There I read this:
I’m not a lawyer, but this statement looks really bad to me.
What is the basis on which powers are distributed between SC and moderation team? It’s not the constitution, as stated explicitly. What then?
What is the argument that the moderation team has sovereignty in the scope of their claim? Precedent? Is this a good argument? They didn’t make it in the resignation letter. They made none.
If they claim the SC is overreaching, they have to explain why controlling the moderation team is NOT the responsibility of the steering committee and if so, what would be the controlling entity? The moderation team itself? That is autocracy in the most narrow literal sense.
Moderation is an executive function, just like the police. I read a comment of a moderator somewhere, that this is at odds with this view, they see themselves as para medics.
I love this view. But paramedics do not imprison or deport patients, they drive them to the hospital. A ban is the equivalent to a deportation with prejudice.
I don’t mean to say that these are the bad guys, I really don’t know. But they don’t do a particularly good job at making a defendable argument.
What are these misunderstandings, what are the requirements of moderation and even more importantly, what are their goals? None of that has been made explicit.
What follows is a long and very explicit list of failures of the SC. But for these failings to be recognized as failures, there is no objective basis. You had to believe that the moderation team understands the community better, that they know that if their requirements are met they would be successful and what success means in this context.
That is a lot of trust that is presumed here and no transparency at all.
This echoes the critique that banned delinquents voiced towards the moderation team. Where is the double standard coming from? The question whether the SC has the authority to control the moderation team has not been evaluated. This statement is based on a presumption alone. And here precedent is not relevant (moderation team does not need to justify their actions).
Interesting, “safe” and “constructive”. What does that actually mean? In which way is a conflict in public forums unsafe? I would say that doxing is the most critical thread to personal safety. But that didn’t seem to have been a problem. Constructive sounds good, but what is being constructed? A better Nixos? A better team spirit? A better world? People constructed a Third Reich and that was not a good thing. Constructiveness is a means to an end, not a value in itself.
So did the moderation team succeed in demonstrating their superiority over the SC in terms of a common goal? Harmony and consensus is not on the menu. Did they remove the right people eliminating disturbances? Maybe, that’s up to the community to decide. Did they succeed to preserve the good reputation of the Nixos project? I leave that one open.
This does not fit my perception of the situation at all. The moderation team got criticized for suppressing communication (maybe rightly so), not for enabling them. The concerns over biases was not about promotion campaigns but about bans, if I got that right. If this statement is about the community overall and not the moderation team, then I cannot see the drama as progress. Conflicts appear in the tech news, when people get banned, not when they are arguing. Nobody really cares for arguments unless there is some hollywood action and drama attached to them.
This statement has a bit of an orwellian feel to it.
Okay, that’s a reasonable demand, even though the conventional checks for elected positions are the elections. What are the check and balances in place for the moderation team? Why is this not on the menu?
That sounds ominous!
That again sounds great, but the scope as defined earlier is strangely narrow. Why no checks and balances for all relevant powers? Why only the SC? Why should moderation of all powers be the one that is beyond checks? Because of their long experience and better judgement? Seriously? Is this the argument made here?