[jrockway]

I'm going to be contrarian here and say, maybe it's the right choice. Bringing up already-litigated drama in an unrelated thread is not particularly constructive. If Guido thinks this person's opinions are relevant, he can send them and email and ask for them, right?

To some extent, the moderators are obligated to treat everyone equally. If they wouldn't let you or me relitagate past drama here, why should they let anyone? The core team should be setting the example for how other people should behave. If the core team doesn't agree with the values that they claim to agree to, and show this disdain by not enforcing their own rules, then why would they bother creating that governance structure in the first place? They are just being consistent with the processes that they agreed to and subjected themselves to. That's governance. Personally, I think it would be more alarming to the community if certain people didn't have to follow the rules.

As far as I can tell, there is no mention of not discussing the original decision in general. If there was, nobody seems to be following the rules as there are 8 billion Reddit threads on the topic. I knew nothing about this and had Names Named in about 3 seconds of searching. As a result, I don't think there is some sort of conspiracy taking place. Enough ink has been spilled on this issue; does it really need to be brought up again in a thread about voting systems?