisions about their behaviour).

18. would you agree that the border between acceptable and unacceptable
>     behaviour is not cast in stone and for this reason the moderation
>     team might decide wrongly, at least occasionally? Which part of the
>     moderation system would automatically correct such potentially wrong
>     decisions?
>

Yes, mistakes can be made. Which is why there's the opportunity to appeal
to lift the ban. There is no automatable and fully deterministic solution
to such things and frankly, I think that anybody who would seriously argue
that this can be automated (which you haven't done, I might add, but you
seem to imply it by the phrasing of the question) clearly can't be serious
or somehow has lost touch with other human beings.


>
> While it may sound ungrateful when I present such a shitload of
> questions, I'd like to let you know that I'd rather not have had to go
> into this endavour. But it's not about my personal inclination when I
> set up this catalogue. 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.
>
>
I do find your questions to be overbearing, seemingly ungrateful, and
phrased in a very unfortunate way, likely out of great frustration. I feel
the questions are accusatory, do not give any benefit of doubt, show no
assumptions of good intentions, and appear to show many underlying
assumptions on your part that I would not agree with if spelled out. The
style has made me want to sever my ties to perl development altogether
since I'm sure to feel miserable about this for some time to come. I'm
quite convinced I'm not alone in this dread and some others would be a much
bigger loss than I by far. Being involved in p5p is a hobby for me. As
such, it needs provide something positive to warrant the time and energy
spent. Maybe a feeling of community and friendship. Maybe a sense of
achievement. Maybe a sense of comfort about social interaction. You name
it. Whatever it is if the involvement makes me feel dreadful and drained,
that has an impact on more important thing such as my ability to give my
best to my family, or to have maximum empathy available for looking after
others whose career I influence in my work.
Why do I expand on what this means for me so much? Because the way I feel
is exactly what I believe should be avoided inflicting others because it's
sure to drain our ability to keep perl5 healthy.

I hope my (personal) responses above are helpful.

Kind regards,
Steffen


> Take care,
>

--94eb2c1a5f4880236705650a1ead
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">[Resend. There seems=
 to be something horribly wrong in mail post-gsuite-migration email setup a=
nd how it interacts with the <a href=3D"http://perl.org" target=3D"_blank">=
perl.org</a> email infra. This email was sent on Feb 9th and I&#39;m now gi=
ving up on thinking that it&#39;s stuck in moderation.]</span></div><div><s=
pan style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-si=
ze:12.8px">Preface: If anyone following this hasn&#39;t seen my previous em=
ail in this thread, please read it because it is the actual response from t=
he moderators to Andreas&#39; original question.</span><div style=3D"font-s=
ize:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">In the following, I d=
on&#39;t speak for any of the other moderators, and I&#39;m describing only=
 my opinions and feelings.</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div><=
div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Andreas,</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px=
"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">we&#39;ve known each other onli=
ne and from conferences for many, many years now. I have the utmost respect=
 for you, for many reasons. Obviously, your technical and thought-leadershi=
p contributions to the community are tremendous. But even more importantly,=
 I&#39;ve come to know you as a kind and respectful person who is willing t=
o spend a lot of effort on trying to work out what&#39;s best for the great=
er good and best for Perl&#39;s users. For example, I very eagerly lapped u=
p your zen on PAUSE take-over requests over a decade ago.</div><div style=
=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">It&#39;s th=
is context in which it really pains me to say that I feel the attitude that=
 I gleam from your recent emails is rather hostile. Given how (I think) I k=
now you, you must clearly think that there&#39;s somebody being wronged* by=
 somebody else&#39;s=C2=A0<i><b>deliberate</b></i>=C2=A0actions. I feel tha=
t you do not trust the set of moderators, and that you do not give us the b=
enefit of doubt about also trying to do the right things. Considering that =
we&#39;re all here for choice, and in many ways because we&#39;re trying to=
 render a free service, as well as the deep respect I have for you, the imp=
ression I get from your communication does hurt and disappoint.</div><div s=
tyle=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">I belie=
ve that the purpose of having moderators - and trust me, each one of us wou=
ld prefer if none were required - is to ensure that perl5-porters is a plac=
e where people want to contribute, feel valued, can have constructively cri=
tical but not insulting or hurtful debates, and correspondingly keep coming=
 back, as well as grow as hackers in the process.</div><div style=3D"font-s=
ize:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Now, the line between=
 what&#39;s hurtful or not-in-good-faith and what&#39;s just curt construct=
ive criticism is very hard to draw. Therefore, moderation needs to be done =
(sparingly, as you&#39;ve said yourself in a previous email) by people and =
cannot be written down as policy and automated by a shell script.</div><div=
 style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">I&#39=
;ve been a professional manager for a large software engineering department=
 for some time now, and if you&#39;ll allow me preach from experience for a=
 brief moment: The single most helpful rule for attaining the above is to a=
lways use the most charitable reading of what others say, assume that their=
 intent is good (like yours is, and please believe me, mine), and of course=
 also always maintain good intent oneself. I&#39;d like to ask everyone to =
take a step back and consider whether they are assuming good intent of thei=
r peers, particularly when engaging in meta discussion such as this.</div><=
div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Th=
ank you for bearing with me. I will try to respond to your questions below.=
 I may run out of time if the kids wake up, and if that is so, I&#39;ll sen=
d a partial response. I am unlikely to be able to engage in extended furthe=
r discussion for lack of time and sleep, and I&#39;m doing this in the hope=
 that something is better than nothing. I hope for your understanding.</div=
><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">=
Kind regards,</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Steffen</div><div style=
=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">* There was=
 indeed, Marc, but by error, not evil deliberation.</div><div style=3D"font=
-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Reminder: This is m=
y opinion only and hasn&#39;t been discussed with any of the other moderato=
rs.</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_ext=
ra"><span class=3D"gmail-im">On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 6:18 AM, Andreas Koenig=
=C2=A0<span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz=
..ak.mind.de" target=3D"_blank">andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@<wbr>franz.ak.mind.d=
e</a>&gt;</span>=C2=A0wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-lef=
t:1ex">&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:14:22 +0100, Andreas Koe=
nig &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de" target=
=3D"_blank">andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz<wbr>.ak.mind.de</a>&gt; said:<br>=
<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:42:54 +0000, Aaron Crane &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:arc@cpan.org" target=3D"_blank">arc@cpan.org</a>&gt; sa=
id:<br>=C2=A0&gt;&gt; My fellow list members,<br>=C2=A0&gt;&gt; Please note=
 that, as of commit<br>=C2=A0&gt;&gt; ef7498d2b69936a5c6476ecf195006<wbr>6f=
638b2dac, the section of perlpolicy<br>=C2=A0&gt;&gt; relating to the stand=
ards of conduct has been updated.<br><br>=C2=A0 &gt; So how did the voting =
process go? I suppose there was one, and the<br>=C2=A0 &gt; voting moderato=
rs are not shy to stand to their decisions, right?<br><br>Ping?<br><br>I ha=
ve asked some more questions to some members of the community and<br>have r=
eceived the feedback that they are worth being asked. And I was<br>told tha=
t I should provide some insights about how we could move forward<br>from he=
re. I believe the questions themselves partially contain hints<br>about a w=
ay forward. It all depends on the reaction of the rest of the<br>community =
to determine which ways are reachable.<br><br>Before I present the question=
s, I ask the moderators for obvious reasons<br>to suspend moderation comple=
tely for the duration of this investigation.<br><br></blockquote><div><br><=
/div></span><div>I do not at all find that conclusion obvious.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>I also feel that your tone is one of an inquisition and find i=
t altogether inappropriate, demeaning. Your use of the word &quot;investiga=
tion&quot; implies a sanction that does not exist.</div><span class=3D"gmai=
l-im"><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px =
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">That=
 being out of the way, here they are:<br><br>=C2=A01. was the whole group o=
f moderators informed about the state of<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 the incident with=
 Marc Lehmann&#39;s ban?<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Not sur=
e I understand: Do you mean &quot;did all moderators know at the time of Ma=
rc&#39;s ban that it was to be only for a limited time?&quot; Then yes, we =
all know as we&#39;d discussed it. Or do you mean &quot;did you all know ab=
out how we failed to unban him at the right time?&quot; Then yes, all moder=
ators knew because we discussed that. Without wanting to put words in anyon=
e&#39;s mouth, I think I can say that nobody was happy about having missed =
that (thus also the apology). Note that all of this was before Todd and Kar=
en&#39;s involvement.</div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><div>=C2=A0</div><block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1=
px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">=C2=A02. was the whole group of=
 moderators informed about the mail from<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 former pumpkin Ri=
cardo in which he said that he believes it was an<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 accident=
 and apologizes and is sure that this will be fixed quickly?<br></blockquot=
e><div><br></div></span><div>Yes, that was after our discussion. None of th=
e moderators can lift the ban ourselves, that&#39;s done by the (wonderful =
and volunteer, I might say) admins. They did so, but I don&#39;t think ther=
e was an immediate email to p5p (or Marc) about the ban being lifted (typic=
ally when multiple people are involved =3D&gt; misalignment on who communic=
ates what).</div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid r=
gb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">=C2=A03. was the whole group of moderator=
s informed why the issue was not<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 fixed quickly but was dra=
gged on and on for over three weeks?<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span>=
<div>I believe the ban was lifted much quicker than that. I think it took a=
 few days.</div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg=
b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">=C2=A04. since it was a pumpking who insti=
gated the moderation team, do the<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 moderators believe they =
should report to the pumpking or to<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 perl5-porters? Or to n=
obody at all?<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>To the pumpking.</=
div><div><br></div><div>This being said, if the pumpking (being that Sawyer=
 now or anybody else past or future) said &quot;ye must decide this way or =
that&quot;, I would not blindly follow that order but rather if I felt that=
 it was wrong in a significant way, I would clearly state so, and if need b=
e, resign. In other words, I believe the pumpking delegates the responsibil=
ity.</div><div><br></div><div>I may also add that Sawyer has been extremely=
 responsible about this and has done a stellar job at avoiding any abuse of=
 his influence here. He&#39;s stayed out of moderation decisions where he h=
ad an involvement in the p5p-incident that preceded the moderation discussi=
on. If he were to get too close to that line, I would be very blunt to him =
about that, but I know him to be highly sensitive and sensible to this.</di=
v><span class=3D"gmail-im"><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
 style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);p=
adding-left:1ex">=C2=A05. what was the reason why it took so long to apolog=
ize and fix the ban<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 settings?<br></blockquote><div><br></d=
iv></span><div>Order of things as I remember them:</div><div><br></div><div=
>a) realization</div><div>b) head-desking</div><div>c) lengthy discussion a=
mong the moderators about what exactly to do (to avoid any of us accidental=
ly speaking for the others, see also my disclaimers about what I&#39;m doin=
g here)</div><div>d) apology from Rik</div><div>e) asking admins to unban</=
div><div>f) unbanned</div><div>g) failed or delayed notice about being unba=
nned as discussed above</div><div><br></div><div>Now, the times between ste=
ps (specifically a to d and d to f) were, I believe a few days each. Do not=
 forget that=C2=A0</div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><div><br></div><blockquote=
 class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px so=
lid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">=C2=A06. which moderators have acces=
s to the system that handles bans?<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><d=
iv>None.</div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg=
b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">=C2=A07. who has access to the logs of the=
 system?<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I don&#39;t believe any=
 of the moderators do.</div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><div>=C2=A0</div><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:=
1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">=C2=A08. who has investigated,=
 how the ban against Marc Lehmann was entered<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 into the sys=
tem? When and for how long was it entered by whom?<br></blockquote><div><br=
></div></span><div>You know very well who maintains the mailing list servic=
es. And it&#39;s none of the moderators. Why would you even ask that? I am =
really trying to give you the benefit of doubt here, but I find this whole =
thing to be very cynical.</div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><div>=C2=A0</div><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-le=
ft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">=C2=A09. have the other mod=
erators been informed about the findings?<br></blockquote><div><br></div></=
span><div>&quot;Findings&quot;? What are you even talking about? A ban was =
put in place way back when. Somebody should have remembered to remove it. (=
Typical mailing list software - mailman or whatever else - doesn&#39;t supp=
ort automatic-time-dependent-<wbr>removal of bans as far as I know.) Nobody=
 did.</div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,2=
04,204);padding-left:1ex">10. which safeguards have been considered and/or =
implemented to prevent<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 that such accidents will not repeat=
?<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>None and I do not think that a=
ny are warranted. You do realize that this could have ALSO been fixed by a =
simple reminder, right?</div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><div>=C2=A0</div><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">11. when did the discussion a=
bout the changes to the moderation rules<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 that lead to comm=
it v5.27.8-10-gef7498d2b6 take place, who<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 participated, wh=
o voted how?<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Unanimous among the=
 moderators, but before Karen and Todd were added to the group (adding them=
 was also unanimous, I believe).</div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><div>=C2=A0<=
/div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">12. where are the me=
eting minutes?<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Please. It&#39;s =
an asynchronous email thread among people in different time zones. What kin=
d of shadow organization do you think exists here?</div><span class=3D"gmai=
l-im"><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0p=
x 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">13=
.. did anybody of the participants in the discussion come to the idea<br>=C2=
=A0 =C2=A0 that changes to the rules would have to be discussed with and<br=
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 decided by the people on perl5-porters themselves and not by=
 the<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 moderators alone?<br></blockquote><div><br></div></sp=
an><div>I can&#39;t speak for the others.</div><div><br></div><div>I will s=
ay, however, that I don&#39;t think that this type of discussion makes sens=
e to run on p5p. Mostly the same thing that necessitates even having modera=
tors in the first place. Mailing list membership does not come with some en=
titlement to vote about anything.</div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><div><br></=
div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">14. how do the modera=
tors think about the idea that they might have to<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 obey rul=
es set up by the members of the community, not by<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 themselv=
es?<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>The moderators are asked to =
keep things on the list civil by the pumpking. In the past, that duty had f=
allen on the pumpking alone. Rik then decided to get help and reduce the ri=
sk for singular personal bias that way.</div><div><br></div><div>Do not fal=
l into the trap to equate membership of a mailing list with a sense of comm=
unity either. It&#39;s unfortunately a VERY fuzzy line and we&#39;re consta=
ntly reminded of that when people refer to &quot;the echo chamber&quot;.</d=
iv><span class=3D"gmail-im"><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204=
);padding-left:1ex">15. did nobody in the moderation team realize that the =
new rules might<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 be perceived as authoritarian?</blockquote=
><div><br></div></span><div>I cannot speak for the others. But I stated abo=
ut what I think the purpose of the moderation is. I believe that the curren=
t rules are a good tool for that. And even more so, that having people who =
do their best to make participation in perl development via p5p as construc=
tive and enjoyable as possible. Yes, that requires judgment calls.</div><sp=
an class=3D"gmail-im"><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);paddin=
g-left:1ex">16. did nobody in the moderation team realize that the new rule=
s might<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 be perceived as: perl, the superglue of the intern=
et now glueing the<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 cylinder lock to lock members out forev=
er?<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Andreas, now you&#39;re just=
 being cynical. I feel very disappointed.</div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><di=
v>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px=
 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">17. who had=
 the idea that the maximum penalty we have to have on<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 perl=
5-porters needs to be indefinite? How long is indefinite<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 c=
ompared to the age of the community? Compared to longest reign of a<br>=C2=
=A0 =C2=A0 pumpking? Compared to the longest grant paid out by the perl<br>=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 foundation?<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Do not=
 forget: If a productive, constructive, and civil person chooses to leave p=
erl 5 development because of a toxic environment, that is also indefinite. =
So the aim is to balance that as much as possible such that this doesn&#39;=
t happen while bans remain a very rare and dire exception. A single toxic c=
ontributor can drive away many others. You can&#39;t really win, can you? S=
ee also: The trolley problem (except that this isn&#39;t congruent in that =
participants make decisions about their behaviour).</div><span class=3D"gma=
il-im"><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px=
 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">18.=
 would you agree that the border between acceptable and unacceptable<br>=C2=
=A0 =C2=A0 behaviour is not cast in stone and for this reason the moderatio=
n<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 team might decide wrongly, at least occasionally? Which =
part of the<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 moderation system would automatically correct =
such potentially wrong<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 decisions?<br></blockquote><div><br=
></div></span><div>Yes, mistakes can be made. Which is why there&#39;s the =
opportunity to appeal to lift the ban. There is no automatable and fully de=
terministic solution to such things and frankly, I think that anybody who w=
ould seriously argue that this can be automated (which you haven&#39;t done=
, I might add, but you seem to imply it by the phrasing of the question) cl=
early can&#39;t be serious or somehow has lost touch with other human being=
s.</div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,20=
4,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>While it may sound ungrateful when I present s=
uch a shitload of<br>questions, I&#39;d like to let you know that I&#39;d r=
ather not have had to go<br>into this endavour. But it&#39;s not about my p=
ersonal inclination when I<br>set up this catalogue. I hear the questions a=
nd I have to spell them out<br>because apparently nobody else does, while s=
till they actually are<br>awaiting to be dealt with.<br><br></blockquote><d=
iv><br></div></span><div>I do find your questions to be overbearing, seemin=
gly ungrateful, and phrased in a very unfortunate way, likely out of great =
frustration. I feel the questions are accusatory, do not give any benefit o=
f doubt, show no assumptions of good intentions, and appear to show many un=
derlying assumptions on your part that I would not agree with if spelled ou=
t. The style has made me want to sever my ties to perl development altogeth=
er since I&#39;m sure to feel miserable about this for some time to come. I=
&#39;m quite convinced I&#39;m not alone in this dread and some others woul=
d be a much bigger loss than I by far. Being involved in p5p is a hobby for=
 me. As such, it needs provide something positive to warrant the time and e=
nergy spent. Maybe a feeling of community and friendship. Maybe a sense of =
achievement. Maybe a sense of comfort about social interaction. You name it=
.. Whatever it is if the involvement makes me feel dreadful and drained, tha=
t has an impact on more important thing such as my ability to give my best =
to my family, or to have maximum empathy available for looking after others=
 whose career I influence in my work.</div><div>Why do I expand on what thi=
s means for me so much? Because the way I feel is exactly what I believe sh=
ould be avoided inflicting others because it&#39;s sure to drain our abilit=
y to keep perl5 healthy.</div><div><br></div><div>I hope my (personal) resp=
onses above are helpful.</div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards,</div><div>S=
teffen</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1=
ex"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Take care,</span><div class=3D"gmail-y=
j6qo gmail-ajU" style=3D"font-size:12.8px"></div></blockquote><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote"><br></div></div></div>

--94eb2c1a5f4880236705650a1ead--
0
mail
2/12/2018 8:56:28 PM
Thank you Steffen, Thank you very much. I'll probably answer this in
more depth but not too quickly, as you suggest I'll take a step back.
For now I just want to say thank you.

-- 
andreas
0
andreas
2/12/2018 9:28:19 PM
On 02/12/2018 02:28 PM, Andreas Koenig wrote:
> Thank you Steffen, Thank you very much. I'll probably answer this in
> more depth but not too quickly, as you suggest I'll take a step back.
> For now I just want to say thank you.
> 

I'm fond of this quote:

"Sometimes I get the feeling the whole world is against me, but deep 
down I know that's not true. Some of the smaller countries are neutral."

by Robert Orben

It reminds me of how I thought before my delayed onset emotional 
maturity happened.  When that happened, I realized a vital truth that I 
had not considered before: that most people really don't have very much 
interest in me, and certainly not enough to care to be against me.   And 
that's how it should be.

I worked for probably the most prestigious R&D organization in the world 
at the time, and I saw how many many mistakes were made, and they tended 
to be made through poor communication, and people having various blind 
spots, or different viewpoints and priorities etc.  They weren't 
generally deliberate; and still we muddled through.  Most people just 
muddle through in the world.

What I realized was that most everything negative that happened wasn't 
malicious, but due to some sort of incompetence.  I stopped taking 
things personally.

Years later I found some similar principal had been written down, by a 
Victorian British diplomat or somebody like that.  But this weekend when 
I went searching for it, I couldn't find it.  Instead I found Hanlon's 
razor:

  "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by 
stupidity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

And I was pleased that the name may be a corruption of one of my 
favorite childhood authors: Robert Heinlein.

It gives in the article an earlier quote from Goethe, which is actually 
more accurate in my view:

".. misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world 
than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much 
less frequent"

Misunderstandings and neglect.  Everybody has their lives and their 
priorities, and what looks to me like neglect may simply be someone 
busily getting on with their life.  Their priority is breathing, and 
eating, and sleeping, and earning enough money to enable them to 
continue to do these things, and lots of other things that are required 
to maintain their existence, and to make it worthwhile.

I think the moderators should have replied earlier to Andreas, with a 
work-in-progress message.  Something like, "You bring up some good 
points, and it may take a while for us to all find the time to 
adequately discuss it."  But they didn't.  I know some of them 
personally, and I don't think they did so with malice.

The original forwarded letter is full of flagrant disregard for Hanlon's 
razor.  If Marc could learn to apply that principal before he hits Send, 
what he would write would have a much better reception here.

And the world in fact doesn't operate as he appears to see it. 
Misunderstandings and neglect, misunderstandings and neglect, that's the 
way the world really operates.
0
public
2/13/2018 5:05:05 AM
On 02/11/2018 09:04 AM, Sawyer X wrote:
> [Top-posted]
> 

Apologies for breaking my silence. There is an ever-present piece of the 
narrative being nonchalantly pushed around that simply can not be 
allowed to stand.


Two non-controversial exhibits from way way way outside the chamber:

This is decidedly not abuse ( 5 secs ): https://youtu.be/15wtWkcv3VU?t=94
This also does not qualify: https://youtu.be/HaHwlSTqA7s?t=637


Yet:

~$ curl -sL 
https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/02/msg249343.html 
| grep -oiE 'abus\S*|assault|safety|bullying'
abuse
abuse,
safety
bullying
abuse
abusive
assault
assault
assault


Context: You assumed a highly visible public position from your 
predecessor. You proceeded to make numerous, severe, userbase-affecting 
mistakes and misstatements along the way, within an alarmingly short 
time span. There is virtually no record of you taking a step back and 
saying "I and the people I lead fucked up, we are going to remediate 
this ASAP". Let alone a record of your doing so proactively, before 
others point out that yet again the direction taken is very far from 
ideal. The *LEAST* people stuck with this situation can ( and must ) do 
is complain. Incessantly. Loudly.

Yes, all people did is complain. Nobody stalked you while you walked 
home, your phone did not run off the hook, you have not received 
unlabeled packages in the mail, no one sent you threatening messages in 
the middle of the night. I even doubt anyone ever got threateningly "in 
your face" in public spaces. You equating the suffering of your ego with 
physical abuse, placing it anywhere near the same level as the 
bodily-assault and stalking epidemic gripping our industry and wider 
society... is sickening and demeaning to all survivors of such. I 
implore you to drop this shameful line of argumentation and never bring 
it up again.

And before the obligatory "we are all volunteers/hobbyists/whathaveyou" 
line of defense comes up again, let me remind all participants in this 
thread as a dev in similar shoes: You being not paid for doing any of 
this does not matter. Your intentions do not matter. Your convictions do 
not matter. The only thing that matters is your performance in the eyes 
of users who were there long before you came along, and who do not even 
know ( nor care about ) your names.

Beatings will continue until the service improves ( even if it means 
changing who renders said service )

Cheers
0
rabbit
2/13/2018 1:48:52 PM
Piping up as a lurker with no dog in this fight.

On 11 Feb 2018, at 08:04, Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> wrote:
> Far
> worse, some people are simply perfectly fine with abuse of others. For
> example, there are people who are completely fine with Marc's behavior
> and see no reason to not provide him with a stage. These people would
> not prevent abuse, they would normalize it - the opposite of the =
purpose
> of rules of conduct.


On 13 Feb 2018, at 13:48, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us> wrote:
> You equating the suffering of your ego with physical abuse, placing it =
anywhere near the same level as the bodily-assault and stalking epidemic =
gripping our industry and wider society... is sickening and demeaning to =
all survivors of such. I implore you to drop this shameful line of =
argumentation and never bring it up again.

This seems to be a rather uncharitable reading of what Sawyer was trying =
to say.

There is a tendency among programmers for technical expertise to go hand =
in hand with social rudeness. If everyone else is a fool, why should you =
suffer them gladly? Linus Torvalds is, by most accounts, one of these; =
and while his achievements in building Linux are astonishing, there have =
been a growing number of stories recently that his brash, bullying =
attitude is driving away some contributors, notably women.

There are three approaches you can take to people like this: you can (1) =
enable them, (2) ask them to avoid inflammatory language and be more =
constructive, or (3) ban them. Having chosen not to do #1, as I =
understand it, p5p has tried #2 and then, having failed, chosen #3.

As I see it, this discussion isn=E2=80=99t really about Marc Lehmann (or =
Reini Urban), or Sawyer X. It=E2=80=99s about what type of community p5p =
wants to have: a small elite community, or a larger, broader-based one =
(albeit with fewer peaks of brilliance).

For a mature language, that doesn=E2=80=99t seem inherently unreasonable =
to me.

Sam
--=20
Website: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/
0
sam
2/13/2018 4:33:58 PM
--94eb2c0308c6c103bf05651ae894
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us>
wrote:

> You equating the suffering of your ego with physical abuse, placing it
> anywhere near the same level as the bodily-assault and stalking epidemic
> gripping our industry and wider society... is sickening and demeaning to
> all survivors of such. I implore you to drop this shameful line of
> argumentation and never bring it up again.


Equating the use of the word 'abuse' with physical assault and stalking
while implying verbal and emotional abuse are fine is sickening and
demeaning to all survivors of such. I implore you to drop this shameful
line of argumentation and never bring it up again.

-Dan

--94eb2c0308c6c103bf05651ae894
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
ue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Peter Rabbitson <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us" target=3D"_blank">rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us</a>=
&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0=
 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">You equating the suffe=
ring of your ego with physical abuse, placing it anywhere near the same lev=
el as the bodily-assault and stalking epidemic gripping our industry and wi=
der society... is sickening and demeaning to all survivors of such. I implo=
re you to drop this shameful line of argumentation and never bring it up ag=
ain.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Equating the use of the word &#39;abus=
e&#39; with physical assault and stalking while implying verbal and emotion=
al abuse are fine is sickening and demeaning to all survivors of such. I im=
plore you to drop this shameful line of argumentation and never bring it up=
 again.</div><div><br></div><div>-Dan</div></div></div></div>

--94eb2c0308c6c103bf05651ae894--
0
grinnz
2/13/2018 4:58:51 PM
--001a1140fbda76a88205651b0db1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On 14 Feb 2018 00:59, "Dan Book" <grinnz@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us>
wrote:

> You equating the suffering of your ego with physical abuse, placing it
> anywhere near the same level as the bodily-assault and stalking epidemic
> gripping our industry and wider society... is sickening and demeaning to
> all survivors of such. I implore you to drop this shameful line of
> argumentation and never bring it up again.


Equating the use of the word 'abuse' with physical assault and stalking
while implying verbal and emotional abuse are fine is sickening and
demeaning to all survivors of such. I implore you to drop this shameful
line of argumentation and never bring it up again.


+1

Yves

--001a1140fbda76a88205651b0db1
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote">On 14 Feb 2018 00:59, &quot;Dan Book&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:=
grinnz@gmail.com">grinnz@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><=
blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D"quoted-text">On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:48=
 AM, Peter Rabbitson <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rabbit-p5p@rab=
bit.us" target=3D"_blank">rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #=
ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">You equating the suffering of your ego with phy=
sical abuse, placing it anywhere near the same level as the bodily-assault =
and stalking epidemic gripping our industry and wider society... is sickeni=
ng and demeaning to all survivors of such. I implore you to drop this shame=
ful line of argumentation and never bring it up again.</blockquote><div><br=
></div></div><div>Equating the use of the word &#39;abuse&#39; with physica=
l assault and stalking while implying verbal and emotional abuse are fine i=
s sickening and demeaning to all survivors of such. I implore you to drop t=
his shameful line of argumentation and never bring it up again.</div></div>=
</div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto">+1</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Yves</div><=
div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquo=
te class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>

--001a1140fbda76a88205651b0db1--
0
demerphq
2/13/2018 5:09:07 PM
On 13/02/2018, demerphq wrote:

> On 14 Feb 2018 00:59, "Dan Book" <grinnz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us>
> wrote:

>> You equating the suffering of your ego with physical abuse, placing it
>> anywhere near the same level as the bodily-assault and stalking
>> epidemic gripping our industry and wider society... is sickening and
>> demeaning to all survivors of such. I implore you to drop this
>> shameful line of argumentation and never bring it up again.


> Equating the use of the word 'abuse' with physical assault and stalking
> while implying verbal and emotional abuse are fine is sickening and
> demeaning to all survivors of such. I implore you to drop this shameful
> line of argumentation and never bring it up again.


> +1

+1 here too


Regards
0
perl
2/13/2018 5:10:52 PM
---1454121964-892975852-1518541886=:3529
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.1802131812421.3529@mail.mgm-net.de>

From the keyboard of Peter Rabbitson [13.02.18,14:48]:

tl;dr - dismissed

- author complains about words used within a post, without context
   awareness, which goes against the camel's hair
- author charges SawyerX with unprofessional management of the ban
   issue, after statements were made (publically) why this happened
   and without providing witness or proof for "numerous, severe,
   userbase-affecting mistakes" as claimed
- author reprehends usage of words understanding then in another context
   as intended, and provides yet another example of misguided political
   correctness
- author demands performance in dismissal of personal situation of the
   actors
- author tries to give arguments more weight with "being there long
   before", which isn't a merit in any way

I'd *never* task this person with moderation.

Long version:

> On 02/11/2018 09:04 AM, Sawyer X wrote:
>> [Top-posted]
>> 
>
> Apologies for breaking my silence. There is an ever-present piece of the 
> narrative being nonchalantly pushed around that simply can not be allowed to 
> stand.
>
>
> Two non-controversial exhibits from way way way outside the chamber:
>
> This is decidedly not abuse ( 5 secs ): https://youtu.be/15wtWkcv3VU?t=94
> This also does not qualify: https://youtu.be/HaHwlSTqA7s?t=637
>
>
> Yet:
>
> ~$ curl -sL 
> https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/02/msg249343.html | 
> grep -oiE 'abus\S*|assault|safety|bullying'
> abuse
> abuse,
> safety
> bullying
> abuse
> abusive
> assault
> assault
> assault

Are you aware that these words cannot be taken out of context? There's
that famous Black Perl Poem:

     BEFOREHAND: close door, each window & exit; wait until time.
        	open spellbook, study, read (scan, select, tell us);
     write it, print the hex while each watches,
 	reverse its length, write again;
 	kill spiders, pop them, chop, split, kill them.
 	    unlink arms, shift, wait & listen (listening, wait),
     sort the flock (then, warn the "goats" & kill the "sheep");
 	kill them, dump qualms, shift moralities,
 	values aside, each one;
 	    die sheep! die to reverse the system
 	    you accept (reject, respect);
     next step,
 	kill the next sacrifice, each sacrifice,
 	wait, redo ritual until "all the spirits are pleased";
 	do it ("as they say").
     do it(*everyone***must***participate***in***forbidden**s*e*x*).
     return last victim; package body;
 	exit crypt (time, times & "half a time") & close it,
 	select (quickly) & warn your next victim;
     AFTERWORDS: tell nobody.
 	wait, wait until time;
 	wait until next year, next decade;
 	    sleep, sleep, die yourself,
 	    die at last

Many of the words used here are keywords in perl. Can we conclude that
perl is an aggressive and abusive language?

Then, perl.org's whois entry has the lines:
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@dyn.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.6032961595

> Context: You assumed a highly visible public position from your predecessor. 
> You proceeded to make numerous, severe, userbase-affecting mistakes and 
> misstatements along the way, within an alarmingly short time span. There is 
> virtually no record of you taking a step back and saying "I and the people I 
> lead fucked up, we are going to remediate this ASAP". Let alone a record of 
> your doing so proactively, before others point out that yet again the 
> direction taken is very far from ideal. The *LEAST* people stuck with this 
> situation can ( and must ) do is complain. Incessantly. Loudly.

Nobody has complained about people stuck with this for their
complaining. What are the other numerous and severe mistakes besides the
handling of this ban? Besides, the referred post was about moderation
per se, and *not* about this specific mistake, which has already
publicly assumed.

> Yes, all people did is complain. Nobody stalked you while you walked home, 
> your phone did not run off the hook, you have not received unlabeled packages 
> in the mail, no one sent you threatening messages in the middle of the night. 
> I even doubt anyone ever got threateningly "in your face" in public spaces. 
> You equating the suffering of your ego with physical abuse, placing it 
> anywhere near the same level as the bodily-assault and stalking epidemic 
> gripping our industry and wider society... is sickening and demeaning to all 
> survivors of such. I implore you to drop this shameful line of argumentation 
> and never bring it up again.

Strawman arguments. In the incriminated post, there's no equating of 
"suffering ego" with physical abuse or "placement anywhere near bodily
assault". It is you who is making this up. Please stop harrassing people
with that sort of distortion.

> And before the obligatory "we are all volunteers/hobbyists/whathaveyou" line 
> of defense comes up again, let me remind all participants in this thread as a 
> dev in similar shoes: You being not paid for doing any of this does not 
> matter. Your intentions do not matter. Your convictions do not matter. The 
> only thing that matters is your performance in the eyes of users who were 
> there long before you came along, and who do not even know ( nor care about ) 
> your names.

If you are ok with a system which spits out people at the moment their
perfomance declines a bit, without being interested in the reasons and
without being interested in the persons involved, that may be fine for
you.

It isn't for me.

> Beatings will continue until the service improves ( even if it means changing 
> who renders said service )

That's probably the best way to make services improve.

0--gg-

-- 
_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q�/)Oo.  G�\        /
                               /\_�/(q    /
----------------------------  \__(m.====�.(_("always off the crowd"))."�
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}
---1454121964-892975852-1518541886=:3529--
0
gm
2/13/2018 5:15:10 PM
> Apologies for breaking my silence. There is an ever-present piece of the 
> narrative being nonchalantly pushed around that simply can not be 
> allowed to stand.

Given you described the following (far from entirely successful but honestly
genuine) attempt at helping somebody as an 'abuse episode' -

20:54 -!- krebbit [683b9641@ircip1.mibbit.com] has joined #dbix-class
20:54 < krebbit> is there a createOrUpdate in DBI i should look at?
20:56 -!- rhesa [~rhesa@1F2E5002.dsl.pool.telekom.hu] has joined #dbix-class
20:58 < krebbit> reading the documentation it seems there is only one way to create an object in teh databse
20:58 < krebbit> ->create(\{})
20:59 < krebbit> can i not work with my model objects when creating an entry and need to create a literal hash to be passed to the create method?
21:02 <@mst> krebbit: rubbish
21:02 <@mst> krebbit: have you read the DBIx::Class::ResultSet docs?
21:02 < krebbit> http://search.cpan.org/~ribasushi/DBIx-Class-0.082820/lib/DBIx/Class/ResultSet.pm#create
21:03 < krebbit> im looking at this and it states I need to pass an explicit hash of properties when creating a new object
21:03 <@mst> which specifically tells you that it's a shortcut for ->new_result + ->insert
21:03 <@mst> please try reading the whole of the method's documentation :)
21:03 <@mst> also, notice that it mentions find_or_create
21:04 <@mst> and that there's a create_or_update method
21:04 <@mst> and that there's a find_or_new method
21:04 < krebbit> same thing
21:04 <@mst> not the same thing at all
21:04 < krebbit> it requires an explicit hash
21:04 <@mst> not the same thing at all
21:04 <@mst> new_result returns an uninserted row object
21:04 <@mst> which is specifically what you were asking for
21:04 <@mst> I don't understand what the problem is
21:04 < krebbit> totally let me rephrase
21:05 -!- melmothX [~melmoth@25-213.dsl.iskon.hr] has quit [Quit: #]
21:05 <@mst> my $uninserted = $rs->new_result({});
21:05 <@mst> $uninserted->some_col($value);
21:05 <@mst> $uninserted->insert;
21:05 <@mst> would totally work fine
21:05 < shadowpaste> "krebbit" at 217.168.150.38 pasted "example OOO" (10 lines) at http://paste.scsys.co.uk/493757
21:06 <@mst> yeah, so that's completely wrong
21:06 < krebbit> I wonder if I can build up an entry with an OOO appraoch using the auto generated classes
21:06 <@mst> use new_result
21:06 <@mst> and insert
21:06 <@mst> rather than inventing stuff that doesn't exist
21:07 <@mst> I mean, admittedly, that code is pure antipattern anyway, it's javabean style which mostly only exists because position arguments to constructors are horrible
21:07 <@mst> but if you wrote it properly, it would work fine
21:08 <@mst> my $f24League = $schema->resultset('F24League')->new_result({});
21:08 <@mst> ...
21:08 <@mst> $f24League->insert;
21:08 <@mst> would work
21:08 < krebbit> oh perfect
21:08 < krebbit> let me try that
21:08 < krebbit> thank you for your help so far
21:08 <@mst> wtf is OOO though?
21:11 < avenj> Obtuse Object Orientation
21:12 < krebbit> ;) 
21:12 < krebbit> that did work, thanks mst.
21:12 < krebbit> the API is not intended that way though?
21:12 <@mst> that's absolutely supported
21:13 <@mst> being able to handle uninserted objects was a feature in 0.01
21:13 <@mst> because I was really annoyed Class::DBI didn't
21:13 < krebbit> gotcha, now if I build up that object from an XML feed
21:13 < krebbit> and I have an object with that unique key persisted already
21:13 <@mst> right at the start of this conversation
21:14 <@mst> I pointed out to you that immediately above create() in the resultset docs
21:14 <@mst> was find_or_new()
21:14 <@mst> because I thought that was what you were going to want
21:14 -!- Vandal [~Vandal@176.209.221.52] has quit [Quit: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Arthur C. Clarke)]
21:14 <@mst> maybe now you could look at the docs for it like I suggested twice?
21:14 < krebbit> mst no worries, wont bother you further
21:14 <@mst> because along with $new->insert_or_update it exists to handle exactly that case
21:14 < krebbit> thatnks for your help
21:14 -!- krebbit [683b9641@ircip1.mibbit.com] has left #dbix-class []
21:15 <@mst> ... what
21:15 < purl> Unimplemented. or see dotdotdot
21:15  * mst sighs

it rather seems to me that your opinion as to what level and form of vitriol
is and isn't acceptably classifiable as 'abuse' is, at best, situational.

-- 
Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue

http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/   http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/

Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our CPAN
commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team.
0
mst
2/13/2018 6:16:25 PM
>>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 10:32:52 +0100, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> said:

  > The only other option is propose a vote of no-confidence in the
  > Pumpking, or request that one of the voters does so.

Would you kindly point me to the place where this is documented?

  > If asked in the interest of fairness I would make the proposal, even
  > though I would *vehemently* vote and lobby against it.

Is it documented which people share the privilege to make proposals,
vote and lobby with you and where such proceedings take place?

Thank you,
-- 
andreas
0
andreas
2/21/2018 3:31:10 AM
--001a1141c1da9ff1750565b1cd88
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On 21 Feb 2018 11:31, "Andreas Koenig" <
andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> wrote:

>>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 10:32:52 +0100, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> said:

  > The only other option is propose a vote of no-confidence in the
  > Pumpking, or request that one of the voters does so.

Would you kindly point me to the place where this is documented?


No I cannot. It isn't documented. Not all rules or customs are documented.
Think "common law" not "statute law".


  > If asked in the interest of fairness I would make the proposal, even
  > though I would *vehemently* vote and lobby against it.

Is it documented which people share the privilege to make proposals,
vote and lobby with you and where such proceedings take place?


Everybody gets to make proposals and to lobby. The committers get to vote.
At least that is how it has worked over the last 10 years or so and the
last  four or five pumpkings at least.

I will admit that my theory that we can dismiss the pumpking is untested,
but it seems a natural extension of the fact we have a straw poll on the
nominated candidate. It is notable that we have not nominated a pumpking
who had a commit bit for quite some time, and there has not been in my
experience any votes against the nominee, thus the pumpking had been
elected by universal acclamation every time I have had the privilege of
participating.

Yves

--001a1141c1da9ff1750565b1cd88
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote=
">On 21 Feb 2018 11:31, &quot;Andreas Koenig&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:an=
dreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de">andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mi=
nd.de</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div =
class=3D"quoted-text">&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 10:32:52 +010=
0, demerphq &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:demerphq@gmail.com">demerphq@gmail.com</a=
>&gt; said:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 &gt; The only other option is propose a vote of no-confidence in the=
<br>
=C2=A0 &gt; Pumpking, or request that one of the voters does so.<br>
<br>
</div>Would you kindly point me to the place where this is documented?<br><=
/blockquote></div></div></div><div dir=3D"auto">=C2=A0<br></div><div dir=3D=
"auto">No I cannot. It isn&#39;t documented. Not all rules or customs are d=
ocumented. Think &quot;common law&quot; not &quot;statute law&quot;.</div><=
div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><di=
v class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .=
8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class=3D"quoted-text"><br>
=C2=A0 &gt; If asked in the interest of fairness I would make the proposal,=
 even<br>
=C2=A0 &gt; though I would *vehemently* vote and lobby against it.<br>
<br>
</div>Is it documented which people share the privilege to make proposals,<=
br>
vote and lobby with you and where such proceedings take place?</blockquote>=
</div></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Everybody g=
ets to make proposals and to lobby. The committers get to vote. At least th=
at is how it has worked over the last 10 years or so and the last=C2=A0 fou=
r or five pumpkings at least.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"=
auto">I will admit that my theory that we can dismiss the pumpking is untes=
ted, but it seems a natural extension of the fact we have a straw poll on t=
he nominated candidate. It is notable that we have not nominated a pumpking=
 who had a commit bit for quite some time, and there has not been in my exp=
erience any votes against the nominee, thus the pumpking had been elected b=
y universal acclamation every time I have had the privilege of participatin=
g.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Yves</div></div>

--001a1141c1da9ff1750565b1cd88--
0
demerphq
2/21/2018 5:00:16 AM
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 20:56:28 +0000, Steffen Mueller <mail@steffen-mueller.net> said:

  > [Resend. There seems to be something horribly wrong in mail
  > post-gsuite-migration email setup and how it interacts with the
  > perl.org email infra. This email was sent on Feb 9th and I'm now
  > giving up on thinking that it's stuck in moderation.]

  > Preface: If anyone following this hasn't seen my previous email in
  > this thread, please read it because it is the actual response from the
  > moderators to Andreas' original question.

  > In the following, I don't speak for any of the other moderators, and
  > I'm describing only my opinions and feelings.

  > Andreas,

  > we've known each other online and from conferences for many, many
  > years now. I have the utmost respect for you, for many reasons.
  > Obviously, your technical and thought-leadership contributions to the
  > community are tremendous. But even more importantly, I've come to know
  > you as a kind and respectful person who is willing to spend a lot of
  > effort on trying to work out what's best for the greater good and best
  > for Perl's users. For example, I very eagerly lapped up your zen on
  > PAUSE take-over requests over a decade ago.

Thank you! And to pass back the compliment, I dearly remember how you
shaped the appearance of PAUSE at that time!

  > It's this context in which it really pains me to say that I feel the
  > attitude that I gleam from your recent emails is rather hostile. Given
  > how (I think) I know you, you must clearly think that there's somebody
  > being wronged* by somebody else's deliberate actions.

Yes, this is true.

  > I feel that you
  > do not trust the set of moderators, and that you do not give us the
  > benefit of doubt about also trying to do the right things.

No, rest assured, there is no reason to believe any of the moderators
has acted in bad faith. I'm talking about symptoms, not people. It's
completely undecided how the symptoms came into being.

  > Considering
  > that we're all here for choice, and in many ways because we're trying
  > to render a free service, as well as the deep respect I have for you,
  > the impression I get from your communication does hurt and
  > disappoint.

The purpose of my mail was to get questions answered that I did not get
answered when I was trying with a normal friendly tone
(https://gist.github.com/anonymous/058d742124c9ab31a308895fcc53aec0). I
was working hard to get rid of my anger, but apparently it leaked
through. I feel very sorry about that.

I do believe we have an unfortunate and dangerous malfunctioning of the
community on multiple levels. It is not easy to find out what needs to
be said and done. And keeping silent is not an option for me, at least
not yet.

Please note that I have chosen to put my doubts into questions because I
saw serious shortcomings that need to be addressed. I dearly thank all
moderators who have committed to step forward and provide their views.
I'll try to clarify my view once again as much as I can. But this will
be my last posting in this thread unless being asked to say something.

  > I believe that the purpose of having moderators - and trust me, each
  > one of us would prefer if none were required - is to ensure that
  > perl5-porters is a place where people want to contribute, feel valued,
  > can have constructively critical but not insulting or hurtful debates,
  > and correspondingly keep coming back, as well as grow as hackers in
  > the process.

I did not question the existence of the moderation group. I repeat
myself when I say I believe it is a good thing to have a working
moderation system. I'd wish we had moderation groups on multiple levels.
Or maybe not. I digress.

  > Now, the line between what's hurtful or not-in-good-faith and what's
  > just curt constructive criticism is very hard to draw. Therefore,
  > moderation needs to be done (sparingly, as you've said yourself in a
  > previous email) by people and cannot be written down as policy and
  > automated by a shell script.

Strongly agreed.

  > I've been a professional manager for a large software engineering
  > department for some time now, and if you'll allow me preach from
  > experience for a brief moment: The single most helpful rule for
  > attaining the above is to always use the most charitable reading of
  > what others say, assume that their intent is good (like yours is, and
  > please believe me, mine), and of course also always maintain good
  > intent oneself. I'd like to ask everyone to take a step back and
  > consider whether they are assuming good intent of their peers,
  > particularly when engaging in meta discussion such as this.

Absolutely. Good vs bad intent is out of question. Like Karl Williamson
suggested, Hanlon's Razor should be the norm. Unfortunately it is
limited in applicability.

  > Thank you for bearing with me. I will try to respond to your questions
  > below. I may run out of time if the kids wake up, and if that is so,
  > I'll send a partial response. I am unlikely to be able to engage in
  > extended further discussion for lack of time and sleep, and I'm doing
  > this in the hope that something is better than nothing. I hope for
  > your understanding.

  > Kind regards,
  > Steffen

  > * There was indeed, Marc, but by error, not evil deliberation.

  > Reminder: This is my opinion only and hasn't been discussed with any
  > of the other moderators.

  > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 6:18 AM, Andreas Koenig
  > <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> wrote:

 >>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:14:22 +0100, Andreas Koenig
  >     <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> said:
    
 >>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:42:54 +0000, Aaron Crane
  >     <arc@cpan.org> said:
 >>> My fellow list members,
 >>> Please note that, as of commit
 >>> ef7498d2b69936a5c6476ecf1950066f638b2dac, the section of
  >     perlpolicy
 >>> relating to the standards of conduct has been updated.
    
 >> So how did the voting process go? I suppose there was one, and
  >     the
 >> voting moderators are not shy to stand to their decisions,
  >     right?
    
  >     Ping?
    
  >     I have asked some more questions to some members of the community
  >     and
  >     have received the feedback that they are worth being asked. And I
  >     was
  >     told that I should provide some insights about how we could move
  >     forward
  >     from here. I believe the questions themselves partially contain
  >     hints
  >     about a way forward. It all depends on the reaction of the rest of
  >     the
  >     community to determine which ways are reachable.
    
  >     Before I present the questions, I ask the moderators for obvious
  >     reasons
  >     to suspend moderation completely for the duration of this
  >     investigation.
    
    

  > I do not at all find that conclusion obvious.

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
https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/01/msg248755.html)

Besides: this is a political discussion. Political discussions tend to
turn into ad-personam postings. That was expected and of course it
happened immediately and for that matter I suggested a moratorium. So
far nothing serious has happened that would make it necessary to remind
you of this request, so let's stay it pending.

  > I also feel that your tone is one of an inquisition and find it
  > altogether inappropriate, demeaning. Your use of the word
  > "investigation" implies a sanction that does not exist.

Among the many meanings of the word investigation there are doubtlessly
some that do not have the implication of sanction. We recently had quite
a sour discussion on p5p where English native speakers among themselves
had misconceptions about the term `falsehood` and told each other how to
use a dictionary. I'd prefer not to fall into that trap. Please take the
meaning from the cambridge dictionary, and please pick from the ENUM
"problem", "statement" or "etc." and not "crime":

    the act or process of examining a crime, problem, statement, etc.
    carefully, especially to discover the truth.
    (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/investigation)

I would indeed like to find the truth. It's the basic requirement that
we all are seeking the truth.

  >     That being out of the way, here they are:
    
  >     1. was the whole group of moderators informed about the state of
  >     the incident with Marc Lehmann's ban?
    
  > Not sure I understand: Do you mean "did all moderators know at the
  > time of Marc's ban that it was to be only for a limited time?" Then
  > yes, we all know as we'd discussed it. Or do you mean "did you all
  > know about how we failed to unban him at the right time?" Then yes,
  > all moderators knew because we discussed that. Without wanting to put
  > words in anyone's mouth, I think I can say that nobody was happy about
  > having missed that (thus also the apology). Note that all of this was
  > before Todd and Karen's involvement.

Thank you!

  >     2. was the whole group of moderators informed about the mail from
  >     former pumpkin Ricardo in which he said that he believes it was an
  >     accident and apologizes and is sure that this will be fixed
  >     quickly?
    

  > Yes, that was after our discussion. None of the moderators can lift
  > the ban ourselves, that's done by the (wonderful and volunteer, I
  > might say) admins. They did so, but I don't think there was an
  > immediate email to p5p (or Marc) about the ban being lifted (typically
  > when multiple people are involved => misalignment on who communicates
  > what).

Thank you!

  >     3. was the whole group of moderators informed why the issue was
  >     not
  >     fixed quickly but was dragged on and on for over three weeks?
    

  > I believe the ban was lifted much quicker than that. I think it took a
  > few days.

Here is the relevant timeline:

2017-12-20

    https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2017/12/msg248259.html
    It became public knowledge that Marc was banned. Sawyer knew it,
    nobody else. It was purported to me that Sawyer believed this was a
    legitimate ban. But he says in the posting "for behaviour" as if he
    knew something about the ban. But later when I asked him he did not
    know anything about it.

2017-12-29

    mail from me to Sawyer, meanwhile published as
    https://gist.github.com/anonymous/058d742124c9ab31a308895fcc53aec0,
    asking to set the records straight (not only for Marc Lehmann but
    also for Reini Urban);

    my private and unpublished mail exchange with Sawyer continued until
    2018-01-07; Aaron and Ricardo were put on CC by Sawyer on 2018-01-05;

2018-01-04

    https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/01/msg248664.html    
    my forwarded mail from Marc Lehmann to p5p

2018-01-12

    https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/01/msg248755.html
    apology from Aaron Crane to Marc Lehmann; it contained as an
    "explanation" how it had happened: "an administrative oversight
    meant that the ban has been in place since then"

Depending on how you count the days, this is two weeks or three weeks,
but not less.

  >     4. since it was a pumpking who instigated the moderation team, do
  >     the
  >     moderators believe they should report to the pumpking or to
  >     perl5-porters? Or to nobody at all?
    

  > To the pumpking.

  > This being said, if the pumpking (being that Sawyer now or anybody
  > else past or future) said "ye must decide this way or that", I would
  > not blindly follow that order but rather if I felt that it was wrong
  > in a significant way, I would clearly state so, and if need be,
  > resign. In other words, I believe the pumpking delegates the
  > responsibility.

  > I may also add that Sawyer has been extremely responsible about this
  > and has done a stellar job at avoiding any abuse of his influence
  > here. He's stayed out of moderation decisions where he had an
  > involvement in the p5p-incident that preceded the moderation
  > discussion. If he were to get too close to that line, I would be very
  > blunt to him about that, but I know him to be highly sensitive and
  > sensible to this.

Thank you. Frankly, by far I prefer Ricardo's stance who said: "we have
an ethical responsibility to perl5-porters, rather than the pumpking".

(https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/02/msg249320.html)

  >     5. what was the reason why it took so long to apologize and fix
  >     the ban
  >     settings?
    

  > Order of things as I remember them:

  > a) realization
  > b) head-desking
  > c) lengthy discussion among the moderators about what exactly to do
  > (to avoid any of us accidentally speaking for the others, see also my
  > disclaimers about what I'm doing here)
  > d) apology from Rik

You mean Message-ID: <20180104200601.GA24074@debian>, Date: Thu, 4 Jan
2018 15:06:01 -0500? It was not public. I just happened to be a CC, so I
know about it. But granted, it was an apology, albeit preliminary. And
it was six days after my mail to Sawyer.

  > e) asking admins to unban
  > f) unbanned
  > g) failed or delayed notice about being unbanned as discussed above

  > Now, the times between steps (specifically a to d and d to f) were, I
  > believe a few days each. Do not forget that

I did not forget that. The timeline above still does not look favorable
for the work of the moderation team as a whole.

  >     6. which moderators have access to the system that handles bans?
    
  > None.

  >     7. who has access to the logs of the system?
    
  > I don't believe any of the moderators do.

  >     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?
    

  > You know very well who maintains the mailing list services. And it's
  > none of the moderators. Why would you even ask that? I am really
  > trying to give you the benefit of doubt here, but I find this whole
  > thing to be very cynical.

This is really not meant to be cynical at all. I *cannot* ask them
directly. It can only be the moderators' duty to find out what happened
and then to let us know. And most importantly make sure it will not too
easily happen again. I'm a firm believer that I have no right to ask
admins details about the moderation system directly.

  >     9. have the other moderators been informed about the findings?
    

  > "Findings"? What are you even talking about? A ban was put in place
  > way back when. Somebody should have remembered to remove it. (Typical
  > mailing list software - mailman or whatever else - doesn't support
  > automatic-time-dependent-removal of bans as far as I know.) Nobody
  > did.

I'm very grateful that Ricardo investigated more on this matter. Here is
his half finding: "Memory did not serve me right, this ban originated
after the one I had in mind. Nonetheless, if I find out anything, I'll
say so."
(https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/02/msg249324.html)

And here is Sawyer's finding: "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."
(https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/02/msg249315.html)

Read this sentence again and find the hidden messages. It was an "honest
mistake" and the speaker seems to know by whom.

  >     10. which safeguards have been considered and/or implemented to
  >     prevent
  >     that such accidents will not repeat?
    

  > None and I do not think that any are warranted. You do realize that
  > this could have ALSO been fixed by a simple reminder, right?

It *has* started with a simple reminder. But the moderators do not have
a public mail address. So I had to go from one to the other just to find
out that the willingness to unban Marc was close to zero and everything
took far too long. Leave alone the case of Reini who is still waiting to
be unbanned.

Time and again during my private talks I requested that the moderation
team needs to have a common email address. Meanwhile confirmed publicly
by Ricardo (twice), but during my odyssey it was a serious stumbling
block.

When you say, it "could have ALSO been fixed by a simple reminder" I
conclude that nothing of all these mail exchanges was forwarded to you.

  >     11. when did the discussion about the changes to the moderation
  >     rules
  >     that lead to commit v5.27.8-10-gef7498d2b6 take place, who
  >     participated, who voted how?
    

  > Unanimous among the moderators, but before Karen and Todd were added
  > to the group (adding them was also unanimous, I believe).

Thank you.

  >     12. where are the meeting minutes?
    

  > Please. It's an asynchronous email thread among people in different
  > time zones. What kind of shadow organization do you think exists
  > here?

Meeting minutes or a mailbox file, whatever appropriate, show the
arguments brought forth. I mean anything about the process might be
interesting. First of all, what prompted the idea that anything about
the already existing rules in the perlpolicy manpage needed a change *at
all*?

It has been said that the commit message explains the reasoning, but I
find it severly fails to do so. No motive, no impact study.

  >     13. did anybody of the participants in the discussion come to the
  >     idea
  >     that changes to the rules would have to be discussed with and
  >     decided by the people on perl5-porters themselves and not by the
  >     moderators alone?
    

  > I can't speak for the others.

  > I will say, however, that I don't think that this type of discussion
  > makes sense to run on p5p. Mostly the same thing that necessitates
  > even having moderators in the first place. Mailing list membership
  > does not come with some entitlement to vote about anything.

My point is that back room discussions lead to distrust. They should be
kept to a minimum and when the outcome affects the community, they
should be published.

  >     14. how do the moderators think about the idea that they might
  >     have to
  >     obey rules set up by the members of the community, not by
  >     themselves?


  > The moderators are asked to keep things on the list civil by the
  > pumpking. In the past, that duty had fallen on the pumpking alone. Rik
  > then decided to get help and reduce the risk for singular personal
  > bias that way.

  > Do not fall into the trap to equate membership of a mailing list with
  > a sense of community either. It's unfortunately a VERY fuzzy line and
  > we're constantly reminded of that when people refer to "the echo
  > chamber".

I know a bit how difficult it is. I also know that the line is very
fuzzy. My point is not to pretend to know your business better than you.
I just want to remind you (collectively) that you have a responsibility
to the (fuzzy) community and that this responsibility is neglected in
that recent commit.

  >     15. did nobody in the moderation team realize that the new rules
  >     might
  >     be perceived as authoritarian?

  > I cannot speak for the others. But I stated about what I think the
  > purpose of the moderation is. I believe that the current rules are a
  > good tool for that. And even more so, that having people who do their
  > best to make participation in perl development via p5p as constructive
  > and enjoyable as possible. Yes, that requires judgment calls.

I'm questioning the change itself, and I'm questioning how it came
about.

  >     16. did nobody in the moderation team realize that the new rules
  >     might
  >     be perceived as: perl, the superglue of the internet now glueing
  >     the
  >     cylinder lock to lock members out forever?
    

  > Andreas, now you're just being cynical. I feel very disappointed.

What are you now disappointed about? It's eye-catching: glue, lock-out,
cylinder-lock. Perl5-porters has to live with the fact that Reini Urban
is banned and as such victim can tell the world how broken this
community is. And he is always right, at least on this single issue. The
ban was cast for the time of the reign of Ricardo. It should have been
lifted with the new pumpking but was not. I'd say the moderation team is
responsible to fix that, or who else?

My main concern is: how can this be sold as an open community?

And right in that same moment when I write, privately, as a reminder, to
the pumpking that it is time to set the records straight, it is refused
*and* rules are changed simultaneously.

Hanlon's Razor not applicable, at least I need a helping hand that shows
me how.


  >     17. who had the idea that the maximum penalty we have to have on
  >     perl5-porters needs to be indefinite? How long is indefinite
  >     compared to the age of the community? Compared to longest reign of
  >     a
  >     pumpking? Compared to the longest grant paid out by the perl
  >     foundation?
    

  > Do not forget: If a productive, constructive, and civil person chooses
  > to leave perl 5 development because of a toxic environment, that is
  > also indefinite.

Yupp, but it is reversible on their own choice. BTW, the toxic
environment recently stated by several community members did not have
anything to do with verbal abuse neither by Reini Urban nor by Marc
Lehmann. You cannot really call for the moderators when the pumpking
says "CPAN itself is a dumping ground for code. We cannot - and should
not - expect anything written to work ad infinitum"
(https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2017/12/msg248288.html)

<satire> Yet it deserves a PAUSE upload and download ban for at least
six lives. </satire>
 
  > So the aim is to balance that as much as possible
  > such that this doesn't happen while bans remain a very rare and dire
  > exception.

I'd venture, in every single case we have seen so far on p5p, a six
month ban would have been sufficient to keep perl5-porters functioning
the way it was (if not better).

  > A single toxic contributor can drive away many others. You
  > can't really win, can you?

Correct. A single toxic of anything can drive away many others. That's
true for commits, moderators, pumkings, discussions. You cannot ban all
of them. The more the back room decisions rule and the less they get
explained, the greater the loss for the community.

  > See also: The trolley problem (except that
  > this isn't congruent in that participants make decisions about their
  > behaviour).

I don't think the trolley problem can be bent to fit the situation.
Everything is reversible, nobody gets killed. Reminds me that it was you
who brought the formula "this is reversible" to all permission take-over
email exchanges on the PAUSE, which was a huge achievement.

  >     18. would you agree that the border between acceptable and
  >     unacceptable
  >     behaviour is not cast in stone and for this reason the moderation
  >     team might decide wrongly, at least occasionally? Which part of
  >     the
  >     moderation system would automatically correct such potentially
  >     wrong
  >     decisions?
    

  > Yes, mistakes can be made. Which is why there's the opportunity to
  > appeal to lift the ban.

The right to appeal is not sufficient for an encounter on par. As I
wrote to Ricardo recently in private mail:

    By opening doors after a limited downtime this would in my humble
    opinion be a valuable standard. Nothing more than that. I would not
    suggest that the reopening of the door should depend on some kind of
    application by the banned person. No "eat humble pie", thanks.

Let alone, that it is subject to random back room diplomacy again, what
happens after somebody appeals for forgiveness. Reminds me too much of
Canossa.

  > There is no automatable and fully
  > deterministic solution to such things and frankly, I think that
  > anybody who would seriously argue that this can be automated (which
  > you haven't done, I might add, but you seem to imply it by the
  > phrasing of the question) clearly can't be serious or somehow has lost
  > touch with other human beings.

My god, no, I was not talking about scripting. I was talking about the
fact that the previous rules were better. A maximum ban of six months
and reset of the warnings state after that time was *the way* to
automatically correct nearly every mistake by any moderation team,
whatsoever. There was a certain amount of wisdom in that previous text.

Having a moderate maximum ban length forces the community to face the
critics from outside the echo chamber within their own premises
occasionally. That's a good and healthy opportunity for everybody within
the echo chamber to think about their own responsibilities. A good
pumpking should have the wider community in his mind and a good
moderation team should stay inviting on the occasional need to issue
warnings or bans.

A good moderation team should never speak like a supreme court (but all
recent postings had some such hostility), should always explain why they
think what they are saying is correct (all postings either did not or
did only after being questioned) and should remind that doors are in
principle open (missing in all postings).

When you see a sentence like "The wording of the forwarded message is
clearly in contravention of our standards of conduct", you should expect
some substantiation. When it is missing, something is very wrong. And it
was missing.

Especially the idea to extend moderators' power to unlimited off-list
world is extremely daunting.

You see what a minefield (term coined by Marc Lehmann) you are setting
up? From freely speaking about the weirdness of the policy change, now
all of a sudden I am possibly guilty "to have a moderator engaged in
further discussion" and as I turn around, you have the right to ban me.
Even if I post this somewhere else.

When I could choose between a p5p without moderation and this minefield,
I knew where to go.

  >     While it may sound ungrateful when I present such a shitload of
  >     questions, I'd like to let you know that I'd rather not have had
  >     to go
  >     into this endavour. But it's not about my personal inclination
  >     when I
  >     set up this catalogue. 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.
    
    

  > I do find your questions to be overbearing, seemingly ungrateful, and
  > phrased in a very unfortunate way, likely out of great frustration. I
  > feel the questions are accusatory, do not give any benefit of doubt,
  > show no assumptions of good intentions, and appear to show many
  > underlying assumptions on your part that I would not agree with if
  > spelled out.

I hope I could relativize some of your perceptions. I'm sorry that I did
not find a less accusatory wording to let you all know how I perceive
the recent development. My biggest mistake by far was to engage in
private discourse about the thing. I can only recommend to everybody
ever coming into this sort of personal/political challenge, go public as
quickly as possible, or better yet start it publicly.

But do it before you get banned. Once you are banned you need a proxy
and those are in short supply at the moment. So speak up now. You still
can prevent your own future demise.

  > The style has made me want to sever my ties to perl
  > development altogether since I'm sure to feel miserable about this for
  > some time to come. I'm quite convinced I'm not alone in this dread and
  > some others would be a much bigger loss than I by far. Being involved
  > in p5p is a hobby for me. As such, it needs provide something positive
  > to warrant the time and energy spent. Maybe a feeling of community and
  > friendship. Maybe a sense of achievement. Maybe a sense of comfort
  > about social interaction. You name it. Whatever it is if the
  > involvement makes me feel dreadful and drained, that has an impact on
  > more important thing such as my ability to give my best to my family,
  > or to have maximum empathy available for looking after others whose
  > career I influence in my work.
  > Why do I expand on what this means for me so much? Because the way I
  > feel is exactly what I believe should be avoided inflicting others
  > because it's sure to drain our ability to keep perl5 healthy.

Amen.

    But the possibility of abuse may be a good reason for leaving
    capabilities out of other computer languages, it's not a good reason for
    leaving capabilities out of Perl.
                 -- Larry Wall in <199709251614.JAA15718@wall.org>

  > I hope my (personal) responses above are helpful.

You (and all the others who contributed creatively and constructively to
this thread, publicly or privately [you know who you are!]) helped me a
lot to revitalize a tiny inner believe that not all is lost. Thanks a
lot for that.

  > Kind regards,
  > Steffen

  >     Take care,
    
Thanks again,
-- 
andreas
0
andreas
2/24/2018 1:13:36 PM
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
> https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/01/msg248755.html)

I would like to throw in my opinion on this.
When I read this sentence in the new policy, I was a bit shocked.

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.

cheers,
tina
0
post
2/24/2018 2:17:29 PM
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 8:17 AM, Tina M=C3=BCller <post@tinita.de> 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
>> https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2018/01/msg248755.htm=
l)
>
>
> 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
thoughtful ones.

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.
0
craig
2/24/2018 6:19:42 PM
Hi Craig,

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, Craig A. Berry wrote:

> 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.

Thanks for clarifying!

cheers,
tina
0
post
2/25/2018 3:35:01 PM
Reply: