Quack, On 2018-11-16 18:43, Chris Lamb wrote:
I would be very interested if you could briefly elaborate on why you believe the AH team is not a credible voice or otherwise are unsuitable / unempowered to make such decisions? (Is this "just" a constitutional question?)
Whoua, I cannot convey how bad it feels that every little thing you say seem to be scrutinized for some dark meaning…
It _is_ a constitutional question because we've been arguing for quite some times about which team should take a final decision in this matter and I believe it would be better for the future to have a proper delegation like we have for other kind of disagreements. That's what I meant.
As for being credible, I think they deal with delicate problems, like drawing a line on what kind of behavior is not acceptable at an event, and that make them best prepared for the job. This is still a challenge though because there is no single person to talk to and judging authors' and contributors' intentions/possible message (as it is not "flagrant") as one is IMHO a pitfall (removing insults came from this same community). I won't bore you with more details. The fact that I disagree on this specific matter does _not_ mean I disregard them.
I think I will refrain to talk publicly on this subject for some time or until some real necessity, this is really getting me down. If you still wish to discuss this _kindly_, then contact me privately.
\_o< -- Marc Dequènes
