Given the nature of the email it should be (treated as) comprehensive.
And in the absence (thus far) of the text being denied by the author, and the recipient/forwarder being a known Wikimedian, I'm inclined to believe that really was what was written.
Otherwise we would have almost no means to review decisions of the committee.
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, 16:36 Isarra Yos, zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
This is actually a rather good point, and one I would argue also shows why we need more transparency from the CoC committee in the first place
- lacking that, all the community at large can really go on is what the
accused provides, which does no favours toward the effectiveness of any actions taken, especially if said actions really were justified.
-I
On 08/08/18 15:26, Lucas Werkmeister wrote:
Can we please avoid jumping to conclusions like “Ladsgroup [was]
enforcing
the CoC out of their personal feelings” or that this was an “immediate escalation”, when the only information we have in this thread is a quoted email that the author probably never intended to be a comprehensive
summary
of the situation in the first place, and which was only relayed to this list through a non-neutral party?
Cheers, Lucas
Am Mi., 8. Aug. 2018 um 16:45 Uhr schrieb Dan Garry <
dgarry@wikimedia.org>:
On 8 August 2018 at 14:29, Alex Monk krenair@gmail.com wrote:
Are you trying to ban people discussing CoC committee decisions
publicly?
Not that it even looks like he wrote grievances.
Hardly. I have absolutely nothing to do with the administration of this list, nor the authority to set what is discussed on this list, nor any involvement in the Code of Conduct, all of which you are well aware.
Dan
-- Dan Garry Lead Product Manager, Editing Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l