Le samedi 2 novembre 2019, 20:01:24 CET Carlos O'Donell a écrit : > I don't see why I should not be a moderator. Everyone has some kind of > bias. Moderation is a difficult task.
To begin with, indeed everybody is to be biased, in the end… but what kind of bias? Someone not having signed might as well be *anywhere* in the spectrum between the Joint statement and RMS himself. Hence this is less evidently biased, as anyone could be, in this —unfortunately heated— dispute be more “neutral”, less extreme or “biased” as you. > Brandon Invergo and Mike Gerwitz are also moderators, specifically to > help avoid this kind of bias. Afaik, this was a place of lax moderation, until then. *Adding* moderators is likely to go in the (until then denounced) direction of growing censorship, a direction that might be biased against one party or another. That could very well go in censorship escalation into muting everybody. Or maybe they might be less prone to censor? Afaiu, adding moderator is likely to make an inclusive OR of decisions, that is a sum of censorship. It would be reassuring to hear it’s going to be an AND, so it’s a *product* of censorship (you would agree on moderation and only censor those you both agree to put moderation on). > > For example, given that the declared purpose of this is list is to talk > > about governance, Sandra Loosemore's messages were in violation of the > > > following rule, and yet they were approved: > The purpose of this list is spelled out in the list description. > Sandra didn't post a discussion about governance, she didn't talk > about restructuring the GNU Project. She spoke only about existing > leadership. On a governance thread. And even so, then we can freely attack people if we’re not anymore talking about governance in the same mail (you should release more mails then), and discuss about governance however we want if we don’t talk about specific people, right?
