On Thu, Sep 15, 2016, at 04:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:19:01 +0200
Brian Exelbierd <bex(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> This theme came up a couple of times. It sounds like we need to deal
> with both mechanical issues (join spam) and CoC style issues (racist
> trolls).
Well, and all the other things... people getting upset, people being
treated poorly by others, bad advice, disruptive people, etc.
I was using an, albeit extreme, example of a CoC violation. My point
was to cover these situations.
> Instead of thinking of IRC as a separate entity, I think we
should
> give consideration to reforming the group with a more all-encompassing
> charter. All of our communications methods should be subject to the
> same guidelines and the same responses.
I think thats not a bad idea (in fact I wanted to do this a long time
ago), but there's some hurdles to that. At least:
We can get lists of: list moderators, ask moderators, irc operators,
but thats not conclusive. Some of those people may not be active, some
very helpfull and active people may not be on those lists, some of them
may not want to be.
Another theme I am seeing over and over again is the idea of our
inability to determine who is active and who is not. Frankly, this is a
problem that needs to be fixed but one that shouldn't stand in the way
of our moving forward with other solutions.
> An issue on ask.fpo, a mailing list, telegram and irc
shouldn't get
> four different responses.
Sure, but there's different setups in all of them. Say someone wanted
to spew some spam. On ask if it's their first post it would be
moderated, the moderators would delete it. No one but them would see
it. On a mailing list they would subscribe and post and list moderators
would be able to stop them posting again, but everyone would see the
post and they would have to talk to the list about it, ask people not
to respond, etc. On irc they would be able to keep spewing until
someone noticed and quieted them.
The fact that one is a real-time communication method and one is
asynchronous shouldn't stop us from having a similar response. It just
needs to be a different response timing and possibly format.
> 1. Could this group work with or combine with the Diversity or
CommOps
> groups to create a group of people who can step in when something
> happens and our CoC guidelines are called into question? This would
> also spread the workload and reduce burnout.
Sure, but again the overlap here isn't as high as you might think.
People I see on IRC are seldom also active on ask or lists. An ask
moderator wouldn't have any idea the irc commands or know when to step
in, etc.
One thing the involvement of these groups brings is new people and new
energy. Even if these groups only started to be involved as part of a
weekly issues review we may be able to learn more from the "after action
reports."
I also still feel very strongly that we need after action reporting, as
has been suggested by jflory, amongst others. I believe we should be
able to figure out what actions have been taken and by whom.
> 2. On services, like IRC, where we know the FAS ID of every
person,
> let's make it policy that we reach out via at least two communications
> methods. On other services, we do our best effort toward that goal.
We don't know the fas id of everyone. We know it in some cases (where
people put their irc nick in their fas account data and it's correct).
I stand corrected. I was thinking about the nickbot registration and
equating it to FAS. You are correct.
> 3. Can we become more transparent about bans and the equivalent
on
> other communications methods? Knowing who has been banned, why and
> what actions were taken in advance is much better than having a
> slug-fest in tickets.
Perhaps. You mean when taking the action? or ?
I mean, I believe that if a ban, for example, is issues, the particulars
should be documented somewhere. This way if there is a subsequent
problem, it isn't a surprise.
> 4. We should have a clear set of guidelines for mechanical
issues and
> a clear document to point people too. Ideally, for those
> communication methods that support it, we should do something like
> bounce people to a #fedora-unregistered equivalent so they get a
> clear prompt in method that something has happened. It can also
> reinforce the pointer to the documentation.
> 5. Help the people who do this work by developing a set of
stock
> phrases that can be crafted in advance during a calm moment. These
> phrases can hopefully have been tested in various parts of the
> project to try and reduce any misreading by individuals from
> different cultures. Obviously, we will never have a perfect set of
> phrases, but it can be a lot easier to respond to someone if you
> don't have to craft a careful response in the heat of the moment.
> This will also help make sure that our messaging stays the same.
Sure, we already have that on irc somewhat with bot messages "You have
been quieted in the channel because you were disrupting things, please
take a break and come back in a little while"
Somewhat doesn't seem to be cutting it here. We need to do more of this
until it becomes automatic.
Anyhow, I'm personally not against reorganizing our support
setup, but
I think we would need to get a bunch of the stakeholders together and
come up with some plan/organization to do that.
Who do you think needs to be in the meeting. Let's act.
regards,
bex