The moderation team mentions that a team member was removed by the SC.
The SC has not denied this statement, so far, however, they framed it as a “proposal”.
The SC has publicly expressed their intent not to:
intervene significantly in the Moderation Team’s affairs except in cases of significant malfeasance, misconduct, or dereliction of duty.
Could the SC (@Ericson2314 @Gabriella439 @jtojnar @roberth @tomberek @winter) please clarify what happened here?
- Who has been (proposed to be) removed from the moderation team?
- Was this indeed a proposal and would the moderation team have been free to reject it?
- If yes: How was this “proposal” communicated towards the moderation team?
- If no: Which “malfeasance, misconduct, or dereliction of duty” has caused this?
The moderation team mentions that the SC first proposed, then forcefully appointed a new member of the moderation team.
The SC has publicly stated that:
Future additions to the Moderation Team must be approved by the Steering Committee (by majority vote)
(emphasis mine)
Frankly, and “approval” can only happen if there is a proposal by somebody else.
Could the SC (@Ericson2314 @Gabriella439 @jtojnar @roberth @tomberek @winter) please clarify what happened here?
- Who has been proposed and later appointed as a new member of the moderation team?
- Why has the SC decided to deviate from the agreed procedures?
It is entirely unacceptable to stay silent on either of this.