Ew. At the beginning I was expecting it to be somewhat interpretive, but some of those statements are indefensible to me, and there's quite a lot.
Some might attempt to explain it away as Twitter's model and ecosystem encouraging ill considered statements, but the adult response to that is to take more care in what you say or stop using the medium that encourages you to say horrible things you regret.
Edit: I will acknowledge the data I was looking at is a few years old, and I don't know if the person in question has since recanted on those views. I believe people change and should be given the chance to leave their past misdeeds behind, and I have no knowledge one way or the other if that happened here, and that would be important to know to have an informed opinion.
Relevantly enough, given this is about moderating the rust technical team, Rod Vagg had this to say about moderating the nodejs technical team:
“My assessment of the claim that I am a hindrance to inclusivity efforts is that it hinges on the singular matter of moderation and control of discourse that occurs amongst the technical team. From the beginning I have strongly maintained that the technical team should retain authority over its own space. That its independence also involves its ability to enforce the rules of social interaction and discussion as it sees fit. This has lead to disagreements with individuals that would rather insert external arbiters into the moderation process; arbiters who have not earned the right to stand in judgement of technical team members, and have not been held to the same standards by which technical team members are judged to earn their place in the project. On this matter I remain staunchly opposed to the dilution of independence of the technical team and will continue to advocate for its ability to make such critical decisions for itself. This is not only a question of moral (earned) authority, but of the risk of subversion of our organisational structures by individuals who are attracted to the project by the possibility of pursuing a personal agenda, regardless of the impact this has on the project itself. I see current moves in this direction, as in this week’s moderation policy proposal at nodejs/TSC#276, as presenting such a risk. I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this, but I have just as much right as everyone else to make my case and not be vilified in my attempts to convince enough of the TSC to prevent such changes.”
kbenson|4 years ago
Some might attempt to explain it away as Twitter's model and ecosystem encouraging ill considered statements, but the adult response to that is to take more care in what you say or stop using the medium that encourages you to say horrible things you regret.
Edit: I will acknowledge the data I was looking at is a few years old, and I don't know if the person in question has since recanted on those views. I believe people change and should be given the chance to leave their past misdeeds behind, and I have no knowledge one way or the other if that happened here, and that would be important to know to have an informed opinion.
robocat|4 years ago
“My assessment of the claim that I am a hindrance to inclusivity efforts is that it hinges on the singular matter of moderation and control of discourse that occurs amongst the technical team. From the beginning I have strongly maintained that the technical team should retain authority over its own space. That its independence also involves its ability to enforce the rules of social interaction and discussion as it sees fit. This has lead to disagreements with individuals that would rather insert external arbiters into the moderation process; arbiters who have not earned the right to stand in judgement of technical team members, and have not been held to the same standards by which technical team members are judged to earn their place in the project. On this matter I remain staunchly opposed to the dilution of independence of the technical team and will continue to advocate for its ability to make such critical decisions for itself. This is not only a question of moral (earned) authority, but of the risk of subversion of our organisational structures by individuals who are attracted to the project by the possibility of pursuing a personal agenda, regardless of the impact this has on the project itself. I see current moves in this direction, as in this week’s moderation policy proposal at nodejs/TSC#276, as presenting such a risk. I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this, but I have just as much right as everyone else to make my case and not be vilified in my attempts to convince enough of the TSC to prevent such changes.”
ramchip|4 years ago
5e92cb50239222b|4 years ago
unethical_ban|4 years ago
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]