We resign, effective immediately, in protest of the Steering Committee’s ongoing pattern of attempting to interfere with moderation team operation, membership and specific moderation decisions.

This is not a statement we enjoy making, and we apologize to the community for leaving right before an election that is bound to be contentious, and likely now more so. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not provide a meaningful recourse to SC overreach, and we cannot in good faith continue operating under the current conditions, leaving us no other options.

The SC has involved itself in matters of moderation since its inception, but has repeatedly failed to understand the issues in the community and the requirements of moderation. We have experienced:

• SC members attempting to stall implementation of some moderation decisions and actively subverting others
• SC members asserting their authority to specifically target individual community members and topics of conversation, and pressure moderation to apply additional action under threat of further interference
• SC members demanding justification for moderation actions post-hoc, responding agressively when explanations have been misunderstood, and going silent with no acknowledgement of further clarifications
• SC attempting to unilaterally remove moderation team members with no justification
• SC attempting to unilaterally appoint new members to the moderation team
  • intially phrased as a suggestion, with a stated goal of adding “diversity of opinion” and “tension” to the moderation team
  • apparently trying to address perceptions of political bias by making political appointments
  • despite this suggestion being immediately rejected as destructive and misguided by the moderation team
  • despite the specific candidate being rejected as unsuitable by the moderation team, and agreement from SC that at least some of the reasons discussed were disqualifying
  • eventually phrased as a mandatory directive, after no further mention of the candidate in the intervening months, and after said candidate explicitly petitioning SC to install them as a moderator

The SC has also shown, in private and public conversations, their lack of understanding of basic principles of community management and open communication. They have mistaken quiet and a lack of controversy for success and peace. They have consistently become upset when there is criticism, and gone quiet on crucial issues in between. We have some fundamental conflicts in this community, which absolutely require discussion. Meanwhile, discussion with the SC has only become less effective.

We think that the goal of moderation should not be to avoid difficult conversations - it’s to navigate those difficult conversations in ways that remain safe and constructive. We believe we’ve made considerable progress as a community on making those conversations happen, and we believe they need to happen more for the project to grow, not be suppressed. We thank everyone for the growth that we have seen, and for their efforts to avoid personal focus in discussion, especially recently.

We call on the SC: to join us in resigning, effective immediately, with no second terms, and allow new members to take their place based on the community vote.

We call on the community: to demand transparency and accountability from the elected SC members, and checks and balances on their reach.

We call on the SC candidates: to commit to implementing a Constitution reform that will require transparency and accountability from the SC, with teams like technical steering and moderation providing a counterbalance.

We’re not leaving the community - yet, anyway. We will be around. Measures are in place to ensure essential capabilities are maintained. We hope to see this community grow and prosper, and we believe that it is only possible through transparency, accountability and trust.

• 0x4A6F
• arianvp
• K900
• nim65s
• uep