> Why should they have to make a case for that? I don’t think they have to make the case. They can just quit. And I will infer that they had some sort of reaso

> Why should they have to make a case for that? I don’t think they have to make the case. They can just quit. And I will infer that they had some sort of reason. Nonetheless, the case wasn’t made. > If the project as such has found it necessary or desirable to have a moderation team, then why on Earth shouldn't that go for the whole project; why should any one team be exempt? If a case needs to be made, then shouldn't it logically be for why the core team shouldn't need to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline? That’s an easy argument to make, if you want to talk about general organizational principles. The right choice is what makes the org run better, not what is, through verbal thinking, “logical.” I’m not here to propose either design. > At best, that's just one member of the core team they've "impugned the reputation of" I guess my phrasing was a poor compression of what they posted. I think their post says a response from the core team may contain lies. And if that’s true, well okay then. There isn’t the information necessary for outsiders to discern that, other than the background reputation of anybody who might be involved, and there isn’t a surface area of facts and reasoning upon which the core team might interact to counter such a statement, so they don’t need to.