Dear 0x4A6F, arianvp, K900, nim65s, uep and community,
I’d like to share my personal view on your resignation, which I support.
in protest of the Steering Committee’s ongoing pattern of attempting to interfere with moderation team operation, membership and specific moderation decisions.
The SC has tried to work with the moderation team to understand moderation decisions and steer towards more objective moderation behavior, with the goal of making moderation fair and respectable, which feeds back into making moderation work easier.
Nonetheless, we have continued to observe moderation not based on the Code of Conduct, but opinions and interpersonal tradeoffs (to put it nicely).
Furthermore, we have observed an unwillingness to be accountable to the Steering Committee; the only body they are directly accountable to anyway.
Due to this continued pattern, we’ve had to take stronger action.
We call on the SC: to join us in resigning, effective immediately, with no second terms, and allow new members to take their place based on the community vote.
I have no plans to resign, nor do I believe @Ericson2314 will. I believe the NCA made a good decision to stagger elections and smoothen SC transitions. Furthermore I believe I can continue to represent the community.
We call on the SC candidates: to commit to implementing a Constitution reform that will require transparency and accountability from the SC, with teams like technical steering and moderation providing a counterbalance.
Are you asking for an elected body to be accountable to an unelected people. I don’t think this is entirely impossible, but it at least needs more thought put into it, and before taking any sort of bureaucratic approach, we should consider changing the governance culture, which is entirely within an SC’s power.
Looking back on the past year, I believe the lack of transparency has at first served us well in terms of reducing drama and giving some “breathing room”, but since this summer, I have felt that balance shift. To be frank, making such a change was difficult in the face of numerous ongoing issues.
I acknowledge that more openness is needed, and this is important for the effectiveness of the SC and the community as a whole to build a respectable reputation for the SC as part of the governance culture. This is an area in which the current SC has not been able to develop, which I agree is unfortunate. I believe it was necessary, and it should not stain the future development of the community. Also, as I have alluded to, I do not believe a constitutional change is currently required to guarantee openness, unless the next SC is somehow unable to change the governance culture to be more open.
This will be a turning point, for both the SC and moderation, neither of which should operate in a “damage control” mode anymore.