Mailing List Archive

On 4/14/21 9:27 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote:
> Yuki Kimoto <kimoto.yuki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Has someone's personal attack overheated?
>
> None of use really know since Sawyer decided to leave us with a
> free-floating non-specific accusation of "bullying" combined with an
> attempt at pre-empting any response (if you deny it, well that's just
> what bullies always say, isn't it!).
>
> There was some discussion of this over at reddit. Some people think
> Sawyer was referring to a twitter exchange.
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/perl/comments/mpbjf2/i_am_stepping_down_from_psc_and_core_effective/
>

I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter exchange, what I viewed
at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear from the
discussion that it had been ongoing for some time. I was starting to
type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.

The cases that have been published do not show the history; and the
accumulation of acrimonious interactions, any few of which might not
have led to this outcome

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:14 PM Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com>
wrote:

>
> I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter exchange, what I viewed
> at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear from the
> discussion that it had been ongoing for some time. I was starting to
> type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.
>
>
I unfortunately did not witness this behavior, and I fully understand that
one of the participants in the twitter thread is a critical part of the
irc.perl.org administration team. HOWEVER, he is not the *only* part of
that team, and if there is any behavior that anyone feels uncomfortable
addressing because of his relationship to irc.perl.org, PLEASE bring it to
my attention.

I cannot promise any more than to do my best to make sure the situation is
addressed as best as possible, but I intentionally stay involved so that
people have options.

-Chris

Joel Roth <joelz@pobox.com> wrote:

> AFAICT the result of discussion among core developers and
the community is that the perl interpreter will continue to
honor its commitment to backward compatibility,

Yes, and I was glad to hear that decision, myself.

Further, I think the new Perl Steering Committee has been doing an
excellent job of managing things and the new processes they've put in
place seem to be working very well.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that Sawyer X doesn't want to work with
the PSC any more even if I wasn't very happy with the way he was
managing his Perl 7 initiative-- anyway, I'm going to try to go back
to thinking of him as that guy who gave those cool talks about new
Perl features.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:14:20 +0200, Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:

> I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter exchange, what I viewed
> at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear from the
> discussion that it had been ongoing for some time. I was starting to
> type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.

Are you referring to the conversation in #p5p on the 22nd of March in the wake of the publishing of the "strict-by-default as of v8" plan?

https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac

--
With regards,
Christian Walde

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 20:18:32 +0200, Christian Walde <walde.christian@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:14:20 +0200, Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
>
>> I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter exchange, what I viewed
>> at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear from the
>> discussion that it had been ongoing for some time. I was starting to
>> type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.
>
> Are you referring to the conversation in #p5p on the 22nd of March in the wake of the publishing of the "strict-by-default as of v8" plan?
>
> https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac

haarg informed me that public logging on magnet without the channel opting in is a terms violation, so i'll have to remove the log and will editorialize instead:

if that is the conversation referred to, then i reject the notion of there being harrassment

a plan was published, much as the previous one without any documentation of the motivations, leaving those opposed unable to understand why, and without that knowledge, unable to communicate useful opposition to the plan. thus there maybe was some desperation in the communication, but *certainly* no intent to, nor any executed harrassment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment

--
With regards,
Christian Walde

Christian Walde

Thank you for IRC information.

> https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac

It seems that mst was frustrated in the discussion, so he seems to have
used abusive language to sawyer,

> I'm entirely fucking done with this little children behavior

It may have felt criticized by the toolchain community.

2021?4?15?(?) 3:18 Christian Walde <walde.christian@gmail.com>:

> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:14:20 +0200, Karl Williamson <
> public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
>
> > I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter exchange, what I viewed
> > at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear from the
> > discussion that it had been ongoing for some time. I was starting to
> > type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.
>
> Are you referring to the conversation in #p5p on the 22nd of March in the
> wake of the publishing of the "strict-by-default as of v8" plan?
>
> https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac
>
> --
> With regards,
> Christian Walde
>

To clarify:

mst did not write those words, that was a citation of sawyer's words.

--
With regards,
Christian Walde

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 00:23:21 +0200, Yuki Kimoto <kimoto.yuki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Christian Walde
>
> Thank you for IRC information.
>
>> https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac
>
> It seems that mst was frustrated in the discussion, so he seems to have used abusive language to sawyer,
>
>> I'm entirely fucking done with this little children behavior
>
> It may have felt criticized by the toolchain community.
>
> 2021?4?15?(?) 3:18 Christian Walde <walde.christian@gmail.com>:
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:14:20 +0200, Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter exchange, what I viewed
>>> at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear from the
>>> discussion that it had been ongoing for some time. I was starting to
>>> type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.
>>
>> Are you referring to the conversation in #p5p on the 22nd of March in the wake of the publishing of the "strict->>by-default as of v8" plan?
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac

Christian

>mst did not write those words, that was a citation of sawyer's words.

I couldn't confirm my misunderstanding in detail because the conversation
link was removed.

Could you send me the only relevant part by email?

2021?4?15?(?) 7:38 Christian Walde <walde.christian@gmail.com>:

> To clarify:
>
> mst did not write those words, that was a citation of sawyer's words.
>
> --
> With regards,
> Christian Walde
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 00:23:21 +0200, Yuki Kimoto <kimoto.yuki@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Christian Walde
>
> Thank you for IRC information.
>
> > https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac
>
> It seems that mst was frustrated in the discussion, so he seems to have
> used abusive language to sawyer,
>
> > I'm entirely fucking done with this little children behavior
>
> It may have felt criticized by the toolchain community.
>
> 2021?4?15?(?) 3:18 Christian Walde <walde.christian@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:14:20 +0200, Karl Williamson <
>> public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter exchange, what I viewed
>> > at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear from the
>> > discussion that it had been ongoing for some time. I was starting to
>> > type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.
>>
>> Are you referring to the conversation in #p5p on the 22nd of March in the
>> wake of the publishing of the "strict-by-default as of v8" plan?
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac
>
>

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:16 AM Yuki Kimoto <kimoto.yuki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> B. Estrade
>
> Thank you for the information.
>
> This link seems to be the last twitter.
>
> >https://gist.github.com/wchristian/4e1bcdb761f20985b0a5c97a423a4fc6#file-__sawyer-txt
> https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/13/perl_dev_quits/
>
> There may have been a problem earlier.
>
> I've also heard rumors that there's a problem with Facebook's Perl community.
>
> I'm not part of the Facebook community so I don't know anything.
>
> Has someone's personal attack overheated?

I just wrote a blogpost that may answer your question at
https://dev.to/leontimmermans/a-year-of-strife-16o9

In the heat of the discussion, a lot of people on both sides of the
discussion forgot kindness. Some forgot to speak with kindness. Some
forgot to listen with kindness. Others forgot to act with kindness.
It's easy to point fingers at other people, but that's really part of
the problem here. People didn't look at themselves, or at the people
they were agreeing with. Anyone who was there and is failing to see
that is probably still failing to listen with kindness.

It is also a mistake to think that Sawyer is the only one who was
burned out by everything that has transpired in the past year, most
are silent about it though. Which is why I would very much like for us
to move on to a place where we're no longer actively hurting each
other.


Leon

On 4/14/21 3:54 PM, Christian Walde wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 20:18:32 +0200, Christian Walde
> <walde.christian@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:14:20 +0200, Karl Williamson
>> <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter exchange, what I viewed
>>> at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear from the
>>> discussion that it had been ongoing for some time.? I was starting to
>>> type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.
>>
>> Are you referring to the conversation in #p5p on the 22nd of March in
>> the wake of the publishing of the "strict-by-default as of v8" plan?
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac
>
> haarg informed me that public logging on magnet without the channel
> opting in is a terms violation, so i'll have to remove the log and will
> editorialize instead:
>
> if that is the conversation referred to, then i reject the notion of
> there being harrassment
>
> a plan was published, much as the previous one without any documentation
> of the motivations, leaving those opposed unable to understand why, and
> without that knowledge, unable to communicate useful opposition to the
> plan. thus there maybe was some desperation in the communication, but
> *certainly* no intent to, nor any executed harrassment
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment
>

Christian's post misses my main point, which I'm sorry that I didn't
emphasize enough.

The bottom line is that it is an accumulation of incidents, and not one
or three, that led to this outcome. Examining a few just to say who's
to blame in this one or that one is counter to the best interests of the
project.

Perhaps then there ought to be term limits on how long any-one can be in
office to prevent this kind of burn out?

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:59 PM Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com>
wrote:

> On 4/14/21 3:54 PM, Christian Walde wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 20:18:32 +0200, Christian Walde
> > <walde.christian@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:14:20 +0200, Karl Williamson
> >> <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter exchange, what I
> viewed
> >>> at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear from the
> >>> discussion that it had been ongoing for some time. I was starting to
> >>> type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.
> >>
> >> Are you referring to the conversation in #p5p on the 22nd of March in
> >> the wake of the publishing of the "strict-by-default as of v8" plan?
> >>
> >> https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac
> >
> > haarg informed me that public logging on magnet without the channel
> > opting in is a terms violation, so i'll have to remove the log and will
> > editorialize instead:
> >
> > if that is the conversation referred to, then i reject the notion of
> > there being harrassment
> >
> > a plan was published, much as the previous one without any documentation
> > of the motivations, leaving those opposed unable to understand why, and
> > without that knowledge, unable to communicate useful opposition to the
> > plan. thus there maybe was some desperation in the communication, but
> > *certainly* no intent to, nor any executed harrassment
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment
> >
>
> Christian's post misses my main point, which I'm sorry that I didn't
> emphasize enough.
>
> The bottom line is that it is an accumulation of incidents, and not one
> or three, that led to this outcome. Examining a few just to say who's
> to blame in this one or that one is counter to the best interests of the
> project.
>


--
Thanks,

Phil <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>

Philip R Brenan <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>

There are now: https://perldoc.perl.org/perlgov#Term1

-Dan

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:53 AM Philip R Brenan <philiprbrenan@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Perhaps then there ought to be term limits on how long any-one can be in
> office to prevent this kind of burn out?
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:59 PM Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/21 3:54 PM, Christian Walde wrote:
>> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 20:18:32 +0200, Christian Walde
>> > <walde.christian@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:14:20 +0200, Karl Williamson
>> >> <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter exchange, what I
>> viewed
>> >>> at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear from the
>> >>> discussion that it had been ongoing for some time. I was starting to
>> >>> type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.
>> >>
>> >> Are you referring to the conversation in #p5p on the 22nd of March in
>> >> the wake of the publishing of the "strict-by-default as of v8" plan?
>> >>
>> >> https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac
>> >
>> > haarg informed me that public logging on magnet without the channel
>> > opting in is a terms violation, so i'll have to remove the log and will
>> > editorialize instead:
>> >
>> > if that is the conversation referred to, then i reject the notion of
>> > there being harrassment
>> >
>> > a plan was published, much as the previous one without any
>> documentation
>> > of the motivations, leaving those opposed unable to understand why, and
>> > without that knowledge, unable to communicate useful opposition to the
>> > plan. thus there maybe was some desperation in the communication, but
>> > *certainly* no intent to, nor any executed harrassment
>> >
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment
>> >
>>
>> Christian's post misses my main point, which I'm sorry that I didn't
>> emphasize enough.
>>
>> The bottom line is that it is an accumulation of incidents, and not one
>> or three, that led to this outcome. Examining a few just to say who's
>> to blame in this one or that one is counter to the best interests of the
>> project.
>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Phil <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>
>
> Philip R Brenan <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>
>

Typically, in governing boards there is the concept of seats that rotate
out after some number of re-elections. I don't see that here, just a "2
year term limit".

The purpose of this is to provide continuity. For example, there is
always the "most senior" person rotating out to make room for the "most
recent junior member". The you have 3 people with overlapping, but not
identical term periods. The net effect is you rotate people out + have
experience maintained.

Brett

On 4/15/21 10:57 AM, Dan Book wrote:
> There are now: https://perldoc.perl.org/perlgov#Term1
>
> -Dan
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:53 AM Philip R Brenan
> <philiprbrenan@gmail.com <mailto:philiprbrenan@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Perhaps then there ought to be term limits on how long any-one can
> be in office to prevent this kind of burn out?
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:59 PM Karl Williamson
> <public@khwilliamson.com <mailto:public@khwilliamson.com>> wrote:
>
> On 4/14/21 3:54 PM, Christian Walde wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 20:18:32 +0200, Christian Walde
> > <walde.christian@gmail.com
> <mailto:walde.christian@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:14:20 +0200, Karl Williamson
> >> <public@khwilliamson.com <mailto:public@khwilliamson.com>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter exchange,
> what I viewed
> >>> at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear from the
> >>> discussion that it had been ongoing for some time.  I was
> starting to
> >>> type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.
> >>
> >> Are you referring to the conversation in #p5p on the 22nd of
> March in
> >> the wake of the publishing of the "strict-by-default as of
> v8" plan?
> >>
> >>
> https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac
> >
> > haarg informed me that public logging on magnet without the
> channel
> > opting in is a terms violation, so i'll have to remove the
> log and will
> > editorialize instead:
> >
> > if that is the conversation referred to, then i reject the
> notion of
> > there being harrassment
> >
> > a plan was published, much as the previous one without any
> documentation
> > of the motivations, leaving those opposed unable to
> understand why, and
> > without that knowledge, unable to communicate useful
> opposition to the
> > plan. thus there maybe was some desperation in the
> communication, but
> > *certainly* no intent to, nor any executed harrassment
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment
> >
>
> Christian's post misses my main point, which I'm sorry that I
> didn't
> emphasize enough.
>
> The bottom line is that it is an accumulation of incidents, and
> not one
> or three, that led to this outcome.  Examining a few just to say
> who's
> to blame in this one or that one is counter to the best
> interests of the
> project.
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Phil <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>
>
> Philip R Brenan <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>
>

Another way to put it is terms are staggered and it's the 'slots' that
expire, not necessarily the person in them. Then if you have to replace
someone, you fill the slot and the election ordering is maintained; you
have at least 3 people in the 2 year term limit. Each year, you're
electing 1 person, one person is rotating out, and one person becomes
the senior.

Example

To initialize it, draw straws.

year 1 (2021):

slot A term 2021-2021 * senior member
slot B term 2021-2022 * next senior member
slot C term 2021-2023 * junior member

2022:

slot A term 2022-2024 * junior member
slot B term 2021-2022 * senior member
slot C term 2021-2023 * next senior

2023:

slot A term 2022-2024 * next senior member
slot B term 2023-2025 * junior member
slot C term 2021-2023 * senior member

In any case, if this is not the model, I *strongly* suggest one for
continuity's sake to something similar to this scheme.

Hope that helps,

Brett

On 4/15/21 11:09 AM, B. Estrade wrote:
> Typically, in governing boards there is the concept of seats that rotate
> out after some number of re-elections. I don't see that here, just a "2
> year term limit".
>
> The purpose of this is to provide continuity. For example, there is
> always the "most senior" person rotating out to make room for the "most
> recent junior member". The you have 3 people with overlapping, but not
> identical term periods. The net effect is you rotate people out + have
> experience maintained.
>
> Brett
>
> On 4/15/21 10:57 AM, Dan Book wrote:
>> There are now: https://perldoc.perl.org/perlgov#Term1
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:53 AM Philip R Brenan
>> <philiprbrenan@gmail.com <mailto:philiprbrenan@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Perhaps then there ought to be term limits on how long any-one can
>>     be in office to prevent this kind of burn out?
>>
>>     On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:59 PM Karl Williamson
>>     <public@khwilliamson.com <mailto:public@khwilliamson.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         On 4/14/21 3:54 PM, Christian Walde wrote:
>>          > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 20:18:32 +0200, Christian Walde
>>          > <walde.christian@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:walde.christian@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>          >
>>          >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:14:20 +0200, Karl Williamson
>>          >> <public@khwilliamson.com <mailto:public@khwilliamson.com>>
>>         wrote:
>>          >>
>>          >>> I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter exchange,
>>         what I viewed
>>          >>> at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear
>> from the
>>          >>> discussion that it had been ongoing for some time.  I was
>>         starting to
>>          >>> type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.
>>          >>
>>          >> Are you referring to the conversation in #p5p on the 22nd of
>>         March in
>>          >> the wake of the publishing of the "strict-by-default as of
>>         v8" plan?
>>          >>
>>          >>
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac
>>          >
>>          > haarg informed me that public logging on magnet without the
>>         channel
>>          > opting in is a terms violation, so i'll have to remove the
>>         log and will
>>          > editorialize instead:
>>          >
>>          > if that is the conversation referred to, then i reject the
>>         notion of
>>          > there being harrassment
>>          >
>>          > a plan was published, much as the previous one without any
>>         documentation
>>          > of the motivations, leaving those opposed unable to
>>         understand why, and
>>          > without that knowledge, unable to communicate useful
>>         opposition to the
>>          > plan. thus there maybe was some desperation in the
>>         communication, but
>>          > *certainly* no intent to, nor any executed harrassment
>>          >
>>          > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment
>>          >
>>
>>         Christian's post misses my main point, which I'm sorry that I
>>         didn't
>>         emphasize enough.
>>
>>         The bottom line is that it is an accumulation of incidents, and
>>         not one
>>         or three, that led to this outcome.  Examining a few just to say
>>         who's
>>         to blame in this one or that one is counter to the best
>>         interests of the
>>         project.
>>
>>
>>
>>     --     Thanks,
>>
>>     Phil <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>
>>
>>     Philip R Brenan <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>
>>

Final note, this can work with more than 3 people. Each slot, could for
example, include 2 or more people. So the rotation scheme can be
preserved if there was ever a desire to "scale up" the governance board.

Brett

On 4/15/21 11:18 AM, B. Estrade wrote:
> Another way to put it is terms are staggered and it's the 'slots' that
> expire, not necessarily the person in them. Then if you have to replace
> someone, you fill the slot and the election ordering is maintained; you
> have at least 3 people in the 2 year term limit. Each year, you're
> electing 1 person, one person is rotating out, and one person becomes
> the senior.
>
> Example
>
> To initialize it, draw straws.
>
> year 1 (2021):
>
> slot A term 2021-2021 * senior member
> slot B term 2021-2022 * next senior member
> slot C term 2021-2023 * junior member
>
> 2022:
>
> slot A term 2022-2024 * junior member
> slot B term 2021-2022 * senior member
> slot C term 2021-2023 * next senior
>
> 2023:
>
> slot A term 2022-2024 * next senior member
> slot B term 2023-2025 * junior member
> slot C term 2021-2023 * senior member
>
> In any case, if this is not the model, I *strongly* suggest one for
> continuity's sake to something similar to this scheme.
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Brett
>
> On 4/15/21 11:09 AM, B. Estrade wrote:
>> Typically, in governing boards there is the concept of seats that
>> rotate out after some number of re-elections. I don't see that here,
>> just a "2 year term limit".
>>
>> The purpose of this is to provide continuity. For example, there is
>> always the "most senior" person rotating out to make room for the
>> "most recent junior member". The you have 3 people with overlapping,
>> but not identical term periods. The net effect is you rotate people
>> out + have experience maintained.
>>
>> Brett
>>
>> On 4/15/21 10:57 AM, Dan Book wrote:
>>> There are now: https://perldoc.perl.org/perlgov#Term1
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:53 AM Philip R Brenan
>>> <philiprbrenan@gmail.com <mailto:philiprbrenan@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Perhaps then there ought to be term limits on how long any-one can
>>>     be in office to prevent this kind of burn out?
>>>
>>>     On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:59 PM Karl Williamson
>>>     <public@khwilliamson.com <mailto:public@khwilliamson.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         On 4/14/21 3:54 PM, Christian Walde wrote:
>>>          > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 20:18:32 +0200, Christian Walde
>>>          > <walde.christian@gmail.com
>>>         <mailto:walde.christian@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>          >
>>>          >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:14:20 +0200, Karl Williamson
>>>          >> <public@khwilliamson.com <mailto:public@khwilliamson.com>>
>>>         wrote:
>>>          >>
>>>          >>> I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter exchange,
>>>         what I viewed
>>>          >>> at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear
>>> from the
>>>          >>> discussion that it had been ongoing for some time.  I was
>>>         starting to
>>>          >>> type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.
>>>          >>
>>>          >> Are you referring to the conversation in #p5p on the 22nd of
>>>         March in
>>>          >> the wake of the publishing of the "strict-by-default as of
>>>         v8" plan?
>>>          >>
>>>          >>
>>> https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac
>>>          >
>>>          > haarg informed me that public logging on magnet without the
>>>         channel
>>>          > opting in is a terms violation, so i'll have to remove the
>>>         log and will
>>>          > editorialize instead:
>>>          >
>>>          > if that is the conversation referred to, then i reject the
>>>         notion of
>>>          > there being harrassment
>>>          >
>>>          > a plan was published, much as the previous one without any
>>>         documentation
>>>          > of the motivations, leaving those opposed unable to
>>>         understand why, and
>>>          > without that knowledge, unable to communicate useful
>>>         opposition to the
>>>          > plan. thus there maybe was some desperation in the
>>>         communication, but
>>>          > *certainly* no intent to, nor any executed harrassment
>>>          >
>>>          > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment
>>>          >
>>>
>>>         Christian's post misses my main point, which I'm sorry that I
>>>         didn't
>>>         emphasize enough.
>>>
>>>         The bottom line is that it is an accumulation of incidents, and
>>>         not one
>>>         or three, that led to this outcome.  Examining a few just to say
>>>         who's
>>>         to blame in this one or that one is counter to the best
>>>         interests of the
>>>         project.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     --     Thanks,
>>>
>>>     Phil <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>
>>>
>>>     Philip R Brenan <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>
>>>

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:09 PM B. Estrade <brett@cpanel.net> wrote:
>
> Typically, in governing boards there is the concept of seats that rotate
> out after some number of re-elections. I don't see that here, just a "2
> year term limit".
>
> The purpose of this is to provide continuity. For example, there is
> always the "most senior" person rotating out to make room for the "most
> recent junior member". The you have 3 people with overlapping, but not
> identical term periods. The net effect is you rotate people out + have
> experience maintained.

This system is just a few months old, it's way too early to say if
this is a problem that needs fixing or not.

Let's evaluate this in 2-3 years, and leave it for now.

Thank you. A hint on how to deal with me: treat everything I say as a
suggestion, no matter how it comes across. My intent is only to record
an idea in case it's helpful in the future. I wish I could express
myself more softly.

I don't want to tell anyone how to do anything, trust me; I simply want
to present an option. It might turn out to be really dumb, that's okay.
It might also turn out to be a game changer. I have about a 2% hit rate
with the latter. So I find it worth it sometimes to state things as I do
naturally, which is unequivocally - for better or for worse.

I am constantly surprised to see how this impacts people, so while I do
try to temper it; my delivery is not at all indicative of what I
perceive as my place in the order of things.

So thank you for the acknowledgement, if this can help in the future,
awesome. If not, at least I know it was considered.

Cheers,
Brett

On 4/15/21 11:23 AM, Leon Timmermans wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:09 PM B. Estrade <brett@cpanel.net> wrote:
>>
>> Typically, in governing boards there is the concept of seats that rotate
>> out after some number of re-elections. I don't see that here, just a "2
>> year term limit".
>>
>> The purpose of this is to provide continuity. For example, there is
>> always the "most senior" person rotating out to make room for the "most
>> recent junior member". The you have 3 people with overlapping, but not
>> identical term periods. The net effect is you rotate people out + have
>> experience maintained.
>
> This system is just a few months old, it's way too early to say if
> this is a problem that needs fixing or not.
>
> Let's evaluate this in 2-3 years, and leave it for now.
>

But no mention of an actual term limit? One could be re-elected to the
same position or a similar one indefinitely?

*Term*

A new Steering Council will be chosen by a Term Election within two weeks
after each stable feature release (that is, change to PERL_REVISION or
PERL_VERSION) or after two years, whichever comes first. The council
members will serve until the completion of the next Term Election unless
they are removed.

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 4:57 PM Dan Book <grinnz@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are now: https://perldoc.perl.org/perlgov#Term1
>
> -Dan
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:53 AM Philip R Brenan <philiprbrenan@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps then there ought to be term limits on how long any-one can be in
>> office to prevent this kind of burn out?
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:59 PM Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/14/21 3:54 PM, Christian Walde wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 20:18:32 +0200, Christian Walde
>>> > <walde.christian@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:14:20 +0200, Karl Williamson
>>> >> <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter exchange, what I
>>> viewed
>>> >>> at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear from the
>>> >>> discussion that it had been ongoing for some time. I was starting to
>>> >>> type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.
>>> >>
>>> >> Are you referring to the conversation in #p5p on the 22nd of March in
>>> >> the wake of the publishing of the "strict-by-default as of v8" plan?
>>> >>
>>> >> https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac
>>> >
>>> > haarg informed me that public logging on magnet without the channel
>>> > opting in is a terms violation, so i'll have to remove the log and
>>> will
>>> > editorialize instead:
>>> >
>>> > if that is the conversation referred to, then i reject the notion of
>>> > there being harrassment
>>> >
>>> > a plan was published, much as the previous one without any
>>> documentation
>>> > of the motivations, leaving those opposed unable to understand why,
>>> and
>>> > without that knowledge, unable to communicate useful opposition to the
>>> > plan. thus there maybe was some desperation in the communication, but
>>> > *certainly* no intent to, nor any executed harrassment
>>> >
>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment
>>> >
>>>
>>> Christian's post misses my main point, which I'm sorry that I didn't
>>> emphasize enough.
>>>
>>> The bottom line is that it is an accumulation of incidents, and not one
>>> or three, that led to this outcome. Examining a few just to say who's
>>> to blame in this one or that one is counter to the best interests of the
>>> project.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Phil <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>
>>
>> Philip R Brenan <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>
>>
>

--
Thanks,

Phil <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>

Philip R Brenan <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>

On 4/15/21 1:21 PM, Philip R Brenan wrote:
> But no mention of an actual term limit?  One could be re-elected to the
> same position or a similar one indefinitely?

Not having term limits is not unusual. But I see what you're suggesting.

Probably a more representative way of handling this and purging
ineffective "career bureaucrats" is to provide a means of "general"
voting or a representative scheme by which "proxy" votes may be cased.

General board elections are typically handled by general "membership".
Specific office elections are generally handled internally as a matter
of board business.

If there is no way to purge a board that you're unsatisfied and it seems
outside voices are not heard, then what you'll get is what we have now.

"Consent of the governed" is a thing, and large amount of the chaos
we've endured is the result of open rebellion. So I think there is a
fair amount of pressure on serving board members to keep their
constituents in mind. In reality, board membership has a natural turn
over due to the members themselves shifting priorities and time
available to serve in such roles. I mean, this is not a real government.

That's just my take. This dynamic gives me some solace that the fight
for actual "term limits" is probably not warranted. But that's just my
opinion and an attempt to address what I think is your concern.


Brett

>
> *Term*
> **
>
> A new Steering Council will be chosen by a Term Election within two
> weeks after each stable feature release (that is, change to
> |PERL_REVISION| or |PERL_VERSION|) or after two years, whichever comes
> first. The council members will serve until the completion of the next
> Term Election unless they are removed.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 4:57 PM Dan Book <grinnz@gmail.com
> <mailto:grinnz@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> There are now: https://perldoc.perl.org/perlgov#Term1
>
> -Dan
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:53 AM Philip R Brenan
> <philiprbrenan@gmail.com <mailto:philiprbrenan@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Perhaps then there ought to be term limits on how long any-one
> can be in office to prevent this kind of burn out?
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:59 PM Karl Williamson
> <public@khwilliamson.com <mailto:public@khwilliamson.com>> wrote:
>
> On 4/14/21 3:54 PM, Christian Walde wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 20:18:32 +0200, Christian Walde
> > <walde.christian@gmail.com
> <mailto:walde.christian@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:14:20 +0200, Karl Williamson
> >> <public@khwilliamson.com
> <mailto:public@khwilliamson.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter
> exchange, what I viewed
> >>> at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear
> from the
> >>> discussion that it had been ongoing for some time.  I
> was starting to
> >>> type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.
> >>
> >> Are you referring to the conversation in #p5p on the
> 22nd of March in
> >> the wake of the publishing of the "strict-by-default as
> of v8" plan?
> >>
> >>
> https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac
> >
> > haarg informed me that public logging on magnet without
> the channel
> > opting in is a terms violation, so i'll have to remove
> the log and will
> > editorialize instead:
> >
> > if that is the conversation referred to, then i reject
> the notion of
> > there being harrassment
> >
> > a plan was published, much as the previous one without
> any documentation
> > of the motivations, leaving those opposed unable to
> understand why, and
> > without that knowledge, unable to communicate useful
> opposition to the
> > plan. thus there maybe was some desperation in the
> communication, but
> > *certainly* no intent to, nor any executed harrassment
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment
> >
>
> Christian's post misses my main point, which I'm sorry that
> I didn't
> emphasize enough.
>
> The bottom line is that it is an accumulation of incidents,
> and not one
> or three, that led to this outcome.  Examining a few just to
> say who's
> to blame in this one or that one is counter to the best
> interests of the
> project.
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Phil <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>
>
> Philip R Brenan <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Phil <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>
>
> Philip R Brenan <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>

I'd like to add another dynamic that is quite common on volunteer type
governing boards, which necessarily organizes itself into roles that
repsemble: president/chairman, vice chair, treasurer, secretary, etc -
is that the president will serve for however long they wish; although
officer elections happen once a year as a matte of board business -
after the new batch of members are elected - roles like
chairman/president are commonly approved by acclamation; there is almost
never a challenge to this role until the current chairman retires or
steps down.

There are avenues to campaign against a certain individual from getting
elected as a member when their "slot" is expired; but this is hard to
accomplish. Even harder to accomplish is to get an opposition candidate
elected as a new member, then have them run against the current
chairman. The current board members will still usually vote unanimously
for the current chairman.

For better or for worse, this ensures continuity on several levels.
There is an additional result to this that would also not be surprising.
Chairmen generally groom their replacement and more often than not, they
will only relinquish their control when their heir apparent is ready.
This is almost always implicitly supported by the rest of the board
membership.

It's not good or bad; it can be very good. It can be very bad. But this
is how things usually play out; so don't be surprised. What can you do?
Run for the board, get on the board, work with the board; then maybe
you'll be groomed to take over :). That's not a challenge, just the most
prudent course of action and most beneficial for the "good" of the
organization at large.

Brett

On 4/15/21 1:38 PM, B. Estrade wrote:
>
>
> On 4/15/21 1:21 PM, Philip R Brenan wrote:
>> But no mention of an actual term limit?  One could be re-elected to
>> the same position or a similar one indefinitely?
>
> Not having term limits is not unusual. But I see what you're suggesting.
>
> Probably a more representative way of handling this and purging
> ineffective "career bureaucrats" is to provide a means of "general"
> voting or a representative scheme by which "proxy" votes may be cased.
>
> General board elections are typically handled by general "membership".
> Specific office elections are generally handled internally as a matter
> of board business.
>
> If there is no way to purge a board that you're unsatisfied and it seems
> outside voices are not heard, then what you'll get is what we have now.
>
> "Consent of the governed" is a thing, and large amount of the chaos
> we've endured is the result of open rebellion. So I think there is a
> fair amount of pressure on serving board members to keep their
> constituents in mind. In reality, board membership has a natural turn
> over due to the members themselves shifting priorities and time
> available to serve in such roles. I mean, this is not a real government.
>
> That's just my take. This dynamic gives me some solace that the fight
> for actual "term limits" is probably not warranted. But that's just my
> opinion and an attempt to address what I think is your concern.
>
>
> Brett
>
>>
>> *Term*
>> **
>>
>> A new Steering Council will be chosen by a Term Election within two
>> weeks after each stable feature release (that is, change to
>> |PERL_REVISION| or |PERL_VERSION|) or after two years, whichever comes
>> first. The council members will serve until the completion of the next
>> Term Election unless they are removed.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 4:57 PM Dan Book <grinnz@gmail.com
>> <mailto:grinnz@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     There are now: https://perldoc.perl.org/perlgov#Term1
>>
>>     -Dan
>>
>>     On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:53 AM Philip R Brenan
>>     <philiprbrenan@gmail.com <mailto:philiprbrenan@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Perhaps then there ought to be term limits on how long any-one
>>         can be in office to prevent this kind of burn out?
>>
>>         On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:59 PM Karl Williamson
>>         <public@khwilliamson.com <mailto:public@khwilliamson.com>> wrote:
>>
>>             On 4/14/21 3:54 PM, Christian Walde wrote:
>>              > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 20:18:32 +0200, Christian Walde
>>              > <walde.christian@gmail.com
>>             <mailto:walde.christian@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>              >
>>              >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:14:20 +0200, Karl Williamson
>>              >> <public@khwilliamson.com
>>             <mailto:public@khwilliamson.com>> wrote:
>>              >>
>>              >>> I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter
>>             exchange, what I viewed
>>              >>> at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear
>>             from the
>>              >>> discussion that it had been ongoing for some time.  I
>>             was starting to
>>              >>> type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.
>>              >>
>>              >> Are you referring to the conversation in #p5p on the
>>             22nd of March in
>>              >> the wake of the publishing of the "strict-by-default as
>>             of v8" plan?
>>              >>
>>              >>
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac
>>              >
>>              > haarg informed me that public logging on magnet without
>>             the channel
>>              > opting in is a terms violation, so i'll have to remove
>>             the log and will
>>              > editorialize instead:
>>              >
>>              > if that is the conversation referred to, then i reject
>>             the notion of
>>              > there being harrassment
>>              >
>>              > a plan was published, much as the previous one without
>>             any documentation
>>              > of the motivations, leaving those opposed unable to
>>             understand why, and
>>              > without that knowledge, unable to communicate useful
>>             opposition to the
>>              > plan. thus there maybe was some desperation in the
>>             communication, but
>>              > *certainly* no intent to, nor any executed harrassment
>>              >
>>              > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment
>>              >
>>
>>             Christian's post misses my main point, which I'm sorry that
>>             I didn't
>>             emphasize enough.
>>
>>             The bottom line is that it is an accumulation of incidents,
>>             and not one
>>             or three, that led to this outcome.  Examining a few just to
>>             say who's
>>             to blame in this one or that one is counter to the best
>>             interests of the
>>             project.
>>
>>
>>
>>         --         Thanks,
>>
>>         Phil <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>
>>
>>         Philip R Brenan <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Phil <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>
>>
>> Philip R Brenan <https://metacpan.org/author/PRBRENAN>

Christian Walde

Thank you for the log.

mst, I'm sorry if you see.

> mst did not write those words, that was a citation of sawyer's words.

Yes.


2021?4?15?(?) 7:38 Christian Walde <walde.christian@gmail.com>:

> To clarify:
>
> mst did not write those words, that was a citation of sawyer's words.
>
> --
> With regards,
> Christian Walde
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 00:23:21 +0200, Yuki Kimoto <kimoto.yuki@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Christian Walde
>
> Thank you for IRC information.
>
> > https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac
>
> It seems that mst was frustrated in the discussion, so he seems to have
> used abusive language to sawyer,
>
> > I'm entirely fucking done with this little children behavior
>
> It may have felt criticized by the toolchain community.
>
> 2021?4?15?(?) 3:18 Christian Walde <walde.christian@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:14:20 +0200, Karl Williamson <
>> public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I witnessed on irc, some days before the twitter exchange, what I viewed
>> > at the time, as harassment of Sawyer, and it was clear from the
>> > discussion that it had been ongoing for some time. I was starting to
>> > type in an intervention when Sawyer quit the chat.
>>
>> Are you referring to the conversation in #p5p on the 22nd of March in the
>> wake of the publishing of the "strict-by-default as of v8" plan?
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/wchristian/c144fef03170a6948d085291f074a9ac
>
>