On 2024-04-18 13:49, Attila Pinter wrote:
This is very well put, Richard! I know that I personally was expecting to see a united front on the matter from the Board, and a swift explanation of the situation for the community. What we've seen is the opposite, and indeed suits option B.) best from the option you've described. We all see where this option leads to.
And just to better defend myself and explain WHY I'm even speaking up, I'd also like to share my observation as to how the status quo leads to such an unacceptable situation. Even though this is all based on recent events, I will do my best to illustrate without mentioning names, but this is a concentrated summary of recent events for those who might not have been fully up to speed and just dived in to respond to my call for action. 1) Board makes a decision, decision is minuted, minute mentions a single board member 2) Community expresses concerns, especially moderators who feel undermined by the minuted decision 3) Single board member mentioned in the minutes appears on the mailinglists defending the view related to the minuted decision 4) 3 other board members appear expressing individual opinions that run counter to the decision 5) 1 of the 3 board members mentioned in 4) resigns, with their resignation indicating a strong support for the impacted moderators In my view, this example illustrates that Community members can't hold the Board accountable as a whole. Half of them are all on record expressing views that differ from the decisions being recorded. Community members also can't hold the Board accountable as individuals. 1/3rd of them are absent from the discussion. Expressing negative views about the actions, views or absence of individual Board members is far too easily (often invalidly IMO) characterised as personal attacks. Such discussions therefore descend into a melee and the actual problem (the Board decision at 1)) gets lost in the muddle of calls of personal attacks and bad feelings. Furthermore, our rules only have provision for replacing the entire Board, an ultimate sanction which is obviously undermined when the Board doesn't stand by their decisions as a group. This is an unacceptable situation which needs to be addressed. Forget CoC's, toilet humour, IRC, Foundations, Membership, Bugzilla or anything else. Any decision, good or bad, made by the Board isn't worth the effort they put into making it if the community can't hold the Board to account in some form. Because ultimately, their power as a Board only lasts as long as all of us as community members have faith that it's a good idea, that the Board model is good enough, and that the processes they follow can be trusted. My view is that the observable status quo is undermining that faith. And I say that when I'm obviously on record with agreeing with all 3 of the recent Board members who spoke up as individuals.