5 ms·

I don't really understand the thread. This guy X writes about the harassments and then someone replies and asks about the release versions?

fennecfoxen 5y ago
Being a Perl leader means doing things like releases; that is a key purpose of the role. Try reading what the author wrote at the end, where he raises the topic of organizational continuity in light of his departure: "I am slated to release 5.34.0 in May, and I still intend to do so unless PSC and the Core object to it. Once I cut the release, I'll remove my permissions and commit bits to GitHub, CPAN, and mailing lists."
sigg3 5y ago
A telltale sign that they're siding with the bullies or not taking this seriously.
- shagie 5y ago
  The individual stepping down says there are no issues with either of the other two leaders for the release. I'd have to dig, but it's likely a team of three to avoid ties and a have the responsibility spread out. "Siding with the bullies" and holding up a release are likely unrelated.
- finnthehuman 5y ago
  Or they're sending their personal regards in private, while publicly discussing the publicly relevant transition matters. Just like what happens all the time when people quit things that happen offline. Not everyone feels comfortable or compelled to make such a statement in front of the team.
  - sigg3 5y ago
    Yes, you're probably right.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
iSnow 5y ago
My interpretation would be they are glad to get rid of him OR they are a completely tone-deaf group. If someone rage-quits and cites harassment, you absolutely have to take this up, even if that person won't change their mind - but to prevent it in the future. If you are asking in the most lame tone for the next release, you basically tell them to get lost.
- viraptor 5y ago
  They're not asking for a release. They're trying to organise the task ownership / transition after the stepping down, which needs to be done.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  OR... they are being respectful of author's experience, decision , life and feelings, and will discuss public things publicly and private things privately. No matter in which venue my team members bring up their personal issues and difficulties, I will discuss project/work things publicly, and reach out to them on a personal level to support and inquire privately. Even when they choose to make some of their experience public, it is not necessarily my right, nor the appropriate / productive thing to do, to make it a free-for-all public debate. I think it's the correct, professional, honorable, decent, respectful approach. What should they have done instead - started a flame work on whether the authors experience was real, decision was justified, start going into nitty gritties of each specific infarction... you know, exactly the stuff we're seeing develop in this thread - all of it indubitably further contributing to the author's stress? :-/
  - iSnow 5y ago
    >What should they have done instead - started a flame work on whether the authors experience was real Mention something like "OK, this is an issue we must discuss, are you free to have a call now or later about the issue?" Like every organization would handle it if they have some crisis management skills. To give the person who felt mobbed a voice, things like that.
    - 5y ago
blub_researcher 5y ago
In late stage projects there's often a cabal of passive aggressive people in charge who basically use management tactics to stay in power. One of the tactics is to never directly respond to actual issues and ignore everything that the cabal cannot be bothered with. Which is what incites anger in honest people in the first place and leaves them vulnerable to being cancelled. I don't if this is the case here, but this is the reality in other projects. Whether cabal members are the actual top contributors or have any valuable ideas is left as an exercise to the reader.
- mith__ 5y ago
  pretty much the opposite happened here sawyer had decided some time ago that the p5p mailing list wasn't receptive to his ideas and moved things into secret decision making with like 2-3 others in the know, culminating in his announcing perl 7 as a complete surprise to the entire community. with only some people having been asked questions about topics related to it, without even being told that the questions were about a perl 7 plan. this lack of communications then led to both massive amounts of criticism of the secret process (with some community members even being misrepresented by documents written by sawyer's colleagues in this) and MASSIVE amounts of technical issues being discovered directly after the announcement and people trying to educate about it. sawyer however basically went "i call the shots here", resulting in an election that upended the "pumpking" model, replacing it with a "3 person council" who still have private meetings, but now operate much more publicly

fennecfoxen 5y ago

Being a Perl leader means doing things like releases; that is a key purpose of the role. Try reading what the author wrote at the end, where he raises the topic of organizational continuity in light of his departure: "I am slated to release 5.34.0 in May, and I still intend to do so unless PSC and the Core object to it. Once I cut the release, I'll remove my permissions and commit bits to GitHub, CPAN, and mailing lists."

sigg3 5y ago

A telltale sign that they're siding with the bullies or not taking this seriously.

shagie 5y ago
The individual stepping down says there are no issues with either of the other two leaders for the release. I'd have to dig, but it's likely a team of three to avoid ties and a have the responsibility spread out. "Siding with the bullies" and holding up a release are likely unrelated.
finnthehuman 5y ago
Or they're sending their personal regards in private, while publicly discussing the publicly relevant transition matters. Just like what happens all the time when people quit things that happen offline. Not everyone feels comfortable or compelled to make such a statement in front of the team.
- sigg3 5y ago
  Yes, you're probably right.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

iSnow 5y ago

My interpretation would be they are glad to get rid of him OR they are a completely tone-deaf group. If someone rage-quits and cites harassment, you absolutely have to take this up, even if that person won't change their mind - but to prevent it in the future. If you are asking in the most lame tone for the next release, you basically tell them to get lost.

viraptor 5y ago
They're not asking for a release. They're trying to organise the task ownership / transition after the stepping down, which needs to be done.
NikolaNovak 5y ago
OR... they are being respectful of author's experience, decision , life and feelings, and will discuss public things publicly and private things privately. No matter in which venue my team members bring up their personal issues and difficulties, I will discuss project/work things publicly, and reach out to them on a personal level to support and inquire privately. Even when they choose to make some of their experience public, it is not necessarily my right, nor the appropriate / productive thing to do, to make it a free-for-all public debate. I think it's the correct, professional, honorable, decent, respectful approach. What should they have done instead - started a flame work on whether the authors experience was real, decision was justified, start going into nitty gritties of each specific infarction... you know, exactly the stuff we're seeing develop in this thread - all of it indubitably further contributing to the author's stress? :-/
- iSnow 5y ago
  >What should they have done instead - started a flame work on whether the authors experience was real Mention something like "OK, this is an issue we must discuss, are you free to have a call now or later about the issue?" Like every organization would handle it if they have some crisis management skills. To give the person who felt mobbed a voice, things like that.
  - 5y ago

blub_researcher 5y ago

In late stage projects there's often a cabal of passive aggressive people in charge who basically use management tactics to stay in power. One of the tactics is to never directly respond to actual issues and ignore everything that the cabal cannot be bothered with. Which is what incites anger in honest people in the first place and leaves them vulnerable to being cancelled. I don't if this is the case here, but this is the reality in other projects. Whether cabal members are the actual top contributors or have any valuable ideas is left as an exercise to the reader.

mith__ 5y ago
pretty much the opposite happened here sawyer had decided some time ago that the p5p mailing list wasn't receptive to his ideas and moved things into secret decision making with like 2-3 others in the know, culminating in his announcing perl 7 as a complete surprise to the entire community. with only some people having been asked questions about topics related to it, without even being told that the questions were about a perl 7 plan. this lack of communications then led to both massive amounts of criticism of the secret process (with some community members even being misrepresented by documents written by sawyer's colleagues in this) and MASSIVE amounts of technical issues being discovered directly after the announcement and people trying to educate about it. sawyer however basically went "i call the shots here", resulting in an election that upended the "pumpking" model, replacing it with a "3 person council" who still have private meetings, but now operate much more publicly