List Moderation - Apply Double Standards?

[andreasma]

Hi all,

I took some time to observe the situation on this list.

The list was set under moderation, because some of the board members
felt, the discussion here was not friendly enough.

The proposal for the moderation was supported on this list by another
TDF director first (on this list).

Then a voting on a topic was done and one member explained the reasons
for his vote. He explained the reasons factually.

But in response to this mail the director which supported the proposal
for moderation accused the one who told the objective reasons for his
vote. And in addition he asked to ban those mails from the other director.

It looks like if some of the board members, which support the list
moderation, have the intention to ban uncomfortable discussions in terms
of content and the process from this list.

This is a typical behavior in locked groups of organizations. It
shouldn't be appropriate to open source projects which delineate
themselves as open for everyone (and as open minded).

Regards,
Andreas

[thb]

Hi Andreas, all,

your assessment of the situation does not seem accurate. The fact that
all TDF directors can currently approve emails to this list, should
ensure balance.

Andreas Mantke wrote:

The list was set under moderation, because some of the board members
felt, the discussion here was not friendly enough.

That is certainly an understatement.

It looks like if some of the board members, which support the list
moderation, have the intention to ban uncomfortable discussions in terms
of content and the process from this list.

The fact that your email passed moderation should be testament to this
not being the case?

This is a typical behavior in locked groups of organizations. It
shouldn't be appropriate to open source projects which delineate
themselves as open for everyone (and as open minded).

An appropriate & friendly way to phrase the above, would be to first
assess whether your assumptions are correct (which apparently they are
not), and then recommend changes. Stereotypings like yours are a
negative, not a positive way to interact.

Cheers, Thorsten

[PaoloVecchi]

Hi all,

On 15/07/2022 11:52, Thorsten Behrens wrote:

It looks like if some of the board members, which support the list
moderation, have the intention to ban uncomfortable discussions in terms
of content and the process from this list.

The fact that your email passed moderation should be testament to this
not being the case?

It is a good example showing that as long as we all express our opinions without using offensive language then moderation isn’t really needed.

Opinions might be controversial at times but it’s good to evaluate all point of views.

This is a typical behavior in locked groups of organizations. It
shouldn't be appropriate to open source projects which delineate
themselves as open for everyone (and as open minded).

An appropriate & friendly way to phrase the above, would be to first
assess whether your assumptions are correct (which apparently they are
not), and then recommend changes. Stereotypings like yours are a
negative, not a positive way to interact.

Unfortunately recent emails give Andreas reasons to worry and to express his opinion.

I believe his assumptions come from the following statements:

“Therefore I really think that it is needed that this type of mail is not moderated through.”

and

“So again, I regret that it has been moderated through in this form. I will further discuss this in the board internally.”

These statements from a member of the board do give the impression that he wants to censor the opinions of another member of the board.

The content of the email is highly controversial, disregards the right of expressing one’s opinion and instigates censorship but it has gone through.
If that is still below the level required for moderation then, looking at board-discuss mailing list, the moderation put in place is of no use and it should just be removed to stop giving the impression that some members of the board don’t want uncomfortable, but sometimes needed, discussions in public.

Ciao

Paolo

[cornouws]

Hi,

I believe his assumptions come from the following statements:

"Therefore I really think that it is needed that this type of mail is not moderated through."

and

"So again, I regret that it has been moderated through in this form. I will further discuss this in the board internally."

These statements from a member of the board do give the impression that he wants to censor the opinions of another member of the board.

Ah yes, cut only part of a text, and you can 'prove' about anything, I would say. Let me add the reference here for full text.
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00819.html
So far that wasn't provided in this thread..

The content of the email is highly controversial, disregards the right of expressing one's opinion and instigates censorship but it has gone through.

Not at all. Reading my mail, makes clear that the worrisome parts are
_not_ the fact that there is a different opinion on the App stores.
The mail explains that the communication of a board member is disrespecting board procedures, that it contains a passive accusation to other board members, and that is spreads misinformation about what the CoI policy is for.

If that is still below the level required for moderation then, looking at board-discuss mailing list, the moderation put in place is of no use and it should just be removed to stop giving the impression that some members of the board don't want uncomfortable, but sometimes needed, discussions in public.

As stated in the mail, I have no problem with a different opinion on the boards decision. I also gave a hint of a possible way that could be used to express that opinion in a helpful way, not with all rest, that really is not needed to express a fair opinion.

HTH,

Cor

[PaoloVecchi]

Hi Cor,

that is spreads misinformation about what the CoI policy is for

please do explain to us what you think the Conflict of Interest Policy is for as some might have got it completely wrong then.

Ciao

Paolo