Tavern on the Meta

starball

00:07

at least for the parts on finalizing the decisions, it seems like when the changes were announced, the company had already decided that they would do those things(?)

Feeds

00:55

There's a maximum likelihood that I'm doing phylogenetics wrong.

Journeyman Geek

01:20

@starball data dump changes v1 caused that.

the current version was coloured by mod feedback but I'd say some of the things that they promised weren't followed through

starball

06:29

@JourneymanGeek what are you referring to by "data dump changes v1"? I'm referring to meta.stackexchange.com/q/401324/997587 and meta.stackexchange.com/q/403002/997587, which both happened in 2024. the strike closing post (meta.stackexchange.com/q/392032/997587) was in 2023.

Journeyman Geek

@starball there was a previous proposal which was a trigger for the strikes?

@VLAZ WRT the 900 on the MSO post? I'm not sure, coulda sworn I'd seen that, but I was also walking someone amazingly clueless through fixing their ngnix config :D

starball

@JourneymanGeek yean, that's not what I'm talking about. I know that that was before the strike. I'm talking about stuff after the strike concluded

Journeyman Geek

ah

Well the current version was previewed by mods and adjusted?

Can't go into details, naturally but there was some input over the current data dump system

VLAZ

@JourneymanGeek I even tried is:q to see if 900 was maybe the count of questions. But I got ~200 results from that. Which also means answers are going to be ~1200. I tried a straight search for the domain (without url:) but got ~500 results. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I think we can conclude that ghosts were the problem.

Journeyman Geek

so basically worse than I thought initially, and more complicated

starball

06:49

> The bare minimum for significant software changes is to gather community feedback before finalizing any decisions on making those changes,

also note the paragraph above that one which is specifically about getting mod feedback on changes to mod-enforced-policy. I.e. if there was provision for getting just mod feedback on "significant software changes", I'm pretty sure makyen would have made that clear

Journeyman Geek

08:09

→ 17 messages moved to Chimney

Journeyman Geek

12:16

→ 6 messages moved to Chimney

ꓢPArcheon

17:11

in Zoe's Meta Foxhole, Sep 5 at 16:45, by Zoe - Save the data dump

The shoe hasn't dropped yet

in Zoe's Meta Foxhole, Sep 9 at 20:15, by Zoe - Save the data dump

I just want to post repost my internal answer in public

in Zoe's Meta Foxhole, Sep 9 at 20:15, by Zoe - Save the data dump

That's the last time I'll need to engage with SE employees

100

A: Preventing unauthorized automated access to the network

Since SE decided to respond to everyone except me on the internal announcement, this answer is a direct and mostly unmodified copy of the questions I posted on the internal announcement [mod-only link] on 2024-08-22. A couple notes have been added after the fact to account for answers provided to...

@starball what do you think?

starball

@ꓢPArcheon sorry I'm a bit lost. what's the context for this? / how does it answer my earlier question- assuming it's related to that question

ꓢPArcheon

@starball didn't you just ask if the "Unauthorized access prevention" updates followed a structured, well defined process according to what was agreed upon following the strike or it was a mess?

If that was your question then I guess Zoe reaction to what she calls "the shoe" should answer.

starball

@ꓢPArcheon sorry, yes, (I think) I understand you now. Zoe's answer seems to imply that from the mod side, communication wasn't very clear or open, and they still went ahead without engaging

Slate