| 1 |
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 2:23 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sat, 2020-12-12 at 14:42 +0000, Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Now we have a council member appealing directly to council again ... |
| 5 |
> > that sends the message to the community, yet again, that the |
| 6 |
> > processes that council are supposed to enforce don't apply to |
| 7 |
> > council |
| 8 |
> > members. |
| 9 |
> > Will the damage from that message ever be undone? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Is this really a message sent 'by the event', or a deliberate FUD |
| 12 |
> spread by people who don't like the message? Because when people start |
| 13 |
> disputing the process and not the actual arguments, the message I get |
| 14 |
> is 'they are right and we can't argue with that, so let's try to sweep |
| 15 |
> it under the rug'. Then we get walls of meaningless text, arguments |
| 16 |
> about the process, conflicts of interest, etc. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
When a group uses their powers, IMHO, the process is important to provide a |
| 20 |
justification of using said powers. Otherwise we lose faith in the |
| 21 |
institution because instead of using its powers to solve problems, it uses |
| 22 |
its powers in an arbitrarily and poorly justified way. This is why people |
| 23 |
care about the process. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I even agree we should do something about the forum; but my expectation is |
| 26 |
more messages like the one whissi wrote (where we actually attempt to |
| 27 |
resolve the issue) and less the dilfridge message. I assume Dilfridge did |
| 28 |
try to work with the forums-mods, but if he did it was not clear what was |
| 29 |
discussed, proposed, or otherwise. If I'm a council member, what facts am I |
| 30 |
supposed to use to make a decision? Certainly dilfridge's email is not |
| 31 |
sufficient to really make one one way or the other...there are not enough |
| 32 |
facts there to justify action IMHO. It's not even clear *who* owns the |
| 33 |
problem. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
If we had said "Hey forums team, you have a CoC problem in OTW, you have |
| 36 |
six months to implement moderation in OTW that meets our requirements or we |
| 37 |
will shut off OTW" then I think it clearly assigns the problem (ball in |
| 38 |
forum-mods court) and there is a clear timeline to resolve the issue and we |
| 39 |
could add more text around the actual requirements (and again if you |
| 40 |
reference whissi's latest mail you see more of this information and tone.) |
| 41 |
However in the previous bug report we didn't even accurately describe the |
| 42 |
problem, assign it to anyone, or provide any timeline to resolution. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-A |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> -- |
| 49 |
> Best regards, |
| 50 |
> Michał Górny |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> |
Archives