Do not close threads without possibility of appeal

Please do not just decide to close threads without possibility of reopening by original poster or some other appeal mechanism. This is a community and a moderator closing a thread when there are things to still discuss, especially if no guidelines are broken, is not open and welcoming but damaging and discouraging. This is especially true when the moderator has not even addressed the matter discussed but simply does so out of personal preference.

A project and a community such as letsencrypt should have a transparent and easy way to make decisions regarding the community and continue the discussion even if moderator personal preference is not aligned. Closing threads out of the blue only appears as if the moderating team does not and does not want to listen to the community.



Could you please be specific on threads that in such condition?

Thank you

Sure, here's an example:

Hi @emilfihlman,

Thanks for your feedback. I’m sorry you felt shut down.

This is not a solution nor is it addressing the issue but just a way to escape accountability in a community driven project.

Please implement a way for the original poster to reopen threads by posting on them or reopen them by request. First request should highly likely be automatically granted and after that reviewed by an outside party. Closing threads is only harmful and results in more threads being made relating to the matter that could have been addressed in the thread.

This site is not a bug tracker where you have a personal score and your salary depends on how many threads a person has “solved” or “closed” and should absolutely not be treated as such. Such a way of handling a discussion is harmful and discouraging, raising the bar of engagement hugely and does not welcome new people.

Frankly, if the matter has not been explicitly addressed by official (or community) support the thread should not even be locked at all. If someone breaks guidelines, punishment should only be rendered on that user instead of the matter at hand. Threads are closed anyways after 30 days of inactivity so closing for any other reason but breaking of guidelines is a breach of community trust and abuse of power, really.

This is very apparent in the linked thread, were the thread was locked by a moderator who did not read what was said and did not address the proposed solution(s). Arguing besides the point is not a reason to close threads either.

Please review the decision to close the thread and consider implementing the proposed functionality.

1 Like

A post was split to a new topic: Slow response on support thread

OMG this is hilarious! I guess now I'll have to open yet another thread/topic: "Do not split topics and create new topics with misleading titles without the individuals consent"

I can only guess that you didn't like what I wrote, and then made a choice to split the topic and apply a topic name that in no way represents the purpose of my post. Stunning.

"Slow response on support thread"?

No, my post was about two things, and neither of them was that.

  1. I posted to support addressing the two ignored requests in the original topic about IRC that can be found here.

  2. I posted to support this topic about locking threads without appeal, on an arbitrary basis.

And for that, you choose to split the thread and apply a complete misrepresentation of my post as the topic name.

Just in case the "staffers" at EFF forgot, there is a great page to read here:

These tactics seem to be running afoul of:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. We work to ensure that rights and freedoms are enhanced and protected as our use of technology grows.

1 Like

Hi @Humancell,

Thanks for the feedback! I felt the main thrust of your thread was making another point: that the forum is inferior to IRC because response is slow. Often when that happens on a thread that promises to be contentious, I’ll split things so people can discuss individual points without devolving into an off-topic flame war. I’ll move your post back for you.

As always, our goal is to keep the discussion in this forum constructive and suited for purpose. This is a help forum.

1 Like

Although working in the computer industry for more than 30+ years, I am new to the Let's Encrypt community. I have to admit that I'm shocked on a number of fronts, and completely confused by the behavior that is being demonstrated here.

When I ran into problems last night, the first thing that I did was look for an IRC channel for some immediate assistance. Being a more experienced developer and user, it's the normal place to look for "real-time" assistance from like minded people. I did NOT go there intending to find Let's Encrypt support personnel. I was completely floored when I could find a working channel.

Today, in order to try and contribute to the conversation and technology I came here. I was immediately presented with a thread that I felt was well written, and offered some simple, useful suggestions:

Please review the decision to close the channel and open #letsencrypt again for discussion or change the bot to point at ##letsencrypt. The first one is is preferable.

This seemed well reasoned, and pretty common sense. No harm, no foul. I was about to post a comment on that thread when it was locked out from under me. WTF?

Ok, fine ... I read the arguments about this being the "official" place where these conversations are to take place. So I opened my issue/topic and wrote a post here - as was said to do - and 8 hours later not a single response. WTF?

You see ... although some people believe that forums such as these are the greatest thing in the world, IRC is the place where real time conversations can take place. Sure ... force everyone here, and keep good strong control on everything. But it sure seems to me that the responsiveness is not like IRC.

I'm not arguing that you endorse or support IRC ... but I do think the suggestions presented above, related to the IRC channel, were good ones if you want to build an even bigger community of varied talents and commitments.

Can't wait to see when I'll eventually get some feedback and response on my topic ... I had truly wished that I could better understand the failure that occurred, and maybe offer some actual real-world feedback that might assist in improving the project.

1 Like

I feel this thread extremely well demonstrates the core issue at hand, which is that instead of listening to the community, the moderating organisation forces their own personal opinions and identity over others without any feedback or consent.

This is extremely alarming and damaging to the reputation of letsencrypt as a community project and should never happen. It leaves users dejected, unwelcome and actively hurts the inclusivity of the project.

@jsha has repeatedly demonstrated lack of empathy and understanding as a project representative, which is extremely unfortunate. The lack of response from the rest of the moderating team against the abuse shown does not paint a good picture on the project.

Please review the status of @jsha as a moderator and address the points raised in this and the mentioned unnecessarily closed thread. Technical leadership is a separate skill from community management.


Thank you for mostly correcting the situation by restoring my post to the intended and appropriate topic.

To completely correct the situation, I request that you delete the slanderous topic that you created and named here:

You have blocked my ability to delete the topic, and it continues to exist containing my post, but in no way having a topic title that I wrote, approved, or agree with.

By allowing this topic - which I consider slanderous and misrepresenting my post - to remain it is only increasing the damages to my reputation to increase with each view.

Thank you again!

1 Like

I’ve deleted the other topic as you requested, @humancell. Sorry for the trouble; I thought the forum software took care of that when I moved the post back. I’ll see if I can reproduce and report upstream.

1 Like

I believe your own posts are far more effective in that regard than anything the mods or staff might do.

With respect to the IRC channel that was the initial subject of the thread that got closed: it's been many years since I touched IRC, so I couldn't possibly care less whether the channel is open, closed, or overrun by badgers. But since LE's announcement of closing the channel, every thread on the subject, without exception, has been obnoxious in the extreme. FWIW (which isn't much, of course), I fully support @staff's position of terminating such threads with extreme prejudice. Keep up the good work.


I love you too @danb35 !

Your profundity thrills me!

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.