I’m not someone with a stake in this discussion, except as a community member who cares about the quality of discourse here, and the mailing list etiquette guidelines say that moderate people need to speak up so that extreme opinions don’t seem the norm. So, that’s why I’m saying anything at all here.
I think the moderation was minimal and appropriate. Nobody was censored (despite claims elsewhere) - no accounts were locked or closed, so everyone could still participate in other discussions, and it was a very short lock. The few interventions I’ve seen from the moderation team have felt appropriate and like a light touch that try to let the community hash it out first. That seems reasonable to me.
This thread feels like it’s trying to revise what happened in the budget thread by making it not seem like an unfounded and unsubstantiated attack on the operations team who has demonstrated that they’ve been operating in the best interests of the community - when keeping that in mind, the very light moderation feels especially reasonable. Both threads could have been handled better by asking questions to understand rather than lashing out and starting fights. It’s unfortunate that in that revision of events, NorthCrab is again attacking another set of community volunteers who are also working well and where there’s no evidence of them acting in bad faith. I won’t think much of NorthCrab’s opinion in the future and think the community should do the same.