No, you misunderstand me. I agree that sometimes a semi-impartial 3rd party can help. Especially in the case of major, project destroying conflicts between core developers, like what happened with Catalyst a little while ago. In that case a third party was brought in and helped to resolve things and the project survived. But honestly it is pretty rare for a conflict to get as out of hand as that one did and even still I really think that a 3rd party moderator is an absolute last resort. But seriously, moderators are not needed for heated arguments on mailing list, those happen 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year, they are just part of how things are here on the internet.
What I am objecting too is your idea that this is the business of "respected Perl leaders" or the TPF at all. Just because my project is built with Perl doesn't mean that either of those two parties has the right to come in and throw their weight around. Honestly if you ever did use this to "put pressure on the project leader" it would likely blow up in your face, I know personally I would be pretty upset of that was done to me on my project.
I cannot stress enough the idea that open source work is volunteer labor, so authors and contributors are beholden to nothing. Sure a good author will treat his users well and be open to suggestions and such, but there is no law or contract that says they have to do that. If you don't like this fact, then you should not use open source software.
In reply to Re^5: Moderation of Open Source projects
by stvn
in thread Moderation of Open Source projects
by zby
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |